Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2013

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

June 30

edit
June 30, 2013 (2013-06-30) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

US Spying Allegations

edit
Article: PRISM (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leaked reports allege that the NSA has been spying on the offices and embassies of many of the United States' allies (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, describes as "nothing unusual" reports that the USA spies on EU offices and embassies.
News source(s): SMH, Guardian
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The US is expected to provide an explanation for the allegation over the coming days; the EU parliament president has stated that EU and US relations would be severely impacted if the allegations were true, and various commentators have noted that the allegations could have a direct impact on a proposed Trans-Atlantic trade agreement worth potentially billions of dollars. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Suspect the proper target article, at this time, is PRISM. It may takes days or weeks for the relation article to distill the proper information, but it is more in line with the scope of reactions to PRISM. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it accordingly; I got a bit carried away and mentioned more details than I should in the EU-US relations article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter goes beyond PRISM. It includes offline, old-fashioned bugging as well. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognize it's quite possibly much larger than that, but it is a bit of a crystal ball right now. The relations could totally break down. Or in 24 hr the powers that be agree that it wasn't much and it was a blip in the overall PRISM story. For an ITN posting, the story stems from ongoing discovery of how deep PRISM runs. If, say, the EU formally disbands any US agreements, that itself would likely be a seperate ITN item that would feature the appropriate relationship/agreement article. But this facet, of the bugging, is news of itself and needs posting, and PRISM (or a larger article on the general discovery of how deep all this stuff has been) seems to be the right target presently. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I was going to add that EU-US relations or a dedicated article would be best - but for ITN it depends on where the content gets added. If the content is added to PRISM (or a new PRISM spying controversy article, or Edward Snowden, or Edward Snowden leaks) then that is appropriate for ITN. --RA (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very serious matter that has put the EU–US Free Trade Agreement into threat. Alternative blurb provided. --RA (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the threat to the trade agreement is the primary rationale, then the blurb should be worded to reflect that, and possibly we should wait until said agreement is affected. Countries have spied on other countries (friendly or otherwise) since the beginning of time, so I wonder if this is really that shocking an event as the media claims it is. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The threats of repercussions for the trade agreement is an example of the seriousness. But the matter goes beyond that. The depth and degree of spying (e.g. listening devices in embassies and UN offices) is shocking. While some degree of spying between the two blocks is to be expected, relations (up until now) were assumed to be friendly. Looks like it wasn't seen that way by both parties. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to that, it's alleged that 500 million emails and phones calls to and from the EU have been intercepted and according to the most recent media reports, several other allied countries, including India and South Korea were also spied on; it's that type of scale that's concerning here. Anyways, the coverage of the allegations by the media and the potential implications of this on the US' international standing could justify a separate article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems to me that it's not really for us to decide how shocking or bad this is. The relevant thing is the reaction, and it certainly seems to have sparked a major diplomatic reaction in Europe, as well as getting extensive international media coverage. Perhaps the blurb should refer to the reactions of European leaders, as that is part of what makes it so notable. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction so far is noise. That's not notable. When it becomes action we can reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we already posted the original discovery, we cannot update ever time some twist of interpretation comes out in the news. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree completely with Medeis, and let's stop being surprised that spying occurs (and has for millennia), and that spied upon people express outrage each time it becomes public. Don't kid yourself that they didn't already know this was happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll formally oppose this; countries spy on each other all the time(even on friendly countries) and will continue to do so. If there is a specific effect (such as the aforementioned trade deal being scuttled in the future) then we can talk about that, but as Medeis said we can't post something new every time. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are several notable stories about spying, and we should of course post each notable distinct story, if it is notable and distinct enough (which this is). As for all contries spying, it is still notable when it gets found it. Thue (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Spying is not notable. Getting caught is. --RA (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is headline news in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yarnell Hill Fire

edit
Article: Yarnell Hill Fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nineteen firefighters are killed fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire, marking the largest single loss of life for firefighters in the United States since the September 11 attacks (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nineteen firefighters are killed, and 22 people injured, fighting a wildfire in Yarnell, United States.
News source(s): this, this, this, and this
Credits:

Article updated

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose especially mention of the single largest loss of life since 9/11 sa that is purely us-centric. On a general note, this has no in the news repercussions, and on the international media (bbc for the moment, ihow long will it last?)Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: proposed an alt-blurb too. Not sure if I've linked things correctly. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative blurb looks good, although "United States" generally suffices (although there are others, the USA is the primary topic). I think we also link countries from ITN blurbs, but I'm not completely sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (alt-blurb), thanks. CaptRik (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we do not link country names as per WP:overlink. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately left out mention of Arizona in the alt-blurb as I referenced the country itself. I'm not sure what our normal convention but I don't remember us mentioning counties/regions/states etc when the country is mentioned. CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the wild/brushfire aspect should be included. The way the original blurb reads, without being familiar with the actual fire, makes it sound like it was something happening in New England (where there are a lot of named "Hills" within urban centers, and the reference to 9/11). At least establishing that it is a wild/brushfire doesn't narrow the geography but gives better reason to why so many have died so far. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to do you feel about the alt-blurb now? I clarified that it's a wildfire, linking to the main article, and replaced the location with a link to Yarnell. CaptRik (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better; I'd expect the reader will have a good understanding of how difficult wildfires are to contain and ergo why the lost of life here is significant. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well I agree there was consensus but perhapos should have waited for a few more hours for the rest of the world to comment.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 13 hours isn't enough? --Tone 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This "rest of the world" nonsense only gets pulled out when a US story gets posted. For the record, the hours this was open were probably the least friendly to the Americas possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor.
Also bear in mind, I did say it was a legitimate post. HJust a general ITN standard it should wait. (and there have been ITN discussion on this)Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor. Huh? Case in point how? This is a U.S. story, and you argued that this story needed more time to allow the "rest of the world" to comment, even though the discussion took place overnight in the United States. On the other hand, it was during waking hours in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia throughout most of the time this was open and available for comment. So... what part of the "rest of the world" was not given ample time to comment? South America? Yes, this objection (often from you) that the "rest of the world" was given the chance to comment is limited almost exclusively to U.S. stories, and it's quite clear here no one else is miffed by this posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hissene Habre arrest

edit
Article: Hissene Habre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of Chad Hissene Habre is arrested in Senegal to face charges of political killngs and torture. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: "first time the former leader of an African state has been tried by another" at the behest of the AU. --Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support if properly updated. Part of a very long-running story. Wouldn't normally support arrest, rather than conviction, but national leaders being tried for crimes against humanity take a long time to reach the verdict stage. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 15 birds discovered in Brazil

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: List of birds of Brazil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A simultaneous discovery of fifteen bird species is announced in Brazil. (Post)
News source(s): Wildlife Extra, Pesquisa FAPESP (in Portuguese)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Rare and significant event, reportedly the first one since 1871. The scientific description is expected in July, but their taxa and some other data are already known. --Brandmeistertalk 17:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on the basis that the update isn't sufficient. It doesn't tell me anything useful about the species other than their genus (and none of those articles has any mention of this news) and a note on their range (that doesn't tell me which range relates to which genus, let alone species). Following the hook, I want to know a bit about each of the species and a bit about the discovery but I'm just lead to dead ends. If this information isn't available yet, then it's probably best to wait until it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale - discovery was announced June 5. [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, can be suspended until scientific descriptions are published. Brandmeistertalk
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European Union

edit
 
Article: Accession of Croatia to the European Union (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European Union. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The acceding date is midnight July 1, local time, which is 2200hrs UTC June 30.

Other articles to update that mention Croatia July accession in the future tense: Croatia, History of Croatia, European Union, History of the European Union, Treaty of Accession 2011, Enlargement of the European Union, Future enlargement of the European Union, Member state of the European Union, Countries bordering the European Union, Currencies of the European Union, Template:Member states of the European Union, Central European Free Trade Agreement, Balkans, History of the Balkans, Template:Foreign relations of Croatia and all the articles that the template links to, European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012, Croatia and the euro, List of observers to the European Parliament for Croatia, 2012–2013, Croatian language, Schengen Area, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, European Economic Area, Croatian passport, History of Croatia since 1995, History of the European Union (since 2004), European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia), Croatian identity card, European Patent Convention, European Parliament election, 2014, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, European integration, 2013, European Fiscal Compact, Eastern Europe, European Union Association Agreement, Visa policy in the European Union, Single Euro Payments Area, Passport stamp, Template:Foreign relations of the European Union, as well as all other EU-related articles that mention "27 members", and there are probably still more articles including various maps of Europe.

ocomment there is only 1 sentence of an update "Entry into force and accession of Croatia to the EU is set to be 1 July 2013, as all 27 EU members and Croatia have ratified the treaty before this date"Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more sentences. Mallweft (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A country becoming a member of the EU is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many unions exist around the world and they always add nations Nottruelosa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only two comparable unions, the African Union and the Union of South American Nations. The African Union's last two accessions were in 2011 (South Sudan) and 1994 (South Africa). The Union of South American States has not expanded since its formation in 2004-2011 (depending on what you count as formation). In what way therefore are either of your points factually true? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A new EU member state is indeed significant news. Should be posted at midnight local time. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to oppose this, I agree with Nottruelosa, and saying her vote is weightless is a bit bullying, no? But the target article has been getting about 1,000 hits a day for some time now. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't there be a limit to how uninformed a vote can be before we may call it weightless? Thue (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bullying!? You're kidding, right? In what way does my comment constitute bullying? I wasn't commenting on the editor in question at all, you make it seem as if I'm being forceful or rude in getting my point across. Here's a more detailed explanation: When weighing up the argument Nottruelosa gave Vs. the counter-argument Thryduulf gave it was clear the oppose had no weight to it, ergo why I called it "weightless". --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not going to argue the point. You obviously know what I meant by bullying, and if you disagree you can suggest another term for it, but the criticism stands. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Leaving aside the bullying issues, I think somebody who does not know that EU is the closest political entity to a federation without actually being one that there is out there, and that the level of integration within EU is well above the levels of any other unions out there (i.e. how many unions have their own currencies?) does not merit having their opinions receiving significant weight on this issue. Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, Wikipedia is not a source. The number of hits is blindingly irrelevant to whether or not this is in the news. But as it happens, Nergaal is right, and you and nottruelosa are wrong - the EU is a sui generis international organisation. I'd gladly support the addition of a new state to the USA for ITN; an entire sovereign country joining the largest single market in the world gets my nod too.

June 29

edit
June 29, 2013 (2013-06-29) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sport

June 28

edit
June 28, 2013 (2013-06-28) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Law and crime

Sport

World's Fastest Bird Killed

edit
Consensus not to post. (We have the Cambodian tailorbird on MP at the moment, more than one bird-related story is excessive). --Tone 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 
Article: White-throated Needletail (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Unseen for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is killed by a Scottish fan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Gathered crowds watch, as, unseen in 22 years, the world's fastest bird is struck dead in Scotland.
News source(s): Fox
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This was an unexpected turn, we have a great article to showcase
  • Oppose it was one bird that died, and it is categorized as "least concerned" as far as endangerment goes. It was only unseen in the UK for 22 years, the blurb reads like this specific bird was actually the fastest. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (EC) This is not an endangered species, just rare in the UK. Further, suggest a reword of the blurb to change "fan" to "wind turbine"; I thought fan meant person. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altblurb--the purpose of a blurb is to attract readers, I am not set on mine. An alternative might be "The world's fastest bird, unseen for 22 years, is whacked before onlookers in Scotland." μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the species were critically endangered or previously thought extinct then there might be a story. As it stands this would struggle to make the front page of a regional specialist magazine, so it's really not suitable for the front page of a global general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except it obviously hasn't so struggled. In addition to the British, US, and Irish coverage, and the UPI it's made headlines in Latin Italy and Denmark. (I believe the language is Danish). Except for not knowing what to call the victim in other languages, I am sure Italy and Denmark are not the only Non-anglophone press covering this. How often exactly do the Scottish kill birds that so rarely visit them? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It has not made headlines, it has made the equivalent of inside pages on a quiet news day. Your question is a non sequitur because "the Scottish" didn't kill it - it flew into a wind turbine. How often do birds do that? I haven't a clue but I'm guessing quite often as it doesn't make the news. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying when Michael Jackson died it wasn't news because black men overdose all the time without it being news. As for not being a headline, how did I see it? Of course it made headlines, but not necessarily the top of the front page. Neither will Croatia's accession to the EU be top of the front page news throughout the anglosphere. We have the world's fastest bird, we have a once-in twenty years sighting, and we have a violent death in front of spectators. What's not to love? μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If people in the UK want to see this bird, they can go to its normal territory. It's only "once in twenty years" in the UK. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • altblurb added to clarify this was in Scotland, and not by a Scotsman. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. April Fools' Day was three months ago. In addition to the arguments above about this nomination's low level of newsworthiness, the proposed blurbs are so sensationalized that they would be shot down for use as a DYK hook. The really boils down to "common Asian bird, outside its normal range, flies into wind turbine and dies." --Allen3 talk 02:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What a ridiculous suggestion! Allen3 emphasises how meaningless the event is. I cannot help but feel that the nomination is simply a joke. 86.158.216.17 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's a tragic tale but a little parochial for ITN I'm afraid. It's not going to make any great shakes outside the locality, so not really an ITN/C. If it was the last one, then yep, but if (as noted above) there are many around, then no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is very notable and strange Nottruelosa (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it notable? Birds fly off course all the time and birds not infrequently collide with wind turbines. What about it makes it significant and newsworthy on a global scale? Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was vagrant for 22 years according to the nominator is he lying?Nottruelosa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've misunderstood a misleading statement. The bird has not been seen in the UK for 22 years, but that is because the UK is a very long way from its range - it is seen daily year round in the Himalayas and daily during the summer in north east China, Korea, south eastern Russia, northern Japan, southern Papua New Guinea and the eastern half of Australia (see File:HirundapusCaudacutusDistribution.png). The equivalent in human terms is a South Korean tourist dying in a road accident on her first visit to Britain in 22 years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the story is ironic, and as an anecdote it's darkly humorous. It's also quite fascinating, and a great opportunity to post some interesting articles. (I'd never heard of this swift. Where are our birders in support?) Comments about "meaningfulness" would carry a lot more weight if we didn't post so many sports results. Its stodginess is making me begin to think that ITN would be the one guest you would not want invited to a dinner party. With this nomination we have: World's fastest bird, Vagrant not seen in 22 years, Killed before a crowd gathered to see it, By a "green" device that might as well have been designed by Saruman for all its environmental friendliness. This seems like an ideal ITN nomination for me, unless one likes ITN reading like the weekly newsletter of the International Union of State Bureaucrats and Sports Pub Crawlers. This is science, this is unique, this is cool, it should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • So any creature that ventures outside of its territory and is observed being killed by a crowd of humans is fair game for posting? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not science any more than any other creature venturing outside its normal range is, your (or anyone's) opinion of wind turbines is completely irrelevant and "animal dies outside usual range" is hardly unique either. Irony does not equal newsworthy, nor does dark humour or repeating the same arguments that have failed to convince others the first time. Featuring an article you haven't heard of and/or find interesting is what DYK is for not ITN. Your opinion on other stories posted or not posted is also entirely irrelevant to whether this nomination is newsworthy or not, and as basically everyone except you agrees it isn't for the many reasons expressed. If there are any birders here (I haven't a clue) then the evidence is that they don't consider it worthy of global front-page news either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, it's your opinion Thryduulf, that my opinion is an opinion? Whose opinion is it your opinion that I should give when I express my opinion? Yours? And yes, 311dot, next time the biggest bird or the smallest bird or the heaviest flying bird or the bird with the widest wingspread is found in the next continent over after a 22 year hiatus and then killed in front of onlookers gathered to see it, I will indeed support the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This just isn't in the news. I really had to search for it, even on the BBC's 'Highlands and Islands' section. This is a ridiculously trivial story, and I can't imagine circumstances in which we'd post it. Anyone still unclear on the difference between a fan and a wind turbine is welcome to read the relevant articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm clear on the difference, but saying something was killed by "a Scottish fan" suggests to me that something was killed by a person, not a piece of technology. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] News Corp split

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 21st Century Fox (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Media giant News Corporation splits into two companies, creating 21st Century Fox. (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The splitting of the world's 2nd or 3rd largest media company (with a vast international footprint), valued at $75 billion, is a big deal. This is a rare chance to get some woefully underrepresented business news on to the front page without resorting to posting a scandal/criminal case. This was a huge business story when it was first announced; of course ITN prefers to wait until the deal is completed, which is now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second company will retain the News Corporation name; I'm open to suggestions on wording. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the split of News Corp that is the story, not the names of either of the two new companies, even though 21st Century Fox is validly big local news for the LA Times. Is that guy who squatted the domain smiling now, or is he just a myth?
How about: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is split into separate publishing and entertainment companies.
The article needs quite a bit of work. Formerip (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it's ITN-worthy or not (I find business stories very hard to judge so I generally don't), but if it is that's a better blurb than the initially proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vatican money laundering

edit
Article: Institute for the Works of Religion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three men connected to the Vatican Bank are arrested on suspicion of smuggling €20 million into Italy from Switzerland. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An unusual scandal that has been brewing for a while. At the top of the international headlines today on many sites, so now would seem to be a good time to post. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

edit
June 27, 2013 (2013-06-27) (Thursday)
Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science

Sports

[Closed] New pulsating star

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: J0806 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new pulsating star is found from the remains of a stellar collision in the binary system J0806. (Post)
News source(s): Science Daily Science World Report
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is a new rare star formed from a stellar collision. Even though there are tons of stars in space, I think a new star, when formed from a stellar collision, is notable enough for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] World's oldest genome sequence

edit
Article: Evolution of the horse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers announce the genome sequencing of a 560–780 thousand year old horse using material from a leg bone fragment buried in permafrost, far surpassing the previous record of 130 thousand years and shedding new light on horse evolution. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The genome of a horse from the Middle Pleistocene is the oldest DNA ever sequenced, and suggests that the Equus lineage began 2 million years earlier than previously thought
News source(s): Nature Science Recorder Wired Los Angeles Times Washington Post National Geographic Phys USA Today
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The world's oldest genome sequence is a horse over 700,000 years old. Feel free to modify the blurb or provide an altblurb if needed. Andise1 (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support but suggesting something like this as an altblurb The genome of a Horse from the Middle Pleistocene is the oldest DNA ever sequenced, and suggests that the Equus lineage began 2 million years earlier than previously thought. EdwardLane (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Science stories are always good. However, I don't see the update in the Horse article. But, if we go with the altblurb, the evolution article seems a better choice for the target one. --Tone 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good, I'll add that as altblurb EdwardLane (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, it is a very important story. I have updated our evolution of the horse article with the new findings; see the Genome sequencing section. I also rewrote the blurb above, probably making it too long. I hope I'm not acting out-of-process here -- I'm only moderately familiar with the way things are done on this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was going to nominate this yesterday (when in was announced), but didn't know off hand which article to target and didn't feel like figuring it out - the evolution of the horse article is a great target. The main story here, however, is the record breaking DNA age (understanding of lineages is in constant flux). I suggest tightening the blurb event more:
ALT2: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse bone is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest DNA ever sequenced by a substantial margin.
Also, I would like to see a bit more on the sequencing (its one short paragraph at current) before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: WikiProject Equine member here, a couple small thoughts. You may want to use the word "equine evolution" as opposed to "horse evolution" in the blurb; while the animal sequenced was a horse, (so that's fine there) the evolutionary discoveries are relevant to the entire equus genus, (donkeys, zebras, horses...) not just the horse. The edit to evolution of the horse article is fine from this side; we have a link to the evolution article within the larger horse article, so probably will have few changes there for the immediate future. Montanabw(talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that "equine" will be a hard word for lots of main page readers. Regarding the length of the edit, I'm reluctant to add more right now because generally in science articles we try to avoid "recentism" -- it's already a bit contrary to policy to add this material before it has had a chance to be grokked by the field. This is an area where one has to find a compromise between the requirements of stable scientific articles and the requirements of current news. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has enough sentences for an update, but only two references. It shouldn't be hard to reference the other sentences. As for "equine", we should not dumb ourselves down. The word is certainly familiar to minimally educated native speakers and we can simply pipe to the appropriate article if it matters. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added a third ref - think it might be 'ready' except for agreeing a blurb, I'd be happy for the posting admin to sort that out from the various bits proposed EdwardLane (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first blurb is way too long. Otherwise they're all equally clunky. ThaddeusB's attempt is pretty good, but maybe;
ALT3: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest genome ever sequenced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can support that, though obviously I favour my 'clunky' blurb slightly, but not because of the wording (for which I think Abductive has done a decent job), rather that I think that all the articles :genome, Horse, Middle Pleistocene, DNA, Whole genome sequencing, Equus_(genus) and obviously Evolution of the horse are quite decent interesting articles compared to some of the 'just slightly better than stub' things that can sometimes get posted, and so they might 'deserve' the chance of front page billing. If the particular variety of prehistoric horse that was sampled has an article(presumably it does?) I'd have liked to have linked to that too. I just added a link to permafrost in the other blurb above in case the posting admin does choose to go with that (however unlikely). Anyway that was the thought, I was trying to squeeze the nice links in. EdwardLane (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mongolian presidential election, 2013

edit
 
Article: Mongolian presidential election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj {pictured) is reelected as President of Mongolia. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press via Idaho Statesmen
Credits:

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.

 --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

edit
June 26, 2013 (2013-06-26) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Death of Marc Rich

edit
Article: Marc Rich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/business/marc-rich-pardoned-financier-dies-at-78.html
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: one of the most successful commodities traders in history, inventor of the spot market for crude oil, was a most-wanted fugitive sought by the US government for nearly two decades, recipient of one of the most controversial US presidential pardons --Dezastru (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich qualifies under criteria 1 ("The deceased ... had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region") and 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"). (1) His activities in the oil industry had a huge impact on economies of both Israel and Switzerland. (2) He was widely regarded as one of the most influential commodities traders in history; he was dubbed "the King of Oil" and "the King of Commodities," and he has been credited as an inventor (some say the inventor) of the modern oil trade.
"It's been a long time since we've heard from Rich but his influence hasn't faded." Marketplace
"Billionaire Marc Rich, who invented modern oil trading" Reuters
"Rich and Green were the first traders to use short-term purchases, now known as the spot market, to make big money, quickly. Buying large volumes when the price was low, they were able to control the market when prices rose." Washington Post
"'He actually bought and sold the earth's crust. Everything in your iPhone, your computer and your light bulb, Rich was involved in buying, selling and delivering,' said Copetas [the author of "Metal Men: How Marc Rich Defrauded the Country, Evaded the Law, and Became the World's Most Sought after Corporate Criminal"]. 'He invented the spot oil market and he's the only individual in history to have successfully manipulated OPEC, the oil companies and ultimately the price of oil in the United States and the United States government.' ...
'And if the federal prosecutors had caught him at the time, they were ready to slap him with charges of treason that would make the kerfuffle over Edward Snowden look like a spat between two gerbils,' said Copetas.
Many of today’s biggest oil and metals traders trace their roots back to Rich, who expanded the spot market for oil in the 1970s, wresting business away from the world’s biggest oil companies." Financial Times
"Rich and Green were the first to pioneer the spot market (goods for immediate delivery) for crude oil, and they exploited it to realize quick profits. Due to his great success in the field, Rich was dubbed the "King of Commodities." Haaretz
"he deserves credit as one of the greatest creators and sharers of wealth in business history.
His most visible legacy is Glencore Xstrata, one of the world’s largest natural resources companies. Glencore was formerly Rich’s private holding company: Marc Rich + Co. Trading houses following in Rich’s footsteps are now a key part of Swiss growth and prosperity. A third of world trading in petroleum is handled by Swiss-based groups including Vitol, Gunvor and Mercuria.
Today’s world oil markets are partly the product of Rich’s vision." Financial Times
"'Marc Rich at one time in the mid 1970s was crucial to Israel's survival because after the Yom Kippur war they were cut off from the oil supply,' said Ammann. 'Israel really had to fight for their oil and they bought it from Marc Rich.'
The Israeli state never forgot this his help. With a lobbying campaign underway to scratch him off America's most wanted list, the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial pardon." The Guardian
Apart from those two specific criteria, Rich was notable as "the world's most wanted white-collar criminal" for nearly two decades. When US President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, Rich was on the Americans' "Ten Most Wanted List," alongside Osama Bin Laden.
"[H]e was called the world's most famous fugitive." NYT
"Following his indictment, he would become one of the world's most famous white-collar criminals." Forbes
  • Support this is a weird but good borderline case. He can be considered the richest fugitive ever to buy a pardon as a minimum qualifier. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - death update is insufficient (2 sentences). Kind of a weird situation where people aren't likely to come out with "I'm sad he died" reactions in droves, but I imagine there has to be at least some of reaction out there. If the update can be expanded with reaction or in any other way I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If his death is important, it will not be necessary to wait for "he was such a huge influence" quotes. There are always the "on news of his death, The True Fork Times called him the greatest of the..." quotes. This is a borderline nomination that needs a good update. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of what more would need to be added to the death update? He was 78, so his death from a stroke wasn't really a surprise. Dezastru (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have just posted a whole bunch of stuff above (you should sign it) which is presumably commentary from the last few days. Copy some of those into the death section saying. On his death, the Financial Times said "yatta yatta yatta" for a few papers and it will be quite good. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clinton's pardon of Rich was highly controversial at the time, which was the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Clinton later said he regretted the pardon for the damage it did to his legacy, seeing as Rich was a major contributor to the Clintons. Not our usual ITN RD but significant as a reminder of a highly awkward period. Agree article needs a better update, I may be able to look in on it. Jusdafax 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per explanation given. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Pardon or no pardon, he was a famous figure in a globally significant field. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Gliese 667 C planets

edit
Article: Gliese 667 C (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least six planets, including three planets suspected of being habitable, are found orbiting the star Gliese 667 C. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Fox News European Southern Observatory
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Multiple planets have been found orbiting around Gliese 667 C, a red dwarf star. Three of the planets found are habitable (according to the Fox News source). The CNN source and the European Southern Observatory source say the planets may be habitable. If anyone has a different idea for a blurb, feel free to make an altblurb. Andise1 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree in asking "more 'what'?". If you specify, it should be available. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What make this discover any different than all the previous times they've said an exoplanet is in the habitable zone. The answer is, it seems, nothing. Abductive (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Habitability simply means a planet is the right temperature (32 to 212 degrees) that its oceans never over- freeze or boil. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Exoplanet discoveries are fast and frequent these days. And these planets are suspected to be 'super-earths', so there's no reason to suspect they're habitable; they can easily have no atmosphere at all, or a toxic atmosphere, or punishingly high surface gravity. There's no guarantee that water is even present - only that if it is, it remains liquid. Nothing stands out here. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - habitable exoplanets are not uncommon these days, but three of them in the same system is really rare. Even our solar system has only two (Earth and Mars). Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - the press coverage was substantial and the update is very good. That is enough to get me to weak support after thinking it over. Additionally, it is the first "3 at once" discovery so that helps a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked Ready only one oppose, very well updated, a credit to the project; to us; ready, now.
  • Oppose, without some sort of water signature I can't support these exoplanet postings. Abductive (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If mankind should begin exploring other star systems someday, these nearby planets will be some of the first to be visited. Significant story of interest to all humanity. Great article and update, and putting our best foot forward on the Main page is always a plus. Let's post it. Jusdafax 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting per consensus, though I'm slightly weary of all these star articles blowing up ITN lately like Alex said above. Secret account 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden

edit
Consensus not to post at this point. --Tone 09:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Edward Snowden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian President Vladimir Putin says Edward Snowden, who leaked information about secret U.S. and British cyber-surveillance, remained in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport and would not be extradited to the United States. (Post)
News source(s): http://http://uk.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-snowden-russian-airport-signals-no-extradition-145947113.html#NrEVw54
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major international political story. --User:sca
  • comment. I think we do need something about this story, but I'm not convinced that "man stays in airport, nothing happens" is the aspect of it we want to feature. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would be a more suitable candidate if/when he finally is extradited. This news is a bit too incremental for my tastes, although I admit that there seems to be a huge level of interest in the whole saga. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Thryduulf. "Man does nothing" is not a good update. This could be revisited when he is granted asylum or extradited to the US. Resolute 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We posted the leaks. The information leaked was the story. Snowden is of no interest himself otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be clear that Snowden is not in Russia, no one has seen him in the transit area. The most logical explanation is that he went back to China (Hong Kong or perhaps Shanghai) on Monday when all those journalist were on that flight to Havana. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only next ITN item I can see about Snowden is either his capture by the US or allies, or affirmation by a country that he's gotten asylum in that he is there. Anything else is highly speculative. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't need to post every step in this process. If he is captured or gains asylum, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sergiy Stakhovsky

edit
Consensus not to post. --Tone 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sergiy Stakhovsky (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sergiy Stakhovksy wins over Federer at Wimbledon. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Nottruelosa (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Cambodian Tailorbird

edit
Article: Cambodian Tailorbird (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cambodian Tailorbird, found in Phnom Penh, is identified as a new bird species. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A new bird species. Kind of rare story, especially if the bird is found in a densely populated area. The article needs some work, though. --Tone 13:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :) Well, there's Bird species new to science described in the 2010s that says that there are around five new species discovered per year, some of those extinct. However, this one had a particular interesting backstory, I thought it could be a nice science story on ITN again. Also, TFP regularly features birds :P --Tone 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That table doesn't look very reliable - the numbers are completely unsourced. Even if it is accurate, it says 22 new species of bird have been discovered so far this year. 22! Formerip (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like that we have a proper good news story and one that should interest folks around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A discovered of a new living bird species is rare. (The above discussion largely missing that most newly named bird species are extinct.) The discovery of a new animal species of any kind within a major city is very rare. Combining the two, this is an extremely rare situation well worth ITN coverage (when the article is built up beyond a micro stub). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake. I wouldn't tell you it's not rare if it was rare. Here's a few more examples of it happening in June 2013, which I just Googled in about 20 seconds: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare is a relative term. Looking at the last 15 years, the average seems to be in the 4-6 range, which is rare in my book. In any case, how many species can you find that were discovered living in a city of 2 million people form the last 15 years? That is the basis I am supporting on - "just" being a new species alone wouldn't do it for me. Finding a new bird in the Amazon jungle and finding a new bird in a densely populated area are quite different situations (IMO). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, link [2] is a fossil species and link [4] doesn't refer to a new species at all, but rather someone seeing a bird they personally had never seen before. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, like I said, about 20 seconds. It still means that this is, at the very least, the SEVENTEENTH new species of living bird to be announced so far this month. But where TF are you getting a 4-6 range from? It seems to be at least one every few weeks. And there also doesn't seem to be anything particularly rare about finding a new species in the city: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Formerip (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article on the 15 new Amazon birds makes clear, that itself was quite an exceptional event ("It’s been 140 years since as many new Brazilian bird species were described at one time."). The 35,000+ entry (include subspecies) IOC World Bird list shows 3 extant new (full) species for 2012, 4 for 2011, 4 for 2010, 9 for 2009, 7 for 2008, 7 for 2007, 6 for 2006, 5 for 2005, etc. Looks like 1998 was the most recent year with more than 10 (11). I went back to 1980 eyeballing it and didn't see a single year where there were 15+ new species (a couple years had more than 15 new subspecies though).
As to the city examples, you list a bee (hardly the same thing as a new vertebrate), a NYC frog (which was posted on ITN I believe), a dolphin (obviously not found living within the city), a shark (ditto), and an ant (like the bee, not as surprising as a vertebrate). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mercifully, no we didn't post the New York frog because, all said and done, it was just someone discovering yet another frog. The dolphin was indeed found living in the city, and the shark was found dead in the city. Formerip (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it wasn't posted (a different frog was around the same time, which is what I was probably thinking off. The NYC frog had approximately the same support and opposition, which the opposition being partially based off the lack of name/article for the species... OK the dolphin was technically living in the city (its bay), but it wasn't living undetected amongst a dense population of humans which is obviously what I meant. A shark being caught it the ocean and found in a fish market is hardly a similar situation at all. Insects are poorly described in general (as few as 10% of species have been described), so finding new insects in a city is not nearly as surprising.
Let's say the frog and the dolphin count. That means 3 vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. That is certainly a rate (1/year) that I would call very rare. I think we can afford 1 such story on ITN per year - we have about 1 per week on a natural disaster, for example. Furthermore, the frog and dolphin were only distinguishable via DNA testing which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that three vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. It just means I was able to find three on Google in 20 seconds flat. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between any random species (of which there truly all many) and a high order vertebrate (of which there are few discoveries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New species of birds are not found all the time, and not in major cities. Of new animals, about 20,000 a year are described, almost all insects, and one or two are birds. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kevin Rudd

edit
 
Articles: Kevin Rudd (talk · history · tag) and Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former prime minister Kevin Rudd (pictured) wins leadership of the Australian Labor Party against incumbent Julia Gillard, becoming Prime Minister of Australia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Julia Gillard resigns as Prime Minister of Australia after losing leadership of the Australian Labor Party.
News source(s): New Zealand Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, ITV, ABC
Credits:

Both articles updated

 -- Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what I'm supposed to put in the updater field. I'm sure someone here knows, so feel free to fix that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Thanks for that. I'll just remove "the," in that case. To the larger issue, I suppose we can place it on hold for 12-24 hours, then? International news sources seem to be reporting Rudd's return as a given, but you're right to point out that it's a bit more complicated than that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a clear-ish picture of the forthcoming chain of events is emerging. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting now, minus the bit about him becoming PM (until he is sworn in). A sitting PM getting axed by her own party is newsworthy enough to post right now. The blurb can be updated if (and, I assume, when), Rudd is sworn in. We should definitely not do nothing until Rudd is sworn in. It would be silly to wait with the ticker blank given that the wait could be almost 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A rare event; the rough equivalent of a US President losing their re-election bid in the primaries. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Way too premature at this stage. He has simply won a leadership challenge within the party. He still must go through a confidence motion and win support of independents, as the party does not carry a majority in parliament. There's a chance, remote as it may be, that he may not become PM. --Dorsal Axe 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Just curious, since this is my first time ITN'ing anything, but what happens if I change the blurb to cut out the PM bit?
  • Wait until there is an official change in PM (which is, technically, a matter for the [[Queen/Gov. Gen.). --LukeSurl t c 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The BBC News article says "Ms Gillard must write to Governor General Quentin Bryce stating that she is resigning as prime minister before Mr Rudd can be sworn in." and implies that she has not dome so yet [12]. If so then she is technically still PM and it's just a change of party leadership, which is not ITN-worthy. A change of Prime Minister on the other hand certainly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gillard has resigned. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will support a blurb announcing Julia Gillard's resignation as PM following the leadership challenge. However it is still not 100% clear who will succeed her. --Dorsal Axe 12:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a blurb on Gillard's resignation to the "altblurb" field. Sorry if that's out-of-process or something. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --Dorsal Axe 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, once we have confirmation that he's been commissioned by the GG. From what was said at Gillard and Rudd's press conferences tonight it can certainly be inferred that Rudd has been given the official big tick, and the press is reporting it this way, but it won't hurt to be sure. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support on significance for posting the resignation now, with an update when a successor is named. There's no reason I can think of why we can't do it that way. The resignation has been confirmed reliably, though information is a bit light in the Julia Gillard article. Is there a better bolded article or can we get that one a bit more expanded? If we do that, we can go with the alt-blurb now and expand as needed later. --Jayron32 13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I think I remarked something similar before when it came to something in Israel a long time ago. Julia Gillard losing the leadership vote is not significant enough for ITN nor her resigning as PM as a consequence. A new Australian PM would be, but that hasn't happened yet and it is unclear precisely who it will be or whether it's even going to really happen now as it's also possible that an early election will be called (for example, if sufficient independents demand it both leaders and the GG will have no choice, or even if they support Abbot he may just ask the GG to dissolve parliament) and I don't think the calling of an election even in these circumstances (not that far from the elections being expected and one of the reasons formthe challenge is to improve their chances or at least try to mitigate their losses in the election) is significant enough for ITN. This isn't 1975, yet whatever some random articles may say but a resonable reality of a minority government. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to posting Gillard's resignation now and then updating the blurb when a new PM is appointed. --LukeSurl t c 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb. Resignation as PM and losing party support while in office is significant in governance of a country. Rwos (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once Rudd becomes PM. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as soon as he's confirmed as PM. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb. This could be Australia's only shot at a posting all summer and a prime minister resigning is enough. We don't need to wait to see what happens next and, as has been pointed out already, what happens next may turn out not to be ITN-worthy. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment It is not summer in many parts of the world, including the southern hemisphere. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, can someone confirm that source? The video's giving me issues. It says "is" but may mean "about to be". μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian's liveblog, the swearing-in has not taken place yet. I'll keep an eye on it and update here when that changes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] SCOTUS Decision on Defense of Marriage Act

edit
Articles: Defense of Marriage Act (talk · history · tag) and United States v. Windsor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Unites States Supreme Court decides that portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, limiting federal benefits to opposite-sex marriages, are unconstitutional in the case United States v. Windsor. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Nearly any way this is ruled will be important in the US, even if there are a number of subtleties or even a partial decision. It is possible that the decision is determined to do effectively nothing, but this seems very very unlikely. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For better or worse (and, quite possibly, for for richer or poorer), we've developed a pattern of rejecting stories about gay marriage that do not represent a first in international terms, which we should hold to. If there's a significant way in which this turns out to be a world first, then I'll reconsider my vote. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The significance of this really depends on how widely the court rules. However unless it makes very large changes to the federal situation (i.e. more than simply the apportionment of federal benfits) I can't see this being significant enough for posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per FormerIP's comments, and given that repeal of the law would actually have very limited effects. It would not actually establish or institute gay marriage where it does not exist. The Voting Rights Act decision will have much greater real world impact. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If SCOTUS came down with a decision that gay marriage is a constitutional right, then maybe that would be worthy of posting, but that is unlikely. The limited scope of any likely decision(there should also be one on Prop 8) means that it probably isn't ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support if merged with Hollingsworth and Shelby rulings. Sceptre (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DOMA declared unconstitutional under equal protection of the constitution. Tehre's another case still pending now... --MASEM (t) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BBC source: [15] -- 14:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The other case, whether the lower court's decision on California's Prop 8 (state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) which declared it unconstitutional, was held in no standing by SCOTUS (in light of the above) leaving the lower court ruling in place. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This ruling has created a precedent that will make it impossible to stop gay marriage from becoming legal everywhere in the US. While the game isn't over, it is now just a formality to go to checkmate in a few moves. Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major news, I'd be okay with merging a bit on the Prop 8 ruling into one ITN blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: BBC News and The Guardian describe it as "historic " on their respective front pages. Although it'd be nice to somehow include all SCOTUS rulings from this week in one blurb - if anyone can manage that. SPat talk 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to make it clear for non-USians that are considering this for ITN: the ruling basically strikes language from DOMA that would have denied federal benefits to legally-recognized same-sex couples as long as their marriage was done in a locale (including a foreign country) where such is legal. That itself is appearing less important than the fact that the DOMA parts were rejected on the basis of the US Constitutional clause of "equal protection" and thus limiting rights to just the opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. This decision does not explicit makes same-sex marriage legal across the US, but makes it federally recognized under Constitutional protection. As such, the next major action that most analysis are saying is that any state that block same-sex marriages will see their laws challenged on the basis of this SCOTUS ruling that is based on the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Nothing has made these state-level laws unconstitutional directly, but these legal challenges will likely set out to show that. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This does not establish any nationwide position on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What the US does on key issues is significant. Thue (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Losing financial benefits because of civil status is newsworthy how again? It's not like we're talking about SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage across the US. Documenting every single precedent along the way diminishes it IMO. Save the LGBT advocacy for when it actually happens. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per most of the reasons already outlined above. Much more significant events on this issue i.e, France, were voted down here. Hard to say why this deserves special treatment.--85.210.109.22 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A moot move by SCOTUS, which is only about some particular aspects. It's not the same as federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States. Brandmeistertalk 18:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A "historic ruling" in the headlines around the world. Opposers reasoning lacks weight and fails to convince me. An ITN-worthy blurb with mention of DOMA and Prop 8 should be posted asap as vital... and putting up a new species of bird in Cambodia instead makes a mockery of the very function ITN has on the Main page. Jusdafax 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what did the bird ever do to you? -- Ashish-g55 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Cambodia for that matter.--85.211.126.62 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Initially i was unsure about this but this is getting more attention than i would have expected. The ruling may not be legalizing same sex marriages country wide but it might as well could have... ill support it. -- Ashish-g55 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Doesn't make it legal everywhere, but it really paves the way for federal recognition. A major international news item per Spat. A larger federal ruling than anything before. 72.130.52.73 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly how to measure these things, but I'd suggest it is not as large as the federal ruling legalising gay marriage in Brazil two months ago, which we declined to post for lack of worldwide impact. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd argue for inclusion of both Brazil and US rulings, the US ruling affects twice as many people, more if you consider the "ripple effects"-- the US accepts 1 million immigrants a year-- and bi-national same-sex spouses of US citizens just experienced a major change to their immigration status. That's a worldwide impact.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just thought I'd point out that 'international significance' does not seem to be a disqualifier for many other articles posted on ITN. Just to name a few current ones: Silvio Berlusconi scandal, floods in Canada, there's even one about North American hockey. So to suggest that this news should be disqualified for lack of international significance seems wrong to me, especially since it probably has much more significance than hockey. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is nowhere nearly as significant as it would have been if the SCOTUS had ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In fact, they refused to tackle the question; this ruling basically overturns a ban and a 1996 bill, but makes no real headway in terms of marriage equality. Surely France's ruling two months ago would have been a better choice. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Federal benefits to SSM couples is huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although this decision isn't an international agreement/whatever, it will have a lasting effect in the United States, and this could easily be a step towards international action. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? This procedural ruling from SCOTUS could have international impact? What about the actual legalisation of same-sex marriage by several nations recently? I suggest you look again at WP:CRYSTAL. Claiming that SCOTUS has international influence where the actual elected government of France doesn't looks like a pretty insular view, smacking of American exceptionalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think many of us supporting this ITN item would have supported the French news items as well. But let's be fair-- the US has 5x the population of France, and let's be honest, the US is substantially more influential than most nations. Federal government recognition of SSM has immediate consequences for people globally-- via immigration decisions and diplomacy. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of all those people who 'would have' supported the French story to go and find other things to do when it was actually under discussion. France is more influential than most other nations, too. But crucially, the DOMA decision does not enable one single same-sex couple to get married - it's all about the inter-state effects of doing so. The separate striking down of the appeal on CA Prop 8 (for lack of standing) has a more direct effect on same-sex marriages, but that's not a whole nation. Seriously, this is looking like a particularly nasty instance of US-centrism here. I don't say that often, but for some reason, I seem to say it a lot about LGBT issues. The hopeless fragmentation of the US's civil rights law, and the limitless arcanity of its judicial procedures, are not the fault of the 95% or so of LGBT people who live in other nations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's certainly a complex issue, but the decision has gotten extremely broad attention both in and out of the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If a country legalising same-sex marriage is not significant enough to post (without more), which seems to be the current position here, I don't see how this ruling - which doesn't even go that far - can be important enough. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listened to a story on The World, (a show jointly produced by Public Radio International and the BBC) which specifically aimed to discuss the international impact of this decision, it miught be worth looking at what they had to say about it [16] Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per NelJack, FormerIP, and especially 331dot.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a world power who had an act on the books that has now been determined to be against their founding principles. This isn't about the gay marriage aspect of it, this is about the repealing of DOMA by the SCOTUS after 10+ years on the books as a landmark decision in countries that explicitly define marriage. Regardless, I see a lot of opposes such as "well we didn't post this so we can't post DOMA" which is just plain crap. This is in international news, and it is "in the news". None of the opposes have denied that this is in the news, just that it's not big enough. Charmlet (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was discussing the ruling with friends (non-editors but frequent readers) who went specifically to the Main Page to find the link to the United States v. Windsor article, expecting to see a blurb on ITN and we were all shocked that there wasn't anything at all here considering the international attention this is getting. Instead, we are still featuring stale news about the Stanley Cup that has been over for a couple days now and is certainly no where near the historic level of the Supreme Court decision. People are coming to Wikipedia to find out more information about this decision and implications with it being so widely broadcasted. This should have been posted several hours ago. AgneCheese/Wine 03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think ITN truly serves readers' interest like that anymore (if it ever did), you're mistaken. Calidum Sistere 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. As an editor (though I don't participate at ITN often), it is easy to get tunnel vision and insular. It was certainly a bit jarring to be looking at the Main Page today through the eyes of several readers and seeing how it was clearly failing our readership at this point. We (the readers and I) took it for granted that a dynamic medium like Wikipedia would be on top of something so monumental and internationally newsworthy. We were all obviously wrong. While I can peak behind the curtain at the ITN process, readers like my friends will never stray to pages like this and will just be left bewildered and empty handed when they come to the Main Page expecting Wikipedia to be covering something that nearly every single major international news source is covering as an historic event. [17] [18][19][20] [21][22][23][24][25][26] AgneCheese/Wine 04:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they wanted to find the article, they could do what I often do. Come here to this page. If it is not in ITN it will be on ITN/C. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Especially in light of the case being decided under Equal Protection (rather than Federalism), this decision will have global ramifications. E.g. this directly impacts the immigration status of the spouses of American citizens in same-sex marriages. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's have a sense of perspective here, please. Does this ruling establish gay marriage in the United States? It does not. In the global movement to gay marriage, this is a very small step, considering that many other countries have already gone the full distance. In anycase, even if this was something that established gay marriage, it has a fair chance of not being notable enough even then - with other countries, we've stopped posting news like that because it's becoming rather routine now. At the end of the day, this is domestic news, which is of relevance to one country, and it's news that only opens the door to maybe having gay marriage sometime in the future. That's not ITN material. Redverton (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Given the tremendous attention that this Supreme Court decision is receiving in the United States (together with the other decisions on voting rights and affirmative action), it seems incongruous that the only U.S. item on Wikipedia ITN is about the National Hockey League championship, which is a topic of pretty limited interest here. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - While I know this is a story with a greater deal of US interest than international, I think it is a watershed moment in this specific legal framework. It is not just a case, it is a fairly massively shifted paradigm. I think it meets the criteria for general notability. It doesn't have to be the complete answer to the gay marriage question just like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon wasn't the last step in space exploration. But it was a pretty big leap, just the same. In relative terms, it's certainly more important worldwide than the discovery of a new bird species, and this is from an avid birder. The story is not just that we had a ruling on same sex marriage...the specific heated context, the vast shift in social attitude and the historic nature of the context surrounding the case make this internationally notable. Being first is irrelevant in that sense. If you took all the major newspapers from the english speaking world yesterday, I guarantee this would have had more front age hits than the majority of the topics that are currently listed on the front page. It seems ludicrous to argue semantics when no one could legitimately claim this is not notable. Every major media outlet would beg to differ. I don't recall seeing any coverage of a new bird species, on the other hand.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems that ITN has room for posting a piddling nothing story of a new bird species being discovered (without consensus), so it must have room for this. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States v. Windsor should be the bolded article, right? --LukeSurl t c 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The post on ITN reads "...limiting federal benefits to opposite-sex marriages". Shouldn't that be "same-sex"? Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of an ambiguity in English there. Depends if you read it as "benefits to opposite sex-marriages were limited" or "benefits were only given to opposite sex marriages". Perhaps we could change "limiting to opposite-sex" to "restricting to opposite-sex". --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked, should be unambiguous now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

edit
June 25, 2013 (2013-06-25) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
Sport

The Supreme Court of the United States rules on Voting Rights Act

edit
 
Articles: Voting Rights Act of 1965 (talk · history · tag) and Shelby County v. Holder (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (signing pictured) is struck down as unconstitutional. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

 DecafGrub47393 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Link should be to Shelby County v. Holder, the case decided. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose SCOTUS basically told congress, go back and work out Section 4 with today's facts and figures. The act is still otherwise fully a law, and while I know in the US there is concern that party politics are going to come into play to bias voter figures, it is not too much change from the status quo. As such since it only affects the US (its voting policies do not extend to other countries), there's not really a good reason to include. (that said, depending on how the court rules on DOMA tomorrow, a combined blurb may b possible) --MASEM (t) 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interpretation of US law in the US; the actual preclearance requirement was not struck down (though Thomas wanted to) but Congress was instructed to make a new map with new data to base the requirement on. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support a much weightier story then the gay rights ruling, and great from an encyclopedic point of view (SCOTUS has been hinting since the 1980's that these measures would some day become unnecessary), but understandably arcane to our non-citizen readers. Actually, maybe that's a good reason to support? μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - It was a landmark and highly contentious ruling, which struck down the key provision of the law. It was also the top story on every U.S. network newscast today. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Personally I'm very interested in this, but as Masem and 331dot note the ruling is narrower than it might appear at first. It also only affects certain parts of the US; the majority of the country was not covered by the preclearance requirement. Neljack (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Big story in the news to do with civil rights and voting. This story resonates widely and has symbolic implications. Article decent for a C class. Jusdafax 09:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose SCOTUS rules that state voter requirements are outdated, not wrong outright. Don't see what the rammifications are. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - The ruling strikes down the key provision of one of the most well-known pieces of legislation in US history. This ruling has national implications: for one, voting changes blocked by the courts under Section 5 established precedent as to the validity of similar legislation under Section 2 of the Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution, all of which are national in scope. Furthermore, although the coverage formula did not cover every state, this decision literally affects tens of thousands of counties, cities, and towns, as well as many states that were not directly covered but who had covered counties that essentially brought the state under preclearance due to a uniform state election code. As noted throughout the news, this decision will have strong political and electoral ramifications for racial minorities and thus race relations in America; now, the burden will be on private plaintiffs to challenge election policies that could have the effect of minimizing or eliminating the voting strength of racial minorities. Many of these contentious policies have already been reinstited in the formerly covered jurisdictions, such as Texas's voter ID law. Finally, the historical significance of this act is sufficient for inclusion in the news; preclearance and the Voting Rights Act itself was the culmination of decades of work by the US Civil Rights Movement to undo a century of Jim Crow laws that denied or diluted racial minorities' right to vote. This case marks the end of this chapter of US history. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is an important milestone in the history of disenfranchisement of black voters in the US. Justice Ginsberg herself said that the move "strikes at the heart of the nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation." The current Congress seems unlikely to settle on a new map and while Jim Crow laws may not reappear, this is an important development for voting rights in the Deep South. Gobōnobō + c 03:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Masem and 331dot have pointed out already, the impact of this ruling has been wildly misreported. Basically it's, this is wrong, go back and do it again and it's fine. Hardly groundbreaking, is it? Redverton (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deaths: Lau Kar-leung

edit
Article: Lau Kar-leung (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter Twitch Film Mtime Kung Fu Cinema Den of Geek
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Lau Kar-leung was a famous Hong Kong director and Martial Arts master. According to Twitch Films, "In a career spanning more than 60 years, Lau starred in - and provided action choreography for - more than 70 films." Twitch Films also says that Lau Kar-leung "directed more than 25 feature films himself." According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lau Kar-leung is "a fourth-generation direct disciple of martial arts legend Wong Fei-Hung." He has worked with notable people such as Chang Cheh and Jackie Chan during his career. At the Hong Kong Film Awards, Lau won the award for Best Action Choreography for the film Drunken Master II in 1995. He also won the lifetime achievement award at the 2010 Hong Kong Film Awards. In 2005, he won a lifetime achievement award at the Golden Bauhinia Awards. He has won two Golden Horse Awards for his films Drunken Master II (in 1994) and Seven Swords (in 2005). Andise1 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD of Richard Matheson

edit
this is a duplicate nomination--please comment and vote in the original nomination below

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Richard Matheson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Writer Richard Matheson dies at age 87. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted writer of science fiction, fantasy, drama, etc, very prolific. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


[Posted] Change of leadership in Qatar

edit
Article: Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani abdicates in favour of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. (Post)
News source(s): (France24), NBC News
Credits:

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: Abdication of a reigning monarch in this area of the world is quite unprecedented Hektor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cam e here to nominate. Definitely worth posting per ITNR as well. Except the page has NO update and is short of sources.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. When a cleanup has been made, this can go up on ITN. --Tone 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since it is clearly notable. Egeymi (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Chicago Blackhawks win the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals

edit
Article: 2013 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup. (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

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: Final of Big Four North American Sport, International Interest in Hockey, in WP:INTR. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary has been expanded. Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:51, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

June 24

edit
June 24, 2013 (2013-06-24) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted to RD] Mick Aston

edit
Article: Mick Aston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British archaeologist Mick Aston dies at age 66. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted British Archaeologist and presenter of Time Team. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 08:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi conviction

edit
Article: Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is found guilty of paying for sex with an underage prostitute (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Details just emerging, but is sentenced to 7 years and banned from hlding public office. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reason, yes, there are plenty of criminal matters we have had nominated and not published because they had not reached final appeal, and no, appeals don't go on indefinitely, he has two per Italian law. There is no encyclopedic interest here. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, "Pending appeals, Berlusconi is sentenced..." But he's not yet been remanded to prison, has he? I'll be quite happy to support a "Berlusconi begins serving..." blurb next decade, when it happens. But a sentence in Italy is like a hurricane season forecast. In the meantime this is no where near the top of the news, nor objectively (as opposed to ideologically: ..."given who he is...getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless") important. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deaths: Gary David Goldberg

edit
Article: Gary David Goldberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety The Hollywood Reporter Huffington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Gary David Goldberg was the creator/producer of Family Ties, Spin City, and Brooklyn Bridge. Andise1 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. Though he created some well-known TV shows, I don't see which of the RD criteria he meets. His article doesn't give much of an indication that he was notable in his field(comments from others saying he influenced them, awards, hall of fame, etc.) 331dot (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - He's definitely notable, but his death unfortunately is not worthy of ITN inclusion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Bobby Bland

edit
Article: Bobby Bland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WREG Memphis Memphis Rap
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Bobby Bland was a blues and soul singer. He was one of the original members of the Beale Streeters. In 1981, he was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1992. He also received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997. Andise1 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose was qualified also, which is why I said I agreed with Thaddeus. There have been some minor improvements since Thaddeus posted, but overall, the quality of the article hasn't changed much. The Biography section is significantly undersourced and one source is relied on too heavily. When this thread started there were 12 sources. Since then, just three have been added, primarily to verify the death. And the death content itself hasn't expanded much. So my concerns, like Thad's, are based on the the totality of those issues. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - The career section is modestly improved, but remains at least half unsourced (likely closer to 2/3rds). The death material meets the bare minimum, but is insufficient in light of the overall article quality. Either the death material needs expanded substantially or the article needs to be well sourced for me to support. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some further updating now done, with refs - will probably do some more today and tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

edit
June 23, 2013 (2013-06-23) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sport

RD: Richard Matheson

edit
Article: Richard Matheson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Celebrated SF writer and screenwriter: Incredible Shrinking Man, I am Legend, Duel, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet (The Twilight Zone), etc, etc. --Jheald (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Herbert? In which case, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Can you cite "far more important"? I doubt it. (Herbert had awards, halls of fame, movies, lifetime awards etc etc etc). Please try to be neutral here. And there's nothing about his death or the reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have added a number of trubutes to page. Article should be good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ok now.yorkshiresky (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The referencing of the "career" section is still a little weak - not weak enough for me to oppose over, but also not good enough for me to support. If TRM agrees it is "good enough to post", I am willing to post. I also won't object if someone else posts it first. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Wallenda high wire walk across the Grand Canyon

edit
Article: Nik Wallenda (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Daredevil Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to ever successfully walk across the Grand Canyon via a high wire. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across the Grand Canyon.
News source(s): ABC News Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: No human has ever successfully crossed the Grand Canyon via a high wire before (until Nik Wallenda did). Also, unlike his previous walk across Niagra Falls, he had no tether or safety harness or anything to protect him if he fell. Nik Wallenda's walk across Niagra Falls was [posted on ITN.] Andise1 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ThaddeusB had nominated this event in the section above, a few minutes after this nomination. I have closed ThaddeusB's nom, and I am copying his nom comments below to keep the discussion in one place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a Washington Post report. Click on it and see what the heading says. Moriori (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, different sources say different things. As I noted below, the AP (and sources that follow it such as Washington Post) say "near" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - duplicate nom removed and comment consoldated into a "support" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) There is some (RS) debate about whether the location qualifies as the Grand Canyon proper or not. The majority say "yes", but the AP and a few others (that don't simply repeat AP article) say otherwise. In any case, we can use an alternate wording... This is a unique accomplishment never done before in human history and a rare opportunity to get a positive story on the homepage. The event was broadcast live in 200+ countries worldwide (obviously in the middle of the night some places), so truly of international interested. We covered Wallenda's Niagara Falls walk last year and Baumgartner's skydive. Many reliable sources described this as a greater challenge than Niagara, although I would consider it roughly on the same level. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Taken at face value, I was prepared to support this. But this wasn't Wallenda's longest walk, and more importantly, it wasn't actually at the Grand Canyon,[29] although it was nearby. Yes, it's a technicality, but it makes for a much less interesting story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hardly. "Grand Canyon" is inaccurate. Perhaps something like this, or this or this for instance. Yes, there are media reports which say canyon, but we shouldn't allow their sloppy journalism to influence our standards. Moriori (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The USGS refers to the location as part of the "Grand Canyon area". It also states that the Grand Canyon formation includes the Little Colorado River Formation. [30] At least geologically speaking, Wallenda did cross the Grand Canyon. (But we obvious can use a different wording if wording is the only concern.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit off topic, but could someone please fix the current events portal for June 23, as it is currently a red link. The portal link is now fixed. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have settle the GC/not GC issue on the article. For the one sentence (lead) version, we settled on "walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge". This I suggest:
ALT: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge.
The feat is equally impressive whether he technically crossed the GC (according to the USGS he did) or a rock formation with the same properties but up river from the "real" Grand Canyon (i.e. the widest part in the National Park). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the LA Times article even states that he couldn't get permission from the US gov't to walk across GC proper. And doing it in an area gorge or near the site takes some of the "shine" off the feat. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, I have to oppose because of the big debate about whether or not it was actually the Grand Canyon that Wallenda crossed. Without question, there are many people who mistakenly believe that it was the Grand Canyon that he crossed, rather than the nearby Navajo Tribal area at the Little Colorado 40 miles east (whether it's technically part of the GC or not). And it's undisputed that Wallenda did not receive a permit from the U.S. government to cross the Grand Canyon; park officials have been quoted in reliable sources verifying this fact. Although Thaddeus did a great job of rewording the content to address the objections to the claim that Wallenda crossed the GC, the debate will always exist. Because of all the reliable sources that say it was not the Grand Canyon he crossed, such as the Forbes story, plus the many others that strategically use the wording "near the Grand Canyon", I don't think this nomination should be supported. It was a great feat, but the dispute about the location is the pink elephant in the room. There will always be an asterisk next to the claim that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI... the nominator's own, one-sentence source, the Washington Post story (via the AP), actually contradicts the notion that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. Both the title and body say that it was near the GC. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not saying the stunt was a mere stunt? μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro bus crash

edit
Article: 2013 Montenegro bus crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 19 people are killed after a bus with Romanian tourists crashes in Montenegro. (Post)
Credits:

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a question, you just answered your own—"albeit in an accident".  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albania election

edit
Article: Albanian parliamentary election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Socialist Party of Albania wins a plurality in the Albanian parliamentary election, 2013 (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
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 sh9uld be Socialist Party of Albania.. Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir tourists attack

edit
Article: 2013 Kashmir tourist shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine tourists, along with their tour guide, are killed after gunmen storm a hotel in Kashmir. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua BBC Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is the first time that foreign tourists have been attacked/shot in the province, according to Reuters. Tourists being shot and killed does not seem like an everyday thing, which is why I decided to nominate this event to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose nine casualties in an attack in Pakistan is not notable by ITN standards for war torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, etc. There are no expectations of international repercussions (China being Pak's best friend are not going to escalate this)Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that foreigners are more important, but it does provide an international scope, especially in this case where the victims were from three countries. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

edit
June 22, 2013 (2013-06-22) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics
  • 100,000 workers and unemployed march against record unemployment in Rome, the first major demonstration since Enrico Letta's government took power earlier this year. (Al Jazeera)

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted] 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans and the death of Allan Simonsen

edit
Articles: 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk · history · tag) and Allan Simonsen (racing driver) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 24 Hours of Le Mans, won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, is marred by the death of Allan Simonsen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In car racing, the Le Mans 24 Hours is won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, and marked by the death of Allan Simonsen.
News source(s): EuroSport
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first fatal accident at 24 Hours of Le Mans since 1997 and the tragic death of Sébastien Enjolras. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Alberta floods

edit
Article: 2013 Alberta floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Flooding in the area surrounding Calgary, Alberta result in at least three deaths and the evacuation of thousands. (Post)
News source(s): (CBC) (BBC) (CNN) (Al Jazeera)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A once in a century natural disaster in an area of Canada that is not particularly well known for massive flooding. In a city of over a million people, 100,000 have been evacuated, the downtown core of Calgary (a major economic centre that employs 350,000) has been flooded and effectively shut down, the NHL arena has been flooded to the tenth row and there is a real danger of the Calgary Stampede being cancelled for the first time since WWI. Outside of Calgary, smaller towns/cities like Okotoks and High River have been completely decimated and the Trans-Canada Highway has been washed out. It is also extremely likely that the flooding will carry over to neighbouring Saskatchewan. To fully express the magnitude of this event, CBC is predicting the output of the South Saskatchewan River will increase to approximately 2,000 cubic metres per second (Wikipedia says the norm is 280). This is a major national disaster hitting a major Canadian city which will likely result in billions in damages. --PlasmaTwa2 12:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Significant flood with a large displaced population, affecting a major city and the signature event of the City (the Stampede). Article seems to be in good shape to me. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) The article is in a good shape. Tentative support. --Tone 13:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm sure some will say "three deaths doesn't warrant a blurb" especially when the floods in India have killed more tha 500. However, the flood has impacted a significant portion of the city, Calgary is one of the largest cities in Canada and the fallout from this flood will impact the whole province for quite some time. It's also been getting front page coverage in major news sources outside Canada (ie. CNN). -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a major natural disaster affecting the centre of a major city in the regional context. Featured on the BBC news as well. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been fortunate to not really be affected, but I know many people who have. This flooding is unprecedented for our region and has been significant national news for the past several days, with widespread international coverage. Resolute 16:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, 100,000 displaced is huge for Canada. Teemu08 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty big news here in Alberta, that's for sure. I live further north and am thus unaffected by the situation in Calgary, but I do know people who live in that city. From what I've heard, the worst has likely passed. Here's hoping they can manage things effectively from here on out. Kurtis (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

edit
June 21, 2013 (2013-06-21) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health
Law and crime
Movies

2013 Riga Castle fire

edit
 
Article: 2013 Riga Castle fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A major fire breaks out at the Riga Castle, extensively damaging the medieval fortress that is also the official residence of the Latvian president. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (RT)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important building extensively damaged by fire, a "national disaster" according to the Latvian President. --Bruzaholm (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is there a compelling reason for a stand-alone article? From what I see, including the material in the main article would seem to be the better way to cover the fire. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Windsor Castle article is a very long one, also the fire article is a long one. At this point, merge is a reasonable idea, I have suggested it on the talkpage. Tentative support to post, otherwise. --Tone 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now merged the articles. The update is substantial, seems ITN material to me. Could I get more feedback before this gets stale? --Tone 05:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems hard to say what the impact of this is, both in Latvia and across the world. Suggest we wait until more information is available before trying to declare judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - News coverage is extensive and the article quality is good now that the two have been combined. Will need more than just my vote to post though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last BBC report I could find was from a couple of days ago where it said no-one was killed and it was unclear what actual damage had been done. Can you clarify that position which may help us understand why this should be ITN? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I supported because the fire damaged a historical building of great importance to one country and because it was one of the top few "world" stories on several websites the day it happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

edit
June 20, 2013 (2013-06-20) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sport

[Posted] 2013 NBA Finals

edit
Article: 2013 NBA Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Miami Heat defeat the San Antonio Spurs to win the NBA Finals. (Post)
News source(s): Sports Illustrated
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R and a very popular sport. Andise1 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimbo"? That's Mr. James to you. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deaths: Jeffrey Smart

edit
Article: Jeffrey Smart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald The Australian Sydney Morning Herald Herald Sun ABC News The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The Herald Sun refers to Jeffrey Smart as "one of Australia's greatest artists". ABC News refers to Jeffrey Smart as an "Internationally acclaimed Australian-born artist". Andise1 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Jeffrey Smart. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Not convinced that he was a very important figure in the field of cinema. Important perhaps, but not very important. The article also lacks citations and reads like a puff piece. Neljack (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally linked the wrong article, so you might want to reconsider your vote. Andise1 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, I must have missed Bongwarrior's comment. Seems to have been a very acclaimed and innovative artist. His death is getting international attention - I found this interesting article from The Guardian: [31] Our article contains a good, in-depth discussion of his art, though it may need some work regarding sources. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deaths: Kenneth Wilson

edit
Article: Kenneth G. Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Physics World
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Kenneth Wilson is famous for his work on critical phenomena, this earned him the 1982 Nobel Prize for physics. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support if updated with reaction to death\legacy information (one sentence saying he died in insufficient). For me, a Nobel Prize is sufficient to prove his was at the top of his field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not notable enough, and the article would need a lot of work, including explaining the significance of his discoveries in a way that non-Physics graduate students can comprehend. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update as ThaddeusB suggests. Several awards and recognition for his work, indicating notability in his field. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in one's field is not a qualifying criterion for ITN, just for getting an article. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my word choice; I meant important. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT nobel learueate. is notable enough,Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Southeast Asian haze

edit
 
Article: 2013 Southeast Asian haze (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia causes the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore, also affecting Malaysia. (Post)
News source(s): The Star, Channel NewsAsia Online, The Straits Times
Credits:

 ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Blurb can be much better, picture should be of the effects of the haze (the haze map shrunk down to that size will make no sense to anyone reading). Oliverlyc 07:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the west wind have anything to do with climate change? That's you know, completely the opposite of what it should be in the tropics. The winds of that whole map are messed up. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly note the the wind indicated is ground wind. Secondly I have done my very best to copy the wind data from here. It should not be too far off. Could you tell me any specific areas where the wind directions are messed up? Thanks. Oliverlyc 08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you did. I meant messed up compared to climate not to data issues. I once saw a wind direction probability rose of Darwin, Aus. or Cape York and the asymmetry was remarkable (it was trying to show how the prevailing wind is more reliable in the trades than the Westerlies). As slash-and-burn happens all the time in Indonesia, maybe that everything is going the wrong way now and causing is caused by global warming changing things, similar to how a warming Arctic weakened the Westerlies so much that Hurricane Sandy could cause the worst flooding in New York history? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've heard either of those theories. Any reliable sources for your research?--WaltCip (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[32] Is something similar going on here? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a better blurb and picture. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the article about the monsoon. –HTD 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 1: Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia has caused the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore to date, with the PSI hitting a record 371 in the Hazardous range. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Draughts World Championship

edit
Article: Draughts World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Alexander Georgiev wins the Draughts World Championship. (Post)
News source(s): World Draughts Championship website RG TV-RB Ufa1 Bashkortostan Mail.ru
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This event is not covered much in English news sources, but it is one of the top events in Draughts (Checkers), so I believe that it has a shot at being in In The News. If anyone has suggestions for an alternative or better worded blurb, feel free to change the blurb (if needed). Andise1 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do they do it, that perfect checkers play (the 8x8 kind, at least) has been computed? Do they just force them to use suboptimal and unsolved openings? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 8x8 board was solved using slightly different rules than tournament play use. The Championships are played on a 10x10 board, which makes it a order of magnitude more complex to solve using brute force. (It would also be impossible for a human to memorize the solution - it took computers 10 years to solve working nonstop.) Also, the opening moves are determined by a random draw in many tournaments (not sure about the championships). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In principal I might consider supporting this, but the article on the world championship is simply a list of winners. There's no useful encyclopaedic information about the format of the tournament itself so I can't see how this can be considered for the main page in its current state (sorry!). CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, none of the articles are not up to ITN-level quality. Would be an interesting story to consider, otherwise. --Tone 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose like Tone says, none of the linked articles are up to scratch, we'd need some serious work for ITN. Having said that, it's a good topic and something we perhaps should consider in the future if we can upgrade the quality of the relevant items. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

edit
June 19, 2013 (2013-06-19) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology
  • After receiving negative feedback, Microsoft decides to change many features of its upcoming Xbox One. (Xbox Wire)

[Posted to Recent Deaths] James Gandolfini

edit
Article: James Gandolfini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  James Gandolfini, Emmy-award winning portrayer of Tony Soprano, dies of a heart attack (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known Italian/American actor, and died at 51 from a heart attack. Article needs a better update. RD only. MASEM (t) 23:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for a full blurb is that his death was unexpected and under unusual circumstances. It has nothing to do with one's opinion of his acting, which I think was highly overrated. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I don't feel he is on the same level as Margaret Thatcher (I believe the last death to get a full blurb) or Nelson Mandela (who is often also suggested as someone worthy of a full blurb), and as I understand it a full blurb is reserved for those tip-top people. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A full blurb can also be used for situations where the death itself is notable (not syaign that applies or does not apply here, just that it is a possibility). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested only an RD because first while a notable actor and award-winning, he wasn't a person I'd expect known across the globe, and while a stroke at 51 is unusual and tragic, it is also not unheard of. RD ticker is perfect, but I'd think a full blurb would be a lot more difficult to support. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. His fame was narrow, all built around a single TV series. Even American TV fans who never happened to become keen on the show would not know who he was. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Recent Deaths: Gyula Horn

edit
Article: Gyula Horn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Reuters Businessweek The Telegraph The Washington Post euronews
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Gyula Horn was a former Hungarian Prime Minister. He played a big role in the opening of the Iron Curtain. According to the ABC News article, "He was best known internationally for his announcement as foreign minister in 1989 that Hungary would allow East German refugees to leave the country for West Germany, one of the key events that helped bring an end to communism in Eastern Europe." The Telegraph refers to Gyula Horn as "the former Hungarian prime minister credited as one of the communist leaders who helped bring down the Iron Curtain in 1989." Andise1 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do please tag it. But I won't be back to it tonight. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the article is quite handsome and looks well-referenced. Unless there is some further defeect (in which case, please tag) I intend to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "His role in 1956" section is completely unreferenced and is marked as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out that section. It looks like it was translated from the Hungarian article which read well enough to look for sources in. Had the section been addressed before his death it could have been removed entirely on BLP grounds and much would have been hard to restore. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Slim Whitman

edit
Article: Slim Whitman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN CBS News USA Today Reuters
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: According to his Wikipedia article, Slim Whitman "was given the accolade of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." Also, according to his Wikipedia article, "He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum's Walkway of Stars in 1968." Slim Whitman was one of Michael Jackson's ten favorite vocalists. Slim Whitman was also an early influence for George Harrison, who was the lead guitarist for The Beatles. Andise1 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's much more helpful if one actually tags the claims in the article so they can be reffed or removed rather than mentioning them here and making one guess and have to keep revisiting the issue. In any case, I have added one or two refs to the paragraphs you've mentioned, and commented out para 7 for now, since it looks interesting but easy refs were not forthcoming. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Uttarakhand flash floods

edit
Article: 2013 Uttarakhand floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Flash floods and landslides in Uttarakhand and Himanchal Pradesh in India kill over 130 people and trap thousands. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times The hindu Times Of India IBN Outdated NYT article
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Massive floods, affecting thousands, and killing dozens. Big news in India. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There were several articles about these floods under various different titles. They've all been redirected to 2013 North India floods now, as the flooding affects multiple states. The overall death toll is at 130. Article needs some work (better use of English) and broadening to reflect the complete scope of the (obviously very notable) disaster. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - notability is obvious; article condition is now decent - the English and scope are much improved (thanks Soni). A further copyedit and a few more sources (i.e. more information) wouldn't hurt, but there's nothing to oppose over. (P.S. I'm glad someone wrote this article so I didn't have to, as I was going to nominate this if no one else did.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support. Very significant floods covering a very large area. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Support Does anyone know how regularly this region experiences floods of this magnitude (from the linked article the geography makes it look like it could be a regular occurrence). If so, is this story different to previous years, or has it simply made bigger news this year, possibly because of the death toll? Just trying to get a feel for things before offering an opinion. CaptRik (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know/can figure out, there were floods last year in a smaller magnitude. Other than that, I dont think there were any other floods, atleast on a major/comparable scale. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the geography, its quite common to have floods in this area. But the magnitude is huge this year. Last year's death toll was less than 40 or so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, I support this. CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the ITN credit for the two updaters has not been given, I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This item is currently at the bottom of the ITN template; I think we may want to bump this again instead of removing it if a new item is added anytime soon. This is a huge disaster, it's still ongoing, and the article is still being updated and attracting a lot of pageviews. --Bongwarrior(talk) 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bongwarrior. If it's likely/ possible, the news should be made a sticky at the top/bottom of the ITN thread. Relevant newsworthy items are coming up everyday for this incident. Yesterday, a chopper in the rescue crashed, killing all 20 onboard. (1 2 3) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

edit
June 18, 2013 (2013-06-18) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters
  • 2013 North India floods:
  • 2013 NBA Finals:
    • The San Antonio Spurs lead by 5 points against the Miami Heat with 28 seconds remaining in game 6 of the NBA finals as a victory will secure a fifth NBA title for the Spurs. They fail to collect a defensive rebound, allow Miami to score back-to-back three-pointers and go 1 out of 2 on the free throw line. The game is sent to overtime where they eventually lose by three points.

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and Technology

Sports

[Posted] Tianhe-2

edit
Article: Tianhe-2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China's Tianhe-2 supercomputer heads the TOP500 list of the world's fastest computers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ China's Tianhe-2 supercomputer heads the TOP500 list of the world's fastest computers with a record 33.863 petaflops.
News source(s): Huffington Post The Hindu China Daily BBC Herald Sun
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The TOP500 is the most widely recognized list of fastest computers and is fairly widely covered by the international press (see examples above). This particular new record fastest computer very nearly doubled up on second place, making it especially exceptional. It is also a good opportunity to get a technology story on ITN to break up the usual death\election\sports. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support if performance figure is indicated in the blurb (33.863 Pflops compared to American 17.590 Pflops is a significant difference). Brandmeistertalk 07:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Pakistan funeral bombing

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mardan funeral bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 28 people are killed while attending a funeral when a suicide bomber blows himself up. (Post)
News source(s): BBC AP via Yahoo News CBS News Khaleej Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is being covered in various news sources. It is not really common for a large amount of people to get killed while attending an event (a funeral) for someone else who was killed. Andise1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except in Pakistan.--WaltCip (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little facetious to have said. Anyway, I support, pending article creation. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the best at creating articles, so it would be nice if someone could create an article about this incident. Andise1 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article about the incident...even if this ends up not getting posted I still feel it is worthy of an article which is why I created one. Andise1 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I wouldn't have phrased it quite like WaltCip, the point is that events are going off all the time like this. We would need a separate ticker to keep up with them. This is tragic, incredibly so, but seemingly not out-of-the-ordinary for this part of our globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose basically per TRM and WaltCip. There is a War in North-West Pakistan, just like there is one in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Bombings which don't affect the course of the war have sadly become routine. ITN could almost turn around daily with the bombings in those four countries alone. --IP98 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2013 protests in Brazil

edit
 
Article: 2013 protests in Brazil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests throughout Brazil, mainly organized by the Movimento Passe Livre, continue to grow. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (Al Jazeera), (Xinhua)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This blurb really functions as an update of sorts. These protests have now grown to include at least 200,000 individuals, and have received the global spotlight. They are noteworthy enough. --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly anything, those bodies exist to react to protests. It's like the bureaucratic-protestant version of the military-industrial complex. It's when real entities react that we have a news story. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is now frontpage on BBC and CNN. Yesterday, 100k protesters in Rio and 60k in São Paulo, plus many thousands more in Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and Brasilia. President Roussef has reacted to the protests: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22961874. Someone with wiki knowledge should update the article. Thanks,201.9.176.124 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not frontpage on my BBC, and the article (which I finally found) states 10s of thousands across Brazil, not the 100ks mentioned above. Blurb doesn't actually tell our readers what this is all about, so all in all, not a good ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article I posted, it says 100k for Rio and 65k for São Paulo. The wiki article however is a mess, and I only found it via the portuguese wikipedia. Thanks for your comment, 201.9.176.124 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I tend to go for global sources like the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's exactly what s/he's saying. The BBC source provided above [33] mentions that "The demonstrations are Brazil's largest since 1992" and "In ... Sao Paulo, about 65,000 people took to the streets. The largest march was in Rio de Janeiro, where some 100,000 people marched peacefully". Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chronus (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support certainly bigger than the tempest in a teapot in Sweden that we swarmed over ourselves to publish. Eurocentrism has got to stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, just been looking for information on this in fact. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready to post. However, I'd like another blurb. Can you suggest something like "Hundreds of thousands of people in Brazil protest against X"? --Tone 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article needs some cleanup; the "background" section is a mess. For example, there's a relatively poorly written section about reproductive rights (2013_protests_in_Brazil#Reproductive_rights), yet I have no idea how this relates to the protests, which I thought were about public transportation issues? This isn't a patchwork "List of social issues in Brazil" article. SpencerT♦C 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon a closer review, I see the 2013_Brazilian_protests#Controversial_political_climate:_March.E2.80.93June introduction to the section, which is unreferenced. Nonetheless, I highly doubt those sections need to be included, but if so, they need to be substantially truncated so their relevance is not overstated like it is now. SpencerT♦C 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the offending subsection. Accordingly, Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those sections aren't offensive, they are truth. I need sources for truth, true, but I'm already working on this. We had a hard life for 21 years, sometimes much harder than this (Dilma >>>>>>>>> Fernando Henrique), and even so we didn't went to the streets. Obviously social liberal movements against corrupt, rich, intolerant Evangelical preachers in our government was a catalyzer. While in part I can't give too much attention to them as it is part of Globo's and government's agenda to drive people's opinions away from the most important, as seen in the rushed vote for the "Projeto Cura Gay" for allowing psychologists to try to change sexual orientation, it is a matter of fact that seeing revoltuous mobs against those guys in the second round of the Arab Spring made many wake up that they would go to the streets to push for their wishes too. Lguipontes (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The facebook page calling for a new protest in Rio today says: "Esse movimento é horizontal e sem lideranças. Estamos seguindo o que foi decidido na plenária: só negociamos depois da REDUÇÂO da tarifa, de todos os presos políticos libertados e do anulamento de todos os processos contra manifestantes. Não há mais mal entendidos! As pautas não foram decididas por ninguém sozinho, mas por uma plenária aberta que contou com mais de 1500 pessoas! Todos juntxs! Pras ruas amanhã!"
For this reason, I think it is important to document the background of what made this eruption of protests (no, this is clearly not solely about the bus fares, it means that the protests will have no negotiation with the government before they attain this minimal ground of ours) in all aspects that make a significant minority (20%+) of Brazilians mad with their congressman. So, given that people here in Wikipedia complain this is OR, gives the article lack of clarity or whatever (Wikipedia inflexibility is inflexible, I know), we need to create more specifical articles or move them to "X movement in Brazil 2013 about issue Y" (but then I will have to do almost all the research because I'm one of the only few that speak Portuguese), put small summaries in the main one and mantain the present style, instead of just deleting altogether. You could try to build it more reasonably in its talk, where another long-term Brazilian user supported the article in the way I wrote it. Lguipontes (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because something might be truthful doesn't make it relevant to a particular article. This information is OR unless there are reliable secondary sources linking these specific issues to the protest. I'm not seeing that, but please include refs if they exist. We do have articles like Social issues in Brazil where it would make sense to list these ideas, not in a specific article about specific protests. Also there's LGBT rights in Brazil (see lots more articles like that at Template:Brazilian LGBT topics). I'll make further comments on the article talk page, but article ownership is a concern when you describe these sections as "my narration" of the protests. SpencerT♦C 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I removed the subsection I did so to get the article posted to ITN, not because I disagreed that it was true or not. The material needs citations before it can be put back. Abductive (reasoning) 02:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is being worked through on the article talk page. This is more of an issue with the title of the article "2013 protests in Brazil". The background includes other protests that occurred in 2013 in Brazil (that are mostly referenced), yet are not related to the Revolta da Salada protests currently in the news (and the focus of the article, as seen by the introduction). The article needs to be retitled to something more specific (so that other information can be in a separate article about 2013 protests in Brazil), but there is not yet a centralized agreed upon English (or even Portuguese name) for the protests as of yet. SpencerT♦C 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

edit
June 17, 2013 (2013-06-17) (Monday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

2009 G20 espionage

edit
Article: 2009 G-20 London Summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Edward Snowden reveals that the United Kingdom spied on the participants of the 2009 G-20 London Summit. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It has been revealed that the UK has hacked the emails etc. of various high level foreign representatives. That is a big deal. This is very apropos the current G8 summit also being held in London. Thue (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A significant revelation with potential international repercussions. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with nominator and Neljack that this story is of major import. Article is good, but I'd be happier if their were more sentences in the update, including reactions. But those will come. I'd say update and the blurb are good enough for ITN. Jusdafax 07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what are reliable sources saying? Is there a confirmation from the UK gov't, like from the US gov't in the PRISM case? Just because it comes from Snowden or Wikileaks doesn't make it so - until there's confirmation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure that this warrants a big splash, spies spying on foreign politicians, that's basically what you expect from spies. Spying on the normal population (prism) was a significant story, that they have been 'revealed to have been spying at a particular place' is a bit surprising (oh a security breach), but if there is a blurb worthy story here I'd have thought it would need to wait for some real blurb worthy consequence of the revelation that spies spied. EdwardLane (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spies will spy, soldiers will kill, researchers will research. Somewhat predictable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take note of their most interesting accomplishments. Thue (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending reliable sources. I've also fixed the blurb. Great Britain (while being a synonym for the UK) is an island. --RA (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] G8 summit

edit
Article: 39th G8 summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 39th G8 summit concludes with agreements on the Syrian civil war, tax evasion, and for greater transparency. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 39th G8 summit concludes with the nations signed a seven-point declaration on the Syrian civil war.
News source(s): VOA
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Looking at previous meetings, some people preferred to post at the open and update if anything major happened, while other preferred to post at the conclusion with a blurb that reflected the main conclusion of the summit. Since it is only 2 days long, there really is little difference and I'm fine with either as long as the article is updated. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world do you know that something actually will happen? μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it (quote from template). So, if there is a complete non event at the G8 then the update will not be significant and then it can be opposed without a crystal ball. wait until event is over then decide EdwardLane (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something has a happend. Per the blurb the summit opened. --RA (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know if this is on ITN/R? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently G8 was one of a number of items added to ITN/R here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing to see here, unless something major actually comes out of this, it's just another meeting (only this time, they didn't wear a tie!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to be sorry. I have opposed it, just as Medeis has. And as you very well know, the discussion ongoing at ITN/R is now looking at redefining the whole point of these articles which have some kind of dubious "notability" candidates. But thanks for your note! (If it makes you happy, the article isn't written in the correct tense and has a maintenance tag so you could/should be opposing on that ground too, but maybe you haven't read the article... Per your conditions, your "support" is pointless, because you're saying "Support per ITN/R, but the article isn't ready". Irony?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dubious? The item was nominated and accepted at WT:ITNR. Fortunately it's in the news and not "what The Rambling Man finds significant". --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought you were averse to "sarcasm"? Items at ITN/R are now being routinely opposed and not posted, regardless of their update. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know what TRM, you're right. I'm a jeering spectator, doing "whatever it is I do". You're better than me in every way. I was wrong to doubt your reasoning, your logic, or your suggestions. It really shouldn't be "what IP98 finds interesting", but it should be what TRM finds important. You're better than everyone, certainly better than me. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. You can reply to me, and be assured that you'll have the last word. I won't be replying again. --IP98 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R pending expansion of the agenda section. You would think it's easy to find, but google let me down. The closest I could get was this: [34] --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has absolutely nothing about what was discussed. It's embarrassing that so many people are default "supporting" an article which has no ITN-relevant content. According to "current rules", if it's ITN/R, nobody needs to "support" it until the update is made. ("Support pending update" is a waste of bytes). Omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated - summit is over and the article has been updated. A have suggested two new blurbs above - one with the three major points of agreement, the other just on Syria which was the main focus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 13:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb issue: "transparency" in what sense? How does a main page reader have a clue what that means? Noted at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal mayor arrested

edit
Article: Michael Applebaum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Montreal mayor Michael Applebaum is arrested on charges of fraud and corruption. (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

[Posted] 2013 Czech raid against organized crime

edit
 
Article: 2013 Czech raid against organized crime (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas (pictured) resigns over aide scandal. (Post)
News source(s): Scandal forces Necas to quit as Czech PM (Financial Times/Reuters)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A major event in a Central European country, widely covered by notable media worldwide. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, as far as I know. This particular investigation relates several causes and it is not entirely clear why. "Nagyová case" is the name of the Czech Wikipedia article and it appears also in the Czech press, but I don't think it is fair to relate the scandal only to Nagyová, even though she is the most important target for the media. It isn't only about her. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] José Froilán González for RD

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: José Froilán González (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GuardianBBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Most notable for scoring the Ferari's first victory in Formula 1. Dying a natural death is almost more unusual than not for racing drivers of his era. --Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I am not an expert in auto racing, but being the first to win a race with a particular make of car doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me, at least. This man did not win any championships and only won 2 races. Maybe it just needs to be explained to me, but I don't see how he is notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Formula 1 terms, Ferrari is not just any make. They have a continuous history in the sport from its origins around 1950 to the present day and have dominated it in several periods and have won by far the most constructors titles (16 to the second place's 9). I know this does not answer all your concerns, but if it were any team other than Ferrari then it definitely wouldn't be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I assumed the nom meant that he won Ferrari's first driver championship, but I see that it was actually just their first race victory (he only ever won two races). I'm not convinced that Ferrari's subsequent domination of Formula 1 means that he is a very important figure in the field, as opposed to those who were responsible for that subsequent domination (the drivers who won all those championships and the behind-the-scenes people etc). Neljack (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sympathaize If we had a two-tier system where certain less markworthy nominations like this could be posted when there's empty space at RD and would be bumped first when full tier nominations were approved I would vote in favor of this posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 16

edit
June 16, 2013 (2013-06-16) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Religion

Sport

[Posted] Justin Rose Wins the US Open

edit
Article: 2013 U.S. Open (golf) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Justin Rose wins the US Open. (Post)
News source(s): BBC USGA
Credits:

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.

 Torqueing (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Helen Hughes

edit
Clearly not going to gain sufficient consensus for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Helen Hughes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Australian CatallaxyFiles
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: According to her Wikipedia article, Helen Hughes "has been described as Australia's greatest woman economist." Andise1 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no evidence that she is widely regarded as a very important figure in economics. There is nothing about any ideas of hers that have been widely influential among economists. The statement that she was Australia's greatest female economist is the opinion of one person from a blog post, and in any case being the greatest female economist of a medium-sized country would not necessarily mean that she was a very important figure in economics on a worldwide basis. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 'Australia's greatest woman economist' is surely not something that proves outstanding importance. I cannot figure out what she is particularly important for in economics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No not for ITN mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Reading her article, I'm not entirely clear what about her work made her the "greatest woman economist" in Australia. She did get recognition from her government for her work (the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal) but, again, I'm not clear as to what they were for. If the article were improved with information indicating what her contributions to economics were, I would support. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know we're not supposed to say "Never heard of her", but I will this time. I'm an Australian of mature years, and while I could name several other Australian economists, she's not on my list. Being female should not these days count for much. (Is it a surprise if females can be good economists?) That claim of "greatest female economist" comes from a blog of like minded economists, not from objective outsiders. And any such claim, of "greatest ever" or similar, instantly turns on my bullshit alerts. The other source, The Australian, while a quality newspaper at times, is definitely also aligned with libertarian economics. I'm happy to wait for more objective observations. I don't see a strong case yet. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 15

edit
June 15, 2013 (2013-06-15) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Alexander Ovechkin wins Hart Trophy

edit
Article: Alexander Ovechkin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alexander Ovechkin wins the 2013 Hart Memorial Trophy, his third win. (Post)
News source(s): [35] [36] [37] [38] japan times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The IIHF doesn't do an MVP award, but the NHL widely considered to be the premier professional ice hockey league in the world.[39] The NHL is made up of top global players, Ovechkin himself being a Russian. It's an Olympic sport, hotly contested by the northern countries but also played in Japan and Australia. This is his third win. We've posted MVP winners in the past for other sports. --IP98 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Quetta Pakistan bombings

edit
No consensus to post; article quality issues. SpencerT♦C 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: June 2013 Quetta bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 22 people are killed in two bomb attacks in Quetta, Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India AFP Channel NewsAsia The Nation CBC The Independent AP via Huffington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: According to news sources, eleven of the victims were students. This seems like a notable event for the main page. The article is very short and needs to be updated more with more information. Andise1 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Election of Hassan Rouhani

edit
Articles: Hassan Rouhani (talk · history · tag) and Iranian presidential election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hassan Rouhani is elected President of Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hassan Rouhani wins the Iranian presidential election.
News source(s): BBC
Second article updated, first 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: Election of the new president of Iran

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Manivannan

edit
No consensus to post; article quality issues. SpencerT♦C 01:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Manivannan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India Deccan Chronicle oneindia News Track India Sakshi Vancouver Desi The Times of India The Hindu
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was a famous Tamil actor. The Deccan Chronicle says "With over 400 films as an actor and nearly 50 films as director, Manivannan was one of the most experienced personalities in Kollywood." Andise1 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He certainly has a large body of work, but I'm not seeing evidence that he was regarded as being at the top of his field, which I assume is acting/filmmaking. In the past I've seen that merely being popular is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support meh, he is just about important enough for RD by the looks of things. Also, am I the only one who reads his name as "mini-van"? Lol.--85.210.108.233 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny if you find foreign languages funny--usually the sign of an impoverished education. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Quaid-e-Azam Residency attack

edit
 
Article: 2013 Quaid-e-Azam Residency attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Quaid-e-Azam Residency (pictured), a heritage site in Ziarat, Pakistan, is badly damaged in an attack by Assailants, killing a police officer. (Post)
News source(s): [41] [42] [43] [44]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A very important event. I think it's eligible as a candidate. Quaid-e-Azam Residency was badly damaged and destroyed in the attack. The residence homed the Founder of Pakistan in his last days. --Faizan 10:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. South east Asia? Lol. Whatsoever, It seems a global one to me. Faizan 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the event is getting global attention, but, (main/on)ly is south east Asia.   --Tito☸Dutta 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is getting global one, then how "only" in South East Asia? Faizan 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not get the joke. Anyway, in plain words, this is not a very important event for Western World. But, in South East Asia, it is important. --Tito☸Dutta 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - Ultimately the event's notability is not dependent on which article it is covered in, and consensus is that the event is worthy of coverage. If the articles are merged, the blurb can be adjusted. (Ironically, the main article's shortness would make putting all the attack material there a pretty clear UNDUE/recentism case as it stands.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

edit
June 14, 2013 (2013-06-14) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Airbus A350

edit
 
Article: Airbus A350 XWB (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Airbus A350 completes its maiden flight. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Important in commercial aviation. --LukeSurl t c 15:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but it will need updating. Statements like Although the mid-2013 delivery date of the A350 remains unchanged, longer than anticipated development activities for the aircraft have forced Airbus to delay the final assembly and first flight of the aircraft to the third quarter of 2011 and second quarter of 2012 respectively seem a bit out of date. Also, I would like to see a maiden flight subsection with details like duration, flight plan, pilot reaction, etc (if such details exist). --IP98 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On an unrelated note, though the interior mockup looks great, I'm sure Dynasty will find a way to squeeze a 10th seat into each row, making my semi-annual trip from LAX to TPS as uncomfortable as ever. --IP98 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on article improvement. (Still waiting for them to upsell us premium-on-the-wing seating...) --MASEM (t) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The introduction of a new series of airplanes for commercial use is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to help emphsize this point its not so much a new series, but part of the electrification and reduce of fuel usage of airplanes among numerous other improvements to improve efficiency and emissions, along with the Dreanliner. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to change every mention of the aircraft to the present tense? --LukeSurl t c 19:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kiril Simeonovski if updated per IP98. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until more than one sentence is included regarding the maiden flight (which is what this "ITN" is all about). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] US will supply Syrian rebels with arms

edit
No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war#United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States will supply weapons to rebels fighting against the Syrian government in the Syrian civil war. (Post)
News source(s): NYT USA Today LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature These are merely unconfirmed reports based on unnamed official sources. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature. I agree with Neljack; it is not yet clear what sort of aid will be provided. I also think the real story here is the determination of chemical weapons use, something which the US hadn't decided on before now. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose We didn't post Russia and China supplying warships and weapon to Syria, and we have never posted such news with any other country in the world before. So, a supply to an opposition in a country which is illegitimate is far bellow any line of significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Chinese and Russians are states, and have supplied weapons to a legitimate state since long before this conflict started. The USA is a state which may be supplying arms to an illegitimate armed insurgency. Should this prove to be true, it is a significant milestone in the conflict, and signals a change in the position on 3rd party state support for the rebel groups. --IP98 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then, it drives back again to the neutrality and its representation on Wikipedia. This is not a place to promote the politics of the United States and to prove its significance because it supports illegitimate militant groups or whatsoever they're called. The state of the conflict is quite difficult to report, and every attempt to post news that greatly favours one of the sides may easily violate the whole concept of neutrality on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutrality means that we report things neutrally, not that we shut our mouths when there's a conflict. This is not something you fail to understand. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're on the right way with a slightly different perspective. The problem here is not whether we report something neutrally or not, but how it is determined to be significant in a more neutral way. Why to post always news when the rebels 'occupy' cities or get support from any outside factor? Why we shut our mouths when the government forces in the country take over against the rebels? 'Neutral' is not to report a single news neutrally, but to report series of news that will collectively illustrate a neutral point of view.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've made it quite clear below that your goal with this nomination is to put the evil people-killing (Stalin 20,000,000, Mao 50,000,000 of their own citizens) United States in its place for dealing with these illegitimate human beings opposing Putina puppet. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • My goal with this nomination is to prevent something being posted that will likely push Wikipedia in favour of any of the sites in the conflict (please see my comment on the renewal of the article with the protests in Turkey).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this is a consequence of (in my opinion) what is the real story which is, if proven, chemical weapons were used in attacks against the various sides of the conflict and/or civilians. I'm being deliberately vague because it's extremely hard to prove. CaptRik (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while this is formally about the chemical weapons, it is de-facto about the Syrian rebels having lost the momentum in the war, they went from being able to threaten Assad's hold on power to facing the prospect of losing significant territory in the Aleppo area that looked very secure just a few months ago. The chemical weapons use by Assad is a diplomatic card the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China w.r.t. Syria, the planned negotiations, the support Russia gives to Assad etc. So, it should be clear that the West will now no longer allow Assad to make significant military against the rebels, which makes this story very important. Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your personal opinion that the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China is not something that will make the English Wikipedia better and more neutral. Even so, why to post the support supplied by the United States to an illegitimate factor in a country? Do we really need to report every move that the United States makes to kill people anywhere in the world?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Count Iblis though I wish there was a clearer article to point to. Nevertheless. Jusdafax 13:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think notability is clear, if true. As for the truth of the matter, if it is good enough for the NYT to print, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I support something, but this is a trial balloon. Last night the headlines were "will arm", now they are may arm. Note also the "crossed a red line" phrase, which was used weeks back, and came to nothing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Medeis points out, we must be careful here. No arming has happened yet. If and when it does, that WILL be news. So far, the news is that according to some sources, some unnamed "American officials" have said that the US will arm the rebels. We are on the edge of speculation territory here. If anything is posted from this, the blurb must reflect the uncertainty and future prediction nature of what we have. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:ATTRIBUTE we'd basically have to quote the unnamed administration source verbatim to stick to the (almost, but not yet?) facts. The temptation heree is that this is breaking!!!. But we are not a news service. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing has actually happened yet, so this is premature at best. I don't know yet if I would support this if an actual arming takes place, but I certainly cannot support before it does. Off-topic, but I'm a bit surprised that this is being considered, given how many times in the past arming those fighting against a regeime you aren't currently friendly with has come back to bite them several years down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if there will be a press release when the first crates of Egyptian made AK-47's, bought by the USA and moved by the Mossad, are opened by the rebels. On the other point, yeah, I know, we just won't learn .... :( --IP98 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not very significant news. Unlikely that this is more than a symbolic move. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Now it's "small arms" and "advisors". (No need to declare war; just cut and paste the Viet Nam palette.) μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a lot of talk, and what definitive action? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 13

edit
June 13, 2013 (2013-06-13) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and government
  • The incumbent President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, determines that elections will be scheduled for 31 July 2013, however Mugabe's leading presidential contestant and primary political rival Morgan Tsvangirai rejects this as being "a unilateral and flagrant breach of the constitution". (allAfrica)

[Posted] US gene patent ruling

edit
Article: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States Supreme Court unanimously holds that naturally-occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A big story, with consequences to the worldwide research. Not sure about the target articles, though. --Tone 15:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just piling on. Big news! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have also made some minor updates to the Angelina Jolie article as the timing of her announcement relating to her BRCA mutation was linked to the Supreme Court deliberations and she explicitly advocated for wider access and affordability of BRCA testing. Helen (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 17:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the question of impact outside the US, here is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald discussing possible implications for Australia. A Federal Court case in Australia ruled the opposite way from this US Supreme Court on the same issue over mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes earlier this year. That case is being appealed with the submissions due today so the Supreme Court ruling will be included in the materials considered in the appeal. Just FYI... EdChem (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 
Perhaps as: The United States Supreme Court unanimously holds that naturally-occurring DNA sequences (such as the BRCA1 gene, pictured) cannot be patented. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that image does not show the BRCA1 gene. That shows the protein that the BRCA1 gene codes for. The BRCA1 gene patented includes introns that would not be included in the final protein representation, so the image wouldn't even represent the protein made from the DNA sequence patented. SpencerT♦C 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right, of course. I should have noticed that it was a protein. Must have left my brain in its jar by the bed this morning! I'm striking the proposal. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

edit
June 12, 2013 (2013-06-12) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

RD: Robert Fogel

edit
Article: Robert Fogel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel-prize winning economist, so should qualiy as top of his field --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Several unreferenced sections, but the article does a decent job demonstrating his importance in the field of economics. SpencerT♦C 01:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's been an expressed consensus that a Nobel itself is not qualifying. Fogel doesn't seem to be in the household-name category of economists. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Being a household name is not a criterion - if it were we would have few scientists, academics, etc while posting lots of actors and entertainers who were really much less influential. And while I can readily agree that winning a Nobel doesn't automatically mean you meet the death criteria, I would say that most laureates would qualify as being "widely recognised as very important figures" in their field. Looking at the article and the obits on Fogel, I think he meets that criterion. He seems to have been very influential in applying quantitative methods to historical issues and revitalising economic history. Neljack (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Economist who was at the top of his field. The number of living economists who are "household names" is virtually zero and is a poor reason to oppose this. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The unreferenced sections don't trouble me as much as the big tag at the top of the article. Even a few refs in those sections would justify removal of the tag, which is a stopper for a Front page ITN blurb. Jusdafax 20:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose maintenance tag problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Dua's layer

edit
Article: Cornea- (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A previously unknown human body part, dubbed Dua's layer, is discovered in the cornea. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Dua's layer, a previously unknown human body part, is discovered in the cornea.
News source(s): Popular Science Live Science
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's not everyday a new body part is discovered. It has also been tied to a known medical condition, corneal hydrops, so the implications are fairly significant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to pull based on the concerns about whether it meets the reliable source guidelines for medicine. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK won't accept it since it already appeared on the mainpage, even if it were to be pulled. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup I have posted a complaint about this item at WP:ERRORS. With all respect to the editors who supported, this is a bad mistake. To people who are familiar with the way the media handles science it is obvious that the story is based entirely on press releases. It has not been covered, as far as I know, by independent reputable science sources such as Scientific American or the New York Times. Furthermore, most scientists would consider it tacky for an experimenter to name a newly discovered structure after himself. There may eventually be a story here but it is not ready for our front page yet. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of who picks up the story, it's a question of whether we have any source that doesn't derive directly from a press release or the experimenters themselves. So far we don't. Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The research has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Ophthalmology, which seems like a perfectly respectable scientific journal, the kind we usually accept as very reliable. A published paper is not a press release, as the paper has been jury reviewed and properly vetted. --Jayron32 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just got (edit conflict)'d, and it seems Jayron said what I was about to say. That this story has had this amount of media traction probably owes a bit to some savvy media relations, but I think the story stands up regardless. --LukeSurl t c 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now forum-shopped this to WT:MED (asking for responses here). At this point I consider that I've done everything that I can, and if nothing happens I'll let it rest. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coming over from WPMED, I must agree with Looie496 that we would not generally allow this sort of content in a medical article because there is no reliable secondary source (i.e. peer-reviewed medical journal). Reports like this come and go (i.e. into the dustbin, usually), and until it's been vetted it's not encyclopedic. Considering how many good-faith editors struggle unsuccessfully to get this sort of content into medical articles, it's embarrassing that this made the main page. -- Scray (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jayron32's comment above, could you comment about Ophthalmology as a peer-reviewed journal to help the folks here understand the problem please? CaptRik (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just written a short explanation at WT:ITN of the special factors that come into play when evaluating science stories. Briefly, the issue is not the validity of the report but rather its significance. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose for a different reason. This is not a huge breakthrough, it's not even that interesting. If this deserves an ITN, there are literally 10,000s of similar discoveries every year which need to be featured as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of thousands of human body parts are discovered every year? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed both with Looie and Aaadaammm: problem is not with the specific journal, but that the article is a primary source and hence quite preliminary and it cannot be stated as a fact its content in an encyclopedic way. Only comments on it on secondary sources as are review articles will indicate if it is really true and even more important really notable. At the very least content should clearly state that this is only a preliminary research and comes from a single source, not yet validated by other publications. --Garrondo (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurring problem with science stories here on ITN. The problem is that ITN has to post within 5 days of the 'event', which is hardly enough time for secondary scientific comment. I let this one slide because it seemed self-contained in its damage to Wikipedia's credibility. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to think of a good way to express in the article lead the reservations that one should have of such a recent "discovery". Has anyone reputable in this field gone on the record to express such reservations that we could cite? --LukeSurl t c 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than just primary, it's self-aggrandizing too. Eponyms shouldn't be self-bestowed. Seems ITN ought to at least ask at the relevant project before accepting a story. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming something after oneself might be tacky, but is hardly relevant to whether or not the story should be covered. The proposed criteria that a journal article must be secondary to be worthy of coverage is not workable - a science story will be in the news when it is published, not when it is confirmed (and of course a secondary confirmation is also not definitive, as is the nature of science.) The correct criteria is the level and depth of media coverage, with an eye toward to prestige of the journal that published it. Perhaps we failed to properly evaluate this story in that regard; any arguments against this story should be on that basis - the other points are not relevant. I thank Loogie for offering some suggestions on how to better evaluate future science stories on the talk page. (And as long as we are talking about hyperbole, saying there are 10,000+ similar discoveries each year certainly qualifies.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering there are thousands of new species discovered yearly and each has a defining biological feature by definition, I'd say the statement is likely accurate. Most humans, however, consider knowledge about human beings to be special so that isn't the relevant # to compare to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom, and the fact that the rarity of such an event is its phenotype. It simply doesn't occur often. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and do NOT pull or change Yeah, the scientific community doesn't like it. So what. We do not pull things because people do not like it. If the scientific community gives it a different name or proves it doesn't exist as an independent layer, then we will modify the article. If the new name becomes the common name we will move the article. If it is seen as a part of another layer and the hoopla dies down, we will merge it. But for now it is discovered and named. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep posted the nomination process here was perfectly valid, it's covered in reliable sources. And I don't appreciate the level of condescension from people who didn't know this part of Wikipedia didn't exist until now. Hot Stop 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly knew this part of WP existed, enjoy ITN, and respect your process (which is why I commented here). As part of the ITN process, something should not make the list if it fails rules for inclusion in WP. We are saying that the article in question may not merit inclusion in WP, because we have WP:MEDRS for a good reason: until peer-reviewed secondary sources recognize a biomedical discovery, the likelihood that it will last (and therefore merit inclusion in an encyclopedia) is low. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bro, the only condescension here is from you, Hot Stop. I've commented here before, but even if I was a complete noob, I should be encouraged to contribute. I think you should rethink your attitude. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a regular here, I agree - the only condescension here has come from Hot Stop and Richard-of-Earth. We should be welcoming input by those with knowledge of the area. It is embarrassing for our section that non-regulars who are coming to share their knowledge and make substantive points are being treated like this. I am sorry you people have been treated like this, and I can only say that it doesn't reflect the views of all of us regulars here. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me second what Neljack has said, and say that the attitude of HotStop does not reflect the prevailing attitude, or hopefully, the attitude of anyone but himself. All voices of all people who contribute to the discussion should be given just weight, and not dismissed out of hand for any reason. Completely unacceptable to do so. --Jayron32 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Neljack said about Hotstop, who made an unflattering remark targeting a specific identifiable contributor here. But I don't agree with including Richard-on-Earth in this criticism. He did not attack any specific individual, but merely expresssed the view that we should not pull an article simply because people (in this case the scientific community) don't like it (and then added a few lines seemingly saying that there was nothing worth worrying about, etc), which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate view to express, whether one agrees with it or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested rewording: 'Scientists announce the purported discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.
Alternative rewording: 'Scientists purportedly discover Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea. (or any similar re-wording you may choose to come up with)
Justification of above Suggested Re-wording: I've added the word 'purported' (as in 'purported newly discovered layer') to the opening sentence of the article in the light of criticism both here, and in the ITN errors page, and in the article's Talk Page. The Macmillan Dictionary defines 'purported' as 'said by some people to be real or true, but not proved to be real or true', giving as an example 'The judges will now study this purported new evidence'. The core of the scientific process is based on reporting purported new evidence, but requiring that such new evidence be confirmed by further research. When we have only one paper, as here, 'purported' seems to be the appropriate word. It seems to me that we need a similar modification to the current ITN wording, hence the above suggestion. I've already posted this in the ITN errors section as a suggested fix, but I'm also posting this copy here as Jayron wants the discusion in one place (but in practice if it's not also posted in the errors page it probably won't get fixed). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh: 20 hours later, and no sign of any re-wording. Isn't it good to know that In The News seems to be controlled by people who treat several centuries of Western scientific understanding of how to decide what should and should not be portrayed as new knowledge with such contempt - I thought that was something that profit-driven media did, and that non-profit Wikipedia was supposed to be ideally placed to counter-act - I guess it just goes to show how foolish I was :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copying latest 3 posts from Errors Page, as per User Jayron's earlier suggestion of having the full discussion in one place:
The threshold for science stories is the publication of a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. That threshold has been crossed - a paper has indeed been published in the journal Ophthalmology. Of course it might turn out to be wrong, but as the first report of a discovery this is definitely the point when it is 'in the news'. I don't see the problem, especially as there's additional coverage in the article. 'Purported' would be a very bad word to insert because it implies that the conclusion is wrong. It violates the guideline at WP:ALLEGED. Oh and please don't make assumptions about the intentions of anyone involved in ITN (nobody actually 'controls' it), they're all good-faith volunteers who have real lives as well as monitoring WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius talk 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SIGH: So it seems the situation is even worse than I feared - Wikipedia's own guidelines order us to throw out several centuries of sound scientific practice. And anybody who protests gets lectured on his alleged wickedness. By the way I didn't make any assumptions about the intentions of anybody. I pointed out that their behaviour was treating several centuries of scientific practice with contempt. I didn't say that was their intention - I doubt if it ever occurs to them that that is what they are doing. But in future I will try to remember to say 'treating with unwitting contempt'. And I didn't say any individual controls ITN, but it is in effect controlled by a group of admins who have the power to amend it, as distinct from ordinary plebs like me who don't have the power to amend it (if you can think of a better word than 'control' to describe that situation please feel free to do so). And as for WP:ALLEGED, until if and when that rule gets amended, this seems an ideal case for ignoring a rule under WP:IAR (one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia - ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving Wikipedia, as this rule clearly does in this case). 'Purported' does NOT imply the conclusion is wrong, it implies it might be wrong, and it is the very core of Science that a single uncorroborated paper might be wrong, and no proper scientist should object to this being pointed out, while all proper scientists (and concerned lay people) should strongly object to its being presented as if it's known to be correct, as we are doing here. Also I don't insist on 'purported' - some other word like 'claimed' or 'alleged' or 'reported' will also do, provided it makes clear that it is possible that the alleged discovery could turn out to be mistaken. The fact that the article itself does now correct the misleading impression created by the headline is an improvement, but the incorrect headline is still harmful, both because many people may only read the headline, and because it's also damaging for Wikipedia's credibility when those who go on to read the article realise that Wikipedia is using misleading headlines. But I've wasted too much time on this already, so I give up. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SIGH: Meanwhile, as this item is still in the news for tomorrow, it looks like we're in for at least another 24 hours of what I honestly see as a shameful and outrageous betrayal of both our scientific heritage, and of Wikipedia's duty to spread knowledge, not speculation misreported as fact, but I said I was giving up, so I'll leave it to someone else to fight on if they want to. Meanwhile I'm copying these latest posts to the proposals page, as User Jayron suggested the full debate needs to be in one place. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(For the sake of concision on the errors page, the above 2 postings by me in reply to Modest Genius have now been replaced on the errors page by a message saying they can now be found here) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I am willing to add the "purported" in principle. Right now we have one editor for and one editor against, though, so we will need to more input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thaddeus, maybe 'possible' or 'propose' will be more acceptable than 'purported' - see suggested re-wording 3+4 below (already posted on errors page) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewording 3: 'Scientists announce the possible discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.'
Suggested rewording 4: 'Scientists propose the discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.'
(or any similar re-wording you may choose to come up with)
Justification of Suggested Re-wordings 3 and 4: We currently have a complete mismatch between an ITN headline which wrongly presents the discovery as fact, and an article which rightly and repeatedly makes it very clear that it is still only a possible discovery. This mismatch is damaging to our credibility, and spreads misinformation to our readers. And 'possible' and 'propose' are not mentioned as words to be avoided on WP:ALLEGED.

Clearly I'm finding it a lot harder to give up on this issue than I had hoped :) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it to the "possible" suggestion. I do apologize for the difficulty you've had. I assure you that ITN is not intentionally anti-science or anything like that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help, Thaddeus. And as I tried to make clear in my reply to Modest Genius, I never thought anybody was intentionally anti-science - quite likely at one time or another we can all be all sorts of things unintentionally, presumably frequently including myself. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Jiroemon Kimura dies

edit
Article: Jiroemon Kimura (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura, the longest-lived verified male in history, dies at the age of 116 years, 54 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following the death of the longest-lived verified male in history, Jiroemon Kimura, Misao Okawa succeeds him as the world's oldest person.
News source(s): The Washington Post, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: See also: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2012#Jiroemon Kimura, oldest male in history. --61.245.25.11 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't outright oppose a blurb, either. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of being slapped by a trout labelled OTHERSTUFF, Poet Laureate of the UK is on the list, and occurs once a decade, and great comets are unpredictable and also on the same order, so the rarity isn't necessarily a problem. And it would provide justification for the arguments of "post the death, not the birthday/becoming the oldest man" MChesterMC (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

edit
June 11, 2013 (2013-06-11) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • U.S. government surveillance programs (including PRISM):

Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Recent Deaths: Vidya Charan Shukla

edit
Article: Vidya Charan Shukla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express The Hindu News Track India Business Standard Business Standard Hindustan Times Hindustan Times Indian Express Global Post Jagran Post India Today Business Standard
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This may be a long shot...but his death is being reported in various news sources which is why I decided to nominate Vidya Charan Shukla for recent deaths. The article is pretty short and definitely needs to be updated. GlobalPost refers to Vidya as a "veteran India politician". According to Raj Babbar Vidya's death was "a loss to a nation". Pranab Mukherjee said "Shri Shukla was son of illustrious freedom fighter and first Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla. He entered into Parliament at a very early age and represented undivided Madhya Pradesh in the Lok Sabha for a long period of time." I think if the article is updated it has a chance to be in the recent deaths section. Andise1 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your latter point, but he WAS posted, with a lot of enthusiastic support. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you intend by telling me the nom passed; if you are trying to get me to change or keep my vote it is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Turkish protests reach a new height

edit
Article: 2013 protests in Turkey (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Police intervention in Taksim Square results in nation wide backlash in Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): the Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Protests have been peaceful in Taksim Square for the past 2 weeks, but the brutal government intevention resparked the protests across the country. Candymoan (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Andise1 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle, significant protests with widespread media attention. However, I think the event to highlight is the clearing of the square (with a more suitable blurb), and the article has a big load of tags on it. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in its current interpretation. The story is worth supporting but the blurb is far from being neutral, emphasizing that the police intervention was something unexpected and crucial for provoking backlash in the protests. Some may interpret it as the police have finally ejected the protesters and thus liberated the Taksim Square. Why not to use a blurb with such wording? Wikipedia should always present the facts as they really are in the most neutral way. In this case, it's a personal choice and a preference to decide whether to solidarize and support the protesters or to do something else, but not a fact that illustrates the neutral point of view and should be generally accepted. Please modify the blurb to reflect something different rather than promoting a cause from the protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sticky, this is an ongoing story and not really showing signs of letting up. Since we just posted this a few days ago and it recently rolled off, that's evidence a sticky would be worthwhile. --Jayron32 01:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that this one requires sticky and your definition for it is not correct. We usually use sticky to point out to an event or a story that would otherwise have multiple blurbs on the main page at the same time. The blurb documenting the protests is no more on the main page and thus a new blurb would perfectly replace it and won't make any mass report on a single event. In addition, there is only one nomination with scarce interest to renew the story and thereby no possibility for having many blurbs relating to the same story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The overall story is not new and has already been published. Individual events within the story would need to be exceptional to justify including it in ITN again. The suggested headline, besides not being NPOV, is arguably already out of date with the current focus of the story being on rallies in support of what is after all a democratically elected government (albeit one that non-Muslims and secularists like me, and probably most contributors here, might not much like). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Henry Cecil

edit
Article: Henry Cecil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph Daily Mail The Independent CNN The Guardian The Telegraph Reuters Washington Post BBC Horsetalk.co.nz Irish Times The Age Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Henry Cecil was a legendary horse racing trainer. The Telegraph states that Sir Henry Cecil "was among the outstanding flat-racing trainers of the late 20th century." The Telegraph also says that "Henry Cecil was the greatest horse racing trainer of all time, but also the most loved". The Daily Mail says that Sir Henry Cecil was "one of the greatest racehorse trainers". The Independent refers to Sir Henry Cecil as "legendary". According to his Wikipedia article, "he was widely regarded as one of the greatest trainers to ever have graced the Turf." Andise1 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Attention needed] [Posted] ERT suspended

edit
Article: Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Greece announces the closure of its public broadcasting corporation ERT. (Post)
News source(s): euronews, BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The closure is said to be temporary but no re-opening date has been set. The corporation has been described as "a case of exceptional lack of transparency and incredible extravagance", and is closed to save costs amid tough austerity measures in Greece. --hydrox (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support a bigger result of austerity measure.s Wouldn't we post the bbc pclosing?Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support National public broadcasting corporations are generally notable. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Support until it actually goes off the air, though I don't object if it goes up now (pending cleanup). It is anticipated that the Greek government will re-establish the organisation in a much smaller scale. If the new org goes online at the same time as the old one going offline, it would make an interesting blurb. --IP98 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No bull, they really did it. Wow. The article is missing refs though. --IP98 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of union-busting is eventually going to happen with all the state industries of Greece. Are we going to post them all? μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think public broadcasting is more visible than other industries, and if the article is cleaned up we can go for it. --IP98 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, more visible. Hardly more important, there remain plenty of private broadcasters. The question is, will the license fees be halted? Apparently this is just a move to fire everyone so the government can decide whom to rehire at a lower salary afterwards. We need some facts, rather than a trial balloon. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility satisfies WP:ITN/P #1. I know you generally oppose business stories, I think this one could be symbolic of the austerity cutbacks across the country. --IP98 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E3 2013

edit
Article: Electronic Entertainment Expo 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 19th annual Electronic Entertainment Expo opens in Los Angeles. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Hasn't officially opened yet. ITN/R. Looking back through past postings, it seems that it is more popular to post the closing than the opening, but I thought I'd nominate anyway. --Tombo7791 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I'd prefer to post the opening, at the point where the article is in a decent shape. Currently orange-tagged however. --LukeSurl t c 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We never see auto shows (even though there have been some significant introductions) or any other trade shows being listed, so why should this. Even though it is significant itself, I don't see why electronic shows are that important, so therefore not significant enough for ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • E3 is like the only major show that the video game industry has with massive hardward and software announcements (there's others, but they have less predominance in weight). My understanding for the auto industry is that there are numerous shows throughout the year that one single show is not more important than others, and thus hard to qualify which limited # of shows are the key big events. If there was such a show, it could be argued for inclusion at ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No doubt the event is (by a retired videogamer) to the industry, so are you trying to say the Photokina and Nuremberg International Toy Fair are worthy of inclusion because they are one of the kind. Donnie Park (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, Geneva Motor Show a few months ago had as much publicity as this years E3 and I take you are a non-car person right. Donnie Park (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying we cant include these, but as Thue points out below, video games are a significant economic section nowadays. This is why I think that if there is one major representative car show, that could be an ITN/R, since auto sales are also a significant economic chunk. On the other hand, toys? Not so much, but this shouldn't be to discourage those that want to get that into ITN/R, just that I think the barrier will be a lot higher. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You (Donnie Park) have already started a discussion to remove it from ITNR; that is the proper course of action to take if you are opposed to listing it, but as long as the article quality is sufficient, it will be posted in this case since it is currently ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well not if there's a consensus not to post it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I was being a bit kneejerk with the proposal, it applied to future nominations, plus as with the two consoles, weren't they already introduced without any picture of it nor any real details. Introductions like this is nothing uncommon, a bit like if Ferrari chose to bring out a press release introducing little details of their LaFerrari in late 2012 instead of unveiling it at the recent Geneva show. Donnie Park (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In the grand scheme of things, E3 is inconsequential to a company's economic performance, and video games are a niche interest anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and keep as ITNR. When it comes to software and hardware (arguably some of the hottest markets of the past years) it is the biggest show. Car shows such as the Geneva one should also be included as World Fairs have been posted in the past. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regardless of its inclusion at ITN/R. There is nothing to report here other than "big trade show happened, around 100k people went". Unless anything exceptional occurs in this (and similar trade show events like Geneva motor show, Farnborough Airshow [where the newspapers would have you believe $100 billion of deals are struck in five days]) then it's not news, it's a recurring trade show for people to sell their goods. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably, two new next-gen consoles were revealed, the first in over 5 years from these companies. That's a major facet of this , though I certainly wouldn't peacock that in the blurb. (Of course, intra-industry, there's a huge amount of wow-factors going on with Sony's vs MS's reveal of their products, but that's definitely not going on the front page). --MASEM (t) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But they weren't really revealed at the show, were they? They were heavily publicised and discussed in the news way before this "show". It would be like claiming that suddenly $100 billion of aircraft deals were made at the Farnborough airshow. Nonsense, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The PS4 unit was actually revealed at the show for the first time (Though it was known to be coming). Still, most of the industry considers this to be the reveal of both units since they will now be able to get their hands on testing them. More importantly, final details on cost and specs were provided at this point, hence why its considered the proper reveal for the two. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that's exactly the point. We all knew about the Xbox 1 and the PS4, a few minor details were "revealed" at the show, standard "trade show" behaviour. The blurb doesn't reflect that, the blurb is simply "trade show opens, some people will go". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll point to my suggestion of a two-pronged test about the ITN-worthiness of these trade shows (both whether the show gets attention, and whether products/news revealed at the show get attention, on a regular basis). In this case, both are met - the start of E3 was well covered, and the PS4/Xbox One reveals have been major news, even if they aren't really reveals in the explicit sense. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it needs to be said, Support notability wise, we have no other coverage of video games (which are a big $$ industry and a significant form of culture) otherwise. --LukeSurl t c 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not disputing your position at all, but would you therefore support Farnborough Airshow (and Paris Air Show) as we don't have coverage of the aviation industry's top events (which is a big $$$ industry and also a significant form of culture) at ITN/R? And the Geneva Motor Show? And the London Boat Show?) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking back, I'm starting to dislike the whole idea of having expositions on ITN unless they result in the introduction of some majorly important products (maybe the next gen consoles?). However, comparing the aeroplane and boat shows seems a bit of a stretch as they cater to a significantly small consumer base. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replying to TRM: I was going more along the lines of culture. We have a cluster of ITN/R events for film (Oscars etc.). Video games are effectively equivalent in popularity, so it seems sensible to give them at least one ITN/R posting a year. --LukeSurl t c 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be happy to support such thing for videogames if there is one single award that is taken as seriously as the Oscars, if there is one but there is a cluster of them that is not. BTW, the last ITN for videogames IIRC was for CoD: Black Ops almost three years ago and that was in regards to sales record. Donnie Park (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to TRM I believe the correct response here is: Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. You may remember this argument as it was used previously. Granted you've initiated the removal process at ITN/R, but in this instance, your notability oppose must be disregarded, following your own previously expressed reasoning. --IP98 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to orange tag on article and the fact that it is almost completely unsourced. Plus it should not be listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After reading the above comments I'm genuinely sitting on the fence, but based on Formerip's reasons above I oppose on those grounds. CaptRik (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ITNR? Conversely we don't post the political summit that ISs ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending cleanup per WP:ITN/P #1 and #3, and support adding to ITN/R. Complaints about it being just another event are rubbish. Try opposing a football match as "big football game took place, ball was kicked into net, 80k people attended". Video games are a niche the same way horse racing is. I would also support big air shows, big auto shows, I-CES, and the rest. Why not? Are we worried that the bus fire might not stay up for 6 days?? --IP98 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I support this item if it gets updated. It is widely covered in non-specialised press. There has been calls to disregard the procedure regarding ITNR on this item. I'll just note here, as I did in the ITNR discussion, that notability supporters will be (and are if you compare the numbers with the ITNR discussion) underrepresented in this discussion as such !votes are "pointless" on discussions of ITNR items. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's the whole point isn't it, if an item is rejected by the community here, it's irrelevant that it's at ITN/R. Worse, it's indicative that ITN/R isn't quite right. Your note about lack of supporters needs evidence. The same people !vote here each and every time, with the odd exception. I'd be half-interested in listing it if we posted this kind of thing after the conference has closed so we're not just providing a free advertising service to this trade fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is self-evident from the numbers of supports here and opposes at the ITNR discussion. "The same people !vote here (...)" is indicative of this being as much a local consensus as ITNR. I think ITNR should aim for higher participation numbers by using RFCs or other methods as it is not time-limited. Sadly, this is not the case, and ITNC and ITNR conflicting leads to problems. "Luckily", the article won't get updated so looks like we get another year to get our act together. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nomination re-opened due to premature closure by myself; see my talk page. SpencerT♦C 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably with the show over, the nom would have to reflect on the public unveiling (read: not announcement but basically the point that most non-tech major news outlets covered these) of the next-gen consoles Xbox One and PlayStation 4, the E3 aspect now being subsidary to that. I would argue (as I've been watching them but not overly-active in editing) that these have been sufficiently updated to reflect all the specific details that came out from E3. I would be concerned with blurb wording to make it seem like a promo, so another potential main target is History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (which is also updated), and rewrite as "The Xbox One and PlayStation 4, two of the next generation of video game consoles, are publicly detailed at E3 2013". (or something like that, which puts the idea more on being the technology improvement than the promotional aspect). --MASEM (t) 15:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Shenzhou 10

edit
Article: Shenzhou 10 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China launches Shenzhou 10, the fifth manned mission in the Chinese space program. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Manned spaceflight, ITNR. The article needs update, though. --Tone 10:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section about mission objectives. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the main actual aims of the launch a) to test docking and extended mission length in preparation for a space station and b) the propaganda gimmick of having a female taikonaut broadcast a school lesson from space (at enormous expense)? Oh and support per ITNR. Article needs some copyediting - much of it reads like it's been auto-translated. Modest Genius talk 22:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to do some copyediting to clean this up. SpencerT♦C 01:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

edit
June 10, 2013 (2013-06-10) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

[Updated] Update: PRISM Boundless Informant

edit
 
Articles: PRISM (talk · history · tag) and Boundless Informant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leaks have revealed the US National Security Agency's PRISM electronic surveillance program and the Boundless Informant global datamining program. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This a nomination for an updated blurb and a new image, not a nomination for a new blurb. The Guardian leaked the existence of the Boundless Informant program yesterday, showing the extent of NSA spying worldwide. This has global ramifications, and should be included in the blurb. --xanchester (t) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the logo is better than the map. Good call. Jusdafax 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Edward Snowden PRISM

edit
Snow close. SpencerT♦C 14:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Edward Snowden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Edward Snowden is wanted by the FBI after he released classified material on top-secret NSA programs including the PRISM surveillance program to The Guardian and The Washington Post then fleeing to Hong Kong. (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:
  • Opposed (And removed the ITN/R claim in good faith). PRISM's existance was news. This was a followup, and we can expect a lot of similar stories as this falls out that aren't ITN worthy. (Also, isn't this BLP1E problems?) --16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already have PRISM featured. Maybe after his trial, and then only maybe. Suggest speedy close before the NSA asks FISA for a subpoena to find out if I liked M&M's on FaceBook. (of course, after the arrest they'll be able to enter my cheek swabbed DNA into a national database, but who cares about that, right?). --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Close? an update's fine, but two blurbs? μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Being wanted is not enough; at a bare minimum he should be taken into custody before even considering posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 9

edit
June 9, 2013 (2013-06-09) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • An outbreak of Hepatitis A linked to a fruit juice product made by Townsend Farms sickens 79 people in the United States. (RTT News)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 2013 Tony Awards

edit
Article: 2013 Tony Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike wins Best Play and Kinky Boots wins Best Musical at the Tony Awards. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the 2013 Tony Awards, Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike wins Best Play and Kinky Boots wins Best Musical.
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

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: A major award show for theater, musicals, and plays. This award show is also ITN/R. Andise1 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syria sticky

edit
Article: Syrian civil war (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Story is picking \up in the last weeks since the Battle of Qusair. Rumours now of a buildup in Aleppo and another govt advance. Think its time to place this back. We're winning! -- Lihaas (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support have proposed this myself repeatedly. The "we're winning" comment is, of course, troubling in the extreme. But the sticky rationale is correct regardless of which killers one supports. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Syria is the most significant hot conflict in the world right now. (what is with the "We're winning!"?) Thue (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral if the war lasts another two years, is that how long the sticky lasts? Also, the proposed article is an orange tagged POV massive lumbering mess. I don't think it's of suitable quality to be indefinitely featured on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This can never proceed while the conspicuously non-neutral, POV "We're winning" is part of the proposer's comments. Even though it was displayed in small print, it's by far the most dramatic and obvious part of the nomination. What on earth is it doing there? [PS:I don't even know who "we" are, and don't care.] HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per IP98, the sticky wouldn't be helpful. If something significant happens in Syria, just nominate it for ITN.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Iain Banks

edit
Article: Iain Banks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Very important writer. --LukeSurl t c 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 French Open

edit
Articles: 2013 French Open – Women's Singles (talk · history · tag) and 2013 French Open – Men's Singles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, the French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In tennis, French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles.
News source(s): Eurosport
Credits:

Both articles 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: We can post this one today and update the blurb with the winner of the men's tournament tomorrow. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the most BORING grand slam final since at least 1 started to watch tennis. Nevertheless, perhaps mention Nadal's record-breaking stature as the most single grand slams by anyone.Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on lack of significant prose update to any potential article target. Neither the main event article, nor the event-specific articles, contain any reasonably-complete synopsis of the championship match, which would be nice given that we're posting the results of the championship match. Of course, once someone who cares actually makes that improvement to some article(s), I would change my vote to the strongest possible support. --Jayron32 21:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose removing wikilinks from words "tennis", "men's singles" and "women's singles". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On what grounds? --Jayron32 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They're unnecessary and there are too many links. People can find them through the French open link. Otherwise we're featuring 3 events. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what is the best way to do the update (synopsis of the final)? It seems to me, there should be one in men's singles final and one in women's single final. That would then bold those two links and de-bold the main article. Other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)
    • That would make sense. There's plenty of source text out there describing the details of the final match, game for game. We should be able to put something into each of the men's single and women's singles articles then bold those. --Jayron32 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated/ready - I have updated both singles articles beyond the minimum standard and have updated the bolding of the main blurb to reflect the update locations. The blurb should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original blurb at it contains links to the prose updates. --LukeSurl t c 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting the original blurb. Shall we add a photo of one of the winners? --Tone 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

edit
June 8, 2013 (2013-06-08) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] 2013 Belmont Stakes

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Belmont Stakes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, Palace Malice wins the 2013 Belmont Stakes. (Post)
News source(s): usa today
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Oldest race in the Triple Crown in the US. --IP98 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The Triple Crown was not at stake, reducing its notability. Looking through some of the archives I don't believe it has been posted in the past, just as a point of information. Closest we came was proposing posting the withdrawal of a potential Triple Crown Winner last year. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose based on article quality, would change to full support if article was expanded with a full race synopsis. A major horse race, regardless of whether or not the Triple Crown was at stake, especially if we had a really good article to highlight on the main page. As we really don't, I can't really support posting this yet. Get it up to snuff, and I'd support this. --Jayron32 03:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listed attendance at this year's race was 47,562, while the attendance at past Belmonts where the Triple Crown is involved is anywhere from 85,000 (last year when there was almost a Triple Crown attempt) to over 120,000 (Smarty Jones' attempt). It was over 94,000 in 2008. The notability of this race is heavily dependent on the Triple Crown. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support diversity of sports events. And its not "minor"Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] San Onofre Nuclear Plant closes

edit
Consensus not to post is clear and discussion is getting unnecessarily heated. --LukeSurl t c 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amid controversy and investigations, the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is ordered to be decommissioned by owner Southern California Edison. (Post)
News source(s): Union Tribune San Diego AP/ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I have considerably updated the article. Full disclosure: I was recently involved in a content dispute there. Jusdafax 10:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing unusual about 50 year old installations being decommissioned. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would disagree that there is "nothing unusual" about a nuclear power plant closing, as the number of them is relatively small, but I'm not really seeing the worldwide implications of this. There are still nuclear power plants being proposed and under construction in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per WP:ITN/P #3. Closing a nuclear power plant is rare, much less common than an auto-parts factory closure (or a vehicular fatality). There are a number of older facilities still operating, so this premature closure is also interesting. There is no requirement for "worldwide implications" either, and many of the stories posted fail that category as well. What I am wondering is if it will be decommissioned in place or if it will be dismantled and disposed. The latter is very rare. --IP98 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sure this is significant on a local level, but I can't see how its particularly unusual, given that elsewhere in the world whole countries are phasing out nuclear power. It's relatively rare in the sense that there are not that many nuclear power stations in the world but, in the long run, the decommissioning rate is 100%. Google is not finding any international coverage at all AFAICT. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not significant on a global scale. The nomination statement about "worldwide implications" is completely false. Hot Stop 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From the provided AP/ABC link that some here apparently did not trouble to read: "Federal investigators last year concluded that a botched computer analysis resulted in design flaws that were largely to blame for the heavy tube wear. Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group, said the mistake raises broad questions for an industry that regularly relies on computer tools. "That has larger importance, especially for new reactors," Lyman said. That indicates a world wide problem, yes? Note to Hot Stop: HS, at this rate your !votes here will be automatically discounted by a majority of posting admins as utterly worthless. "Completely false?" Do your homework. Jusdafax 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go fuck yourself, that was completely unnecessary. Hot Stop 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cursing and personal comments are unnecessary, but the "worldwide implications" claim is bizarre, and the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a leftist front group--if their expert Lyman has credentials and on-site access let's hear about it. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it. Labelling a commentator's political views as leftist is not a helpful contribution here. (Has Senator McCarthy returned?) Discuss the science, not the scientists. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. They call themselves advocates, and they advocate left-wing causes. My pointing out they are an advocacy group and not just a scientist union is quite helpful to those unfamiliar with them. The burden is on Jusdafax to give us Lyman's credentials. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. When a writer describes someone as leftist, and thinks it helps, that tells me a lot more about the writer than the subject. (But I won't post here again.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess which statement comes from HiLo, and which the UCS:
"I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here"
"turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems"
μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I call on one of our many admins to administer a warning to HS, who started this by calling me a liar with "completely false" and now sees fit to use major profanity when his attack !vote is rigorously questioned. Any accountability here? Jusdafax 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Princess Madeleine marries

edit
No consensus to post. DYK remains open as an option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Princess Madeleine of Sweden marries her English fiance Christopher O'Neill in a ceremony in Stockholm. (Post)
News source(s): DN
Credits:
 --BabbaQ (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Source: Reuters". It is very easy for news outlets anywhere in the world to pretty much copy-and-paste wire reports. If the posting of such reports are considered "international coverage" then this is a very low bar. --LukeSurl t c 13:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it is some sort of automatic feed, copy-and-pasting a wire report still requires someone at the news outlet to decide if an event is important enough to its readers to warrant being posted. It's still coverage, whether it is from an outlet's own reporters or not. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but considering they've already paid their fee for the wire service, the only thing such an outlet is expending is a few pixels of space on their website (that they're probably keen to fill anyhow) and half an hour of a subeditor's time. Ultimately there are dozens of wire stories daily that gain "international coverage" because of this, hence why our using such a metric for a notability assessment needs to be more qualified. [Note, this is a general point. I have no particular opinion on this nomination] --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support posted William and hes not idirect heir to the throne. No need for anglo biasLihaas (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a diff for that, Lihaas? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
William is a direct heir to the throne; he is second in line after his father and that is extremely unlikely to change. This Princess is fourth in line and that could change if those above her have children. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a diff for the posting, not whether he's heir apparent. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I was responding to Lihass. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 7

edit
June 7, 2013 (2013-06-07) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

  • PRISM (U.S. government surveillance program):
    • The US government comes under heavy criticism at home and abroad when news of its secret PRISM surveillance program to monitor emails and other person information is leaked. (Welt)
    • The Wall Street Journal reveals the National Security Agency's monitoring of American citizens includes credit-card transactions and customer records from the three major phone networks. (The Wall Street Journal)
    • Democratic Senator Joe Manchin calls on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over the U.S. Department of Justice's seizure of journalist phone records. (TPM)
    • The Guardian reveals U.S. President Barack Obama ordered a list of foreign targets for cyber-attacks "to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging". Obama's order also authorizes hits on foreign nations without their government's consent. (The Guardian)
    • U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper denounces the revelations of government surveillance into civilian lives as "reprehensible". (The Guardian)
    • British Prime Minister David Cameron is urged to launch an investigation into allegations that the UK's electronic listening post GCHQ had access to data from the program. (BBC)
  • Richard Ramirez, a prolific American serial killer during the 1980s, dies on death row from liver failure. (Reuters)
  • Ariel Castro, the man accused of kidnapping 3 Cleveland, Ohio women is indicted on 329 charges, including 2 counts of murder. (CBS News)
  • Cambodia passes a controversial law that makes it illegal to deny atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] China bus fire

edit
Article: Xiamen bus fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 47 people are killed and 33 others are injured in a bus fire in Xiamen, China. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 47 people are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China, including the suspected arsonist
News source(s): USA Today BBC Sky News Daily Mail Businessweek
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The news articles/sources I provided above are the ones that say at least 42 people died and 33 others injured. Other news sources are covering this story like CNN and Xinhua, but they report a lower death and injury count (because that was the official number of deaths confirmed when they reported the story). There was also another bus accident in Himachal Pradesh, so maybe if this bus accident is not ITN worthy by itself, a combined blurb with both bus accidents could be posted. Andise1 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to excuse me but unless you have a crystal ball you can not know about this events enduring notability, it happened today for godsake.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that's why we shouldn't even have an article on it, per NEVENT. Events need to show enduring notability before articles are to be created. And as all the sources are saying, there was a bus fire, people couldn't get out, they died. Tragic, but what else from an encyclopedic point of view could this be about? --MASEM (t) 00:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tragic but not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Let me be blunt - we virtually always post disasters with a death toll this high, and it would undoubtedly get posted if it happened in the US, UK or another Western country. That is for good reason - disaster that kill scores of people need no further notability than that. They are regarded as highly notable and get media attention because we place a high value on human life. That some people here get sick of them is irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have done so, but I believe we need to raise the bar drastically on fires and accidents which don't include buildings or people or other entities who are already notable. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Death toll does not equate to notability. Accidents happen. They may affect a large number of people with little recourse to fix. We are not a newspaper (that's Wikinews' job), we're an encyclopedia and ITN needs to reflect stories that will stay in the encyclopedia, not on what the media is widely reporting. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it seems to have been a criminal/terrorist act. But that needs confirmation. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to have been a criminal attack according to multiple news sources: ABC Reuters. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ABC source [51] is saying this was an act of suicide, similar to a 2009 incident. Extremely difficult to qualify as an enduring news topic that needs its own article, much less an ITN here. (it would be far difficult if it was terrorism related but that seems far from the case here.) --MASEM (t) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a multiple homicide than it is a substantially different and probably more notable entity than a large accident. My suspicion is that there won't be enough information in English-language sources (we seem to so far have two wire reports, which have pretty much been exhausted for information) to create a sufficiently substantial article, but we can see how this progresses. --LukeSurl t c 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the blurb should mention it is a suspected crime, but I don't like the form of the current alt-blurb. Naming an otherwise non-notable individual in the blurb seems out of place, and secondly it states for definite what is currently a (well-founded) suspicion. Suggest: "47 people are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China, including the suspected arsonist."
Regardless, I'm not sure there is sufficient detail in English-language sources yet to form a sufficiently in-depth article to warrant posting. This may change of course. --LukeSurl t c 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter what language the sources are in, unless we think someone is falsifying what they say? I have used plenty of sources in at least Russian, German, French, Spanish, and Catalan (and even Vietnamese) to reference articles that have been posted to ITN and RD. There is always Google Translate to confirm the bare facts and gist of a story. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that such sources are potentially useful, just that someone will need to be multilingual to find and use them (any Chinese speakers here?). At this stage we are looking for more detailed facts than Google translate is likely to elucidate. --LukeSurl t c 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to modify the alt-blurb I proposed as necessary, as long as it makes clear this was a deliberate act of violence and not mechanical failure or human error. --IP98 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it. --LukeSurl t c 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with it, but would prefer "47 people, including the suspected perpetrator, are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China.". Personally I don't think we need to link to arsonist in the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this turns out to be a murder-suicide, then absolute support. I'm supporting otherwise, though, because the death toll is quite high. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] PRISM

edit
Article: PRISM (surveillance program) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NSA alleged to use PRISM to mine into google, microsoft, facebook, apple, skype and other user data (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Leaks reveal the US National Security Agency's top-secret PRISM program is collecting domestic phone and internet communications even absent suspected crimes.
News source(s): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data, http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

 EdwardLane (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the US confirmed the existence of a electronic data surveillance program called PRISM while also alleging that the newspaper reports contained many inaccuracies. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be reworded to say something like "google, apple, etc strongy deny complicity in the NSA program of information gathering". I don't like to give the tinfoil hatted folks any ammo, but the various newpaper sources seem to be pushing this pretty hard, and even suggest that the denials are 'forced denials' as part of the contract signed. EdwardLane (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, through can use some rewording. I'd suggest "NSA is accused of". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose US companies comply with US government request to provide information? All the companies have denied providing a "back door", but openly admit cooperation with investigations. Auto-harvest your email == no. Exploited defects in tech company servers == no. This thing seems a lot less sinister after actually reading the article. --IP98 (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having a list of who sent an email to who for everybody is huge for privacy, even if you don't have the email contents, and is actually very sinister. While it is not confirmed by NSA (duh), it seems to be validated enough for all the big newspapers to run with the story, which should make it also good enough for us. Thue (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're wondering about the international reach, this story is making waves in the UK media too (partly because it was the Guardian who revealed it). --LukeSurl t c 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the top news item of the day on several print, broadcast, and internet sources, and the article is in decent shape. --Jayron32 14:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But I would focus the blurb on the fact that the program was publicly revealed, and not so much pointing fingers at the firms involved, given that not all of them have made clear statements as to the nature of their involvement, or at least call them "major Internet communications companies" instead of by name. (They're listed in the article.). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the story is gettin widespread attention. And considering the Guardian broke the story, I'd say it is also garnering international interest. Hot Stop 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My opposition is based on the ultimate fact that this program seems to be legal under US law. Horrifying to many people around the world, yes but the American people voted their leaders into office and by extension voted this into law. There has been no question of illegality (that I can see) with their usage of the data just general upset that it is happening. I do concede that it is gathering international attention in the news. CaptRik (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Legal" but, as most are arguing, likely unconstitutional (most expect this will be at SCOTUS soon enough). Lawmakers pass bills into law all the time but that doesn't make them all constitutional, and if done in secret, no way for the voters to react to this. The mere existence of a giant program with this much data collection is what is causing the international coverage of this, and likely going to be a major news item in the weeks to come as. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll have to forgive me, I don't understand how something can be legal but unconstitutional (I'm not American). If it's likely to become a major news story, should we be considering it now? CaptRik (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Congress and the President can sign bills into law, making them "legal" as part of the US Code of Laws, but there's no point where the law is reviewed against the Constitution and established principles from the Supreme Court. Laws are supposed to be written with the Constitution in mind, but because its a very complex system, some can get missed, while others are done based on various interpretations of the Constitution. Thus this is why the US has the court system, as part of the checks and balances, as to review such laws if they are within bounds of the Constitution. For this, that likely won't be the case for one to two years, so I'm sure this will be in the news much later as well, but right now, the existence of this program is what is groundbreaking; the next few weeks will likely be spin from all sides to try to downplay it, but that's all talking heads and not so much ITN, hence now is the right time for this story. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UK government apparently had access to the Prism data too according to ABC anyway. Not sure that would be legal here, at least an unwarranted breach of privacy if they used it on UK citizens I think EdwardLane (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could reasonably be in the blurb too EdwardLane (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also found this related article but I can't figure out how to add that to the blurb Verizon_Communications#Domestic_Surveillance_in_the_United_States EdwardLane (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Verizon story is mentioned in the PRISM article. We could pipelink telephone in the blurb, but on further thought I don't think mentioning companies in the blurb will work. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altblurb Leaks [1][2] reveal the top-secret[3][4] US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting domestic phone and internet communications[5][6] even absent suspected crimes.[7][8] μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a little too loaded with emotional language. It may be better to say "It is reported that the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM program collected information about many phone and internet communications". --Jayron32 18:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because it wasn't reported, it was leaked. It is also only relevant because of the domestic and non-criminal context--there's nothing controversial about collection of criminal or international data according to US law. The proposed blurb would be like reporting a bank robbery as people walking out of a bank with a withdrawal. The NYT described the Verizon portion of this as the Administration having lost all credibility. My blurb is less "emotional" than that--it expresses the essential facts in an objective manner. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two things are not mutually exclusive. It was definitely reported. All across the front of the Guardian, for one thing. Formerip (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per FormerIP, no one leaked the information to me. Saying it was reported is not incorrect. I learned about it because it was reported. --Jayron32 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unexpected that one has to explain the difference between the government itself reporting something openly and a leaked government secret being reported by the press. I have added some sources (left and right) on the leak and a m prepared to do so on the top secret and without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed parts if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in summary, it was "leaked". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I ever said it wasn't leaked. Medeis is the one who said it wasn't reported. It can have been leaked and reported. If it had been leaked and never reported, we'd still not know about it. I'm still confused why the word "reported" is so offensive... --Jayron32 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reported is correct, since it was "reported" by two newspapers. Hot Stop 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those two papers the Guardian ("Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA"), and the Washington Post ("NSA leak: Source believes exposure, consequences inevitable"), are calling it a leak.
Medeis, as others have suggested, your phrasing appears to spin the story in the direction of "PRISM is bad". If the US Government were writing blurbs, I imagine they might spin it as something like: "Criminal leaks undermine the ability of the PRISM data surveillance network to protect the US from terrorism". Both that version and your version are speaking with a pretty obvious POV. For the purposes of ITN, I think we need a more neutral phrasing. Jayron's suggestion, though quite bland, does have the advantage of not appearing judgmental. Dragons flight (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --Jayron32 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The story here is the leak, not that reporters reported the leak. we don't say that "It is reported there is a hurricane"; we say there is a hurricane. We don't say that it is reported that according to a leak 9to the Guardian and the Wash. Post)"; we say "according to a leak". Had the government reported this in the first place it wouldn't be a story. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Then let's say "Leaks reveal the US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting information about phone and internet communications." --Jayron32 4:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
We could leave out top secret, but not warrantless or its equivalent, otherwise the response to the blurb is "So what?"I restored my original nesting sequence because my two comments were not related and were in response to two separate issues
How about "Leaks reveal the US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting information about domestic phone and internet communications without warrants"? μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaks from the U.S. National Security Agency reveal the PRISM program of (warrantless) domestic telephone and internet surveillance. --LukeSurl t c 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I thought there were warrants of a sort; I thought they did go to the FISA courts and request and receive explicit permission for the surveillance. I see where you are going here, but warrantless implies they did so without any authorization; part of the story seems to be that there was a secret authorization. At least, that's my understanding of this. --Jayron32 21:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a potential issue with "domestic". The Director of National Intelligence emphasized that programs authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States". It appears, that PRISM is intended to target the information on US servers of foreign nationals and their contacts. It is the latter part where it gets ugly, since if the reporting is accurate, then as they target foreigners they also catch large swaths information about US citizens who happen to have indirect associations with targeted foreigners. The separate Verizon story is a bit different since that appears to involve all domestic communications. However, PRISM (at least according to the US Gov) still aims primarily to target foreigners. Dragons flight (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to post this, but see the discussion on the blurb is still on-going. The blurb I was going to post was:

The US National Security Agency's PRISM programe is revealed to surveil user data from major technology companies.

--RA (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the need to neutralize the blurb, but it feels that there's nothing gripping about this particularly if you're not in the US. Just as a suggestion, would a blurb that mentions the reaction from civil liberties groups (perhaps even a quote) remain neutral enough while stressing why this is an ITN item? --MASEM (t) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to "sex up" the story any more. The story is of interest of all users of Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, DropBox and Facebook services irrespective of where they come from. --RA (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where this is "gripping" is irrelevant: see the guidlines above on national relevance with which we are all familiar. That it is gripping is quite clear, although we can clarify for those unfamiliar with English common law and the US Constitution on the subject. Read the Fourth Amendment on the issue at hand:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And read the editorial of the New York Times which twice endorsed Obama for election:

"President Obama’s Dragnet" By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers....
Those reassurances have never been persuasive....
The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act...was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.
Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system....

μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When will it be posted? It's 8 June now. New worl (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. In the mean time, we'll be working out a well-written blurb to make sure we get it right. Right and later is better than wrong and now. --Jayron32 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have been posted by now, regardless of the issue of the best blurb. ...I am not interested in half a dead baby. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support a speedy posting also. I'd like the Verizon phone records story in the blurb also, but if it can't be figured out soon let's post what we have on PRISM. Get it moving, please. Jusdafax 05:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as an important, world-changing news story (in the sense that people will behave differently online). Perhaps the phone snooping revelation could be added? Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is the above really true? If it is there's a lot of fools out there. I began using email in 1989. We were told back then to regard an email as being as private as a postcard. When did people begin to think they had privacy on the Internet? If this is posted the blurb should read "Fools around the world finally realise that the Internet isn't private!" HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd better fix it. Right now it says "...is revealed as is revealed as..." HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me. But fixed now. --RA (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what, pray, are those huge consequences? HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing? Thought so. No reason to post really. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting the supreme court authorizes collection of DNA from anyone in police custody and it's "yawn, boring, USA is behind the times", but Facebook responds to a court order to surrender your friends list and it's "OMFG post this tyranny right now". Comedy. --IP98 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date: Why is this filed under June 5 in the template? --LukeSurl t c 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the revelation, as reported in the article, happened on 5 June. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not give a June 5 date: "PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013". The {{cite-web}} in the article for [52] mistakenly had a June 5 date marked - I have corrected this. --LukeSurl t c 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article says, "Disclosure of the Prism program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers." Please "correct" back, and place blurb illustrated at head of template. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaked to the Guardian on Wednesday, reported by the Guardian on Thursday. This being made known to the public is the story. --LukeSurl t c 23:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The act featured in the blurb is that it was revealed. It was revealed on Wednesday. Kevin McE (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, if it took the Guardian a week to prepare the story it would have been "stale" and unable to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that had been the case, then we could have build a blurb around a different event: made public or allegations published. But they didn't delay, we don't have those actions as the key event of the blurb, and your point is moot. It is simply untrue to state that the revelation occurred on 6 June. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

edit
June 6, 2013 (2013-06-06) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and election

[Posted] International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award

edit
Articles: City of Bohane (talk · history · tag) and Kevin Barry (author) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The novel City of Bohane written by Kevin Barry wins the 2013 International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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: ITN/R literary award. --LukeSurl t c 16:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Anyone read it? Also there's a lot of reviews and stuff one can find by googling "City of Bohane". I may do some work on this tomorrow if I can. --LukeSurl t c 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I started the stub - I've not read the book (yet!) and have only ever started a handful (half-a-dozen at most) stubs on books so I'm probably no good at expanding I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Esther Williams

edit
Article: Esther Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wash Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Crossover in terms of a notable athlete and film star. However, death was not sorta unexpected (91 at time), and I suspect the name is not well recognized to younger people. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The update is just under snuff, but I am working on it. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mother has recounted at least a dozen times over the years how she used to walk home from school, backwards, pretending to be Williams doing the backstroke. So, if I didn't get this posted.... μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Tom Sharpe

edit
Article: Tom Sharpe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known English author. Porterhouse Blue is probably his best-known work. --LukeSurl t c 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a weird oppose. There seems to be only one living writer mentioned in that section. Are you saying that no-one else should be considered for RD? Formerip (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. My rule of thumb test for notability in a certain field (especially for a person I'm not familiar with) is to see how their mentioned in Wikipedia coverage of that field. Although it has worked well in the past (especially with musicians), this rule clearly falls short here and I've struck my oppose. SpencerT♦C 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree, was he a best seller, or an awardee? The obits I have read said his friends found him funny and generous. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Ruairi O Bradaigh

edit
Stale, no consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ruairi O Bradaigh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The Guardian, RTE News, Irish Independent; The Irish Times; BBC, 7seizh, shannonside
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
  • Comment Ruairi Obradaigh was once the president of Sinn Féin. He was also a former IRA chief of staff. According to The Irish Times, Ruari was "a 80-year-old described by successor as a ’towering figure'". BBC says, "Veteran Irish republican and former president of Sinn Féin, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, has died aged 80. The Guardian refers to Ruairi as "One of Irish republicanism's most longstanding hardliners". Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was also President of Sinn Fein and an IRA leader, before the split. Neljack (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposer's first/main point is that he was the founder, which he was not. Hard to judge the impact of his death when you can't even get straight what it is he's supposed to be notable for. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support founder or not == irrelevant. President of Sinn Féin for 13 years during the troubles. There are several large unreferenced paragraphs in the body. --IP98 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly and unenthusiastically support. The article needs flagging for such issues as use of unreliable sources, and failure to mention relevant facts like RSF's negligable electoral support, etc... (But I'm not sufficiently enthusiastic to want to write and defend those flags myself). And the proposer was mistaken when originally describing him as founding Sinn Fein, and raises seeming irrelevancies such as him being described as a 'towering figure' by his successor (unnamed by the proposer, perhaps because almost nobody has ever heard of Des Dalton, his successor as RSF President, although, for all I know or care, he might instead be referring to Gerry Adams, his successor as President of Provisional Sinn Fein, and the latest member of the long list of 'betrayers of the Republic' in the eyes of hardliners like O'Bradaigh). Consequently it would be helpful to see the proposed wording before being any firmer in my support. It would also seem rather weirdly parochial to me if his death is deemed notable while that of China's Chen Xitong (see discussion on him below) is not. But the fact remains that O'Bradaigh was an important figure in the emergence of Provisional Sinn Fein and Provisional IRA in 1969-1970, and thus in the deaths of about 3,500 Irish and British people in The Troubles over the next 30 years or so (deaths of which perhaps half are directly attributable to the Provisional IRA). Thus unfortunately he seems notable, even though, at least in my view, Ireland and Britain might well have been slightly happier places if he had never been born (we can't be sure - the Provos would probably have come into existence anyway without his help, but much the same - 'if he didn't do it, somebody else probably would have' - can presumably be said about many (and perhaps most) 'notable' people).

Initial suggested wording (please improve and shorten as you see fit):

Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, hardline Irish Republican leader, and an important figure in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1969-1970, which killed approximately half of about 3,500 Irish and British people killed in the Northern Ireland Troubles over subsequent decades.

Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry about wrongly stating that Ruairi was the founder of Sinn Fein. I nominated this death while doing a few other things so I must not have been fully paying attention when I wrote my comment above. I corrected my statement in my above comment. Andise1 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my contributions in the light of your amendment. And by the way, my apologies for probably being somewhat over the top in my criticism. Do you happen to know whether the 'towering figure' comment is by Dunlop or Adams or somebody else? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD based on the coverage noted above and what I can find in news searches. He's being given attention by the news in that there are reasonable-length obituaries. Seems to be evidence the news considers his death noteworthy by that. --Jayron32 17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is problematic, as mentioned, and presents a wall of text lacking subheads making some sections unclear and overlong. Not in office at time of death, not shown to be terribly important, and walking away in '86 seems more about retaining power than actually founding anything. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that nothing he did in 1986 makes him genuinely notable. Any case for his notability seemingly rests on what he did (along with others) in 1969-1970. And somebody would probably need to at least add Multiple Issues flags to the article before the proposal can be accepted. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Prime Minister of Pakistan

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Nawaz Sharif (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nawaz Sharif is elected by the National Assembly as Prime Minister of Pakistan, following the PML (N)'s victory in the 2013 general election. (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sharif took oath on 5th of June and is officially the Prime Minister now. --Mar4d (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was about the results of the general election. The Prime Minister gets elected after the general election takes place. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal for government formation occurs a little time after elections, and we don't post that. The elections that ITN covers are ones where the electorate votes, rather than these votes by elected representatives. This seems more of a procedural step following Sharif's party's victory - he's effectively been "prime minister elect" since the election. --LukeSurl t c 09:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Nawaz wasn't "prime minister elect" as his party did not win a(n absolute) majority of seats, the election of the prime minister occurred right after the election and there was no long and drawn out negotiations as in what happened in the Netherlands so in cases like this ITN usually doesn't post who becomes the prime minister. –HTD 09:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know many people here oppose posting government formations, but to my mind they are of similar notability to elections where no party has won a majority: the election determines the composition of the Parliament, but then government formation negotiations are required to determine the composition of the government. Unless one doesn't regard the composition of the government as important, it would seem that the government formation should qualify too where no party has won an election majority. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has ITN posted the Italian government formation lately? The result there can be a good precedent to this one, although that was still longer than this one. –HTD 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we posted the (sham) "election" of the Chinese premiere by their national assembly, even after posting his installation as dictator by the politburo. That was a mistake. Most commonly, the leader of the party or coalition with the most votes becomes the Prime Minister. Pretty standard parliamentary fare, actually. We don't post the Canadian PM when appointed by the governor general, nor the US president when elected by the electoral college, so there is really no reason to post this. --IP98 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose foregone conclusion, no double dipping. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one post per election is enough except in the rare cases (e.g. Italy) where there is a hung government and the selection of a prime minister changes the balance of power. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IP98 Hot Stop 02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 5

edit
June 5, 2013 (2013-06-05) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted] Former Slovenian PM convicted of corruption

edit
Articles: Janez Janša (talk · history · tag) and Patria case (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša is convicted of corruption in an arms deal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša is convicted for 2 years in prison for corruption in an arms deal.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Probably the largest case in the country in the last 20 years of so. The article needs to be updated but I'm busy at the moment and I can't do it properly. The sources are abundant, though. --Tone 05:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 331dot is "per Neljack", does that make this SupportQLS=Neljack+(Neljack2) ?
Still not terribly clear. One is convicted of an offence, and sentenced to prison time. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated now. Marking ready (since I nominated it, I will not post myself). To back the notability, Janša was ousted as a PM a couple of months ago and a substantial number of politicians in Slovenia claim that the trial was politically motivated. Also, if the verdict holds the appeal, this will be the highest-ranking politician in the country being convicted. There's also a photo available. --Tone 08:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a slightly modified version of the altblurb, cleaned up for clarity and grammar. I did not link the Patria case article because it is not updated, and some of the material there directly contradicts the current news. --Jayron32 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A post-closure comment/proposal: The item should be removed from the Main Page, because it is or could be perceived as defamatory. It gives the impression that the guy is a criminal, however, as the Slovene Minister of Justice has stated:[54] as long as the verdict is not final, Janša is considered innocent. Per WP:BLP, accusing or insinuating that people are criminals, on the Main Page or for that matter anywhere else, without this having been legally established is to be avoided. In addition, even if the judgement becomes binding, a number of appeals will follow and the conviction will most probably be changed or overturned in the end. This makes its role relatively minor (see also the talk at sl:Pogovor:5. junij). --Eleassar my talk 10:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone is innocent until the sentence is final, said the Assembly for the Republic, a right-leaning outfit with close ties to Janša." [source]
I don't know whether this is related to the comment to which you've referred. On my talk page and in the message above, you stated that the concept is separate from any appeals, but news articles (including one that you added to the article as a source) explain the opposite.
My understanding is that Janša has been formally convicted by a court of law and plans to appeal the ruling. This doesn't mean that the verdict is tentative or unofficial. It means that it could be overturned by a higher court (assuming that one agrees to hear an appeal, which isn't guaranteed). Unless I'm overlooking some fundamental difference between the Slovenian legal system and others in which appeals are possible, this seems like a typical criminal conviction. —David Levy 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN item states a) he has been convicted and b) he has been sentenced to two years in prison. Both these points are borne out by the sources, and are a fair reflection of what has happened. The blurb says nothing about whether he is actually guilty of the crimes, or whether appeals are possible. As David Levy says above, appeals are a normal part of legal procedure. The fact that they are possible does not change the facts that Jansa has a) been convicted and b) been sentenced, which is what the ITN blurb reports. There's no need to modify it. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I find it disturbing that an administrator would unilaterally remove a story from T:ITN without proper discussion, especially when they had not previously been involved in ITN. That was clearly inappropriate use of the admin tools. Modest Genius talk 11:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion and the opinion of the majority of editors from the Slovene Wikipedia who have commented at the above-linked page, the significance of this event has not been established yet. I guess if the verdict will be overruled in the end, this won't be reported at the Main Page. Therefore, just a media hype and negative publicity for someone whose guilt has not been finally established by courts yet and is therefore still considered innocent, which he may well also remain after the case is closed. It is biased, sensational and undisputably not in the spirit of WP:BLP to report about someone's conviction without stating that the judgement is far from the final and that he is still considered innocent.
As to the editing of the Main Page: my apologies for the inappropriate use of the editing rights. No admin tools were involved. It will not happen again. I acted in good faith. --Eleassar my talk 12:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely post ITN items about high-ranking politicians being convicted of major crimes. Such convictions are routinely appealed.
You claimed that a different process was ongoing (and seemed to state that the original trial was not actually complete). This, evidently, is not so. Janša has been convicted and intends to file an appeal with a higher court. (If his conviction were to be overturned, I believe that this event would be suitable for inclusion in ITN.)
I find it disconcerting that an administrator could be ignorant of the fact that editing a fully protected page involves an admin tool. I know that you're aware of the page's protection, as you mentioned it on my talk page (in the context of your expectation that it would cascade to the Commons image that you transcluded). —David Levy 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The case is not complete as the defendant can and will file an appeal. Therefore, this is not a final judgement yet and the blurb should not give the impression that it is. What I have had in mind is that editing a protected page doesn't mean I used an admin tool. The sentence: "That was clearly inappropriate use of the admin tools." is therefore incorrect. Of course I know that only admins can edit a fully protected page, however I don't regard this as a tool. --Eleassar my talk 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The case is not complete as the defendant can and will file an appeal.
I wrote that you "seemed to state that the original trial was not actually complete" (emphasis added).
Janša has been convicted and sentenced. His ability to appeal (and possibly have the conviction overturned) doesn't change that.
Therefore, this is not a final judgement yet and the blurb should not give the impression that it is.
I don't see how it does. We're simply stating that Janša has been convicted and sentenced. As discussed above, it's common for an appeal to follow.
What I have had in mind is that editing a protected page doesn't mean I used an admin tool. The sentence: "That was clearly inappropriate use of the admin tools." is therefore incorrect. Of course I know that only admins can edit a fully protected page, however I don't regard this as a tool.
I'm baffled as to what you do regard as an admin tool and what distinction you're drawing. —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb gives the impression that it is something final, because it doesn't state which court did sentence him. In fact it states (by ommission): he has been convicted and sentenced (and that is just it). If a visitor reads the article he will find out that it doesn't tell an important fact: the case is far from concluded. Many visitors will not read the article. A passing reader would therefore have no reason to think otherwise than "just another corrupt politician". I personally think this may be true, however firmly believe that the principles of the BLP policy should be followed as much as it is possible. Janša has been convicted and sentenced, but this may turn out to be unimportant in the long run, and therefore reporting about it is sensational and brings negative publicity to the man who should still be considered innocent.. As to the distinction, you don't need a special page or a special button to edit protected pages. --Eleassar my talk 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the blurb implies that the decision is final. As discussed above, it's extremely common (in many countries) for an appeal to follow a conviction and sentencing, which we routinely report at this stage. As Modest Genius noted, we aren't deeming Janša guilty. We're referring to a factual occurrence widely reported around the world.
I also disagree that "this may turn out to be unimportant in the long run". Based upon the articles that I've read, Janša's supporters and detractors agree that his conviction is a major embarrassment (for different reasons, of course). Even if overturned, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be forgotten or considered minor.
I agree, however, that it would be irresponsible to ignore such an outcome at ITN. I would support the inclusion of an item about his conviction being overturned, assuming that the article is updated properly.
The absence of "a special page or a special button to edit protected pages" is immaterial. The assertion was that you misused a nonstandard ability that you possess because you're an administrator. But I don't wish to belabor this point. —David Levy 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the blurb is to remain, I propose that the following sentence is added to put the conviction in a context: "The judgement is not final yet." --Eleassar my talk 13:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be less misleading to state that the conviction is subject to appeal. But as discussed above, this is nothing out of the ordinary. What's special about this case? —David Levy 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is what the ITN section is for, "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". Convictions of high-ranking politicians are often posted, even if the ruling is later overturned. Actually, I believe we always post the first-level verdicts in such cases. I see you've added some more content to the article which I find good and explainatory. Other than that, I hope my update reflected that the verdict was not final yet and that the opinions of the people differed a lot regarding the case. Regarding the discussion at the Slovene WP page, that one is whether to include the event on the list of historical anniversaries, which is a completely different thing. Regarding the blurb changes, if changed, it would be better to say "in the first level" or something like this. --Tone 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the reference, we posted the conviction of Ivo Sanader last year when it was the first-level verdict as well. (Former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader is sentenced to 10 years in prison for corruption.) (Coincidently, I was the posting admin but the consensus has been reached without my contribution). --Tone 13:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think (per above) it would be more in line with WP:BLP to only post final judgements. --Eleassar my talk 14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that we should wait until no further appeals are possible? —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, probably this would not make sense. However, the least that can be done (in such cases) is to write it clearly in the article that the judgement is not final and that the guy remains presumed innocent. --Eleassar my talk 20:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of innocence isn't a typical element of a first-level conviction. When you introduced this topic, I searched for reliable English-language sources of such a claim and found only the aforementioned statement by "a right-leaning outfit with close ties to Janša". I also viewed a machine translation of this article (which you've cited), but the relevant portions were barely comprehensible (due to poor translation). —David Levy 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case it is and it should had been written in the article before the item was published on the Main Page. If you think my translation is incorrect or you are not sure, please point it out at the talk page of the corresponding article. On the other hand, you may ask Tone who also speaks Slovene. See also here (Article 27 of the Slovene Constitution). I guess that the Slovene Constitution is not so special to be the only one including such a clause, therefore it would make sense to verify this in the future in similar cases before such a blurb appears on the Main Page. (By the way, thanks for having removed the duplicated text yesterday. My computer crashed just when I wanted to save the page without it, so I was not able to remove it myself.) --Eleassar my talk 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that link, which is very helpful. The question is whether this constitutes a material distinction. (In other words, should it affect how/whether we report a high-ranking politician's first-level criminal conviction at ITN?) —David Levy 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Archicebus

edit

Article: Archicebus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Oldest known primate skeleton, Archicebus, discovered near Jingzhou, in the southern Hubei Province of China.

The oldest known primate skeleton, Archicebus, dating to 55 million years ago, was discovered in China. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The recently discovered Archicebus achilles is described as the oldest known primate.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC News, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the oldest fossil primate skeleton uncovered, and provides very crucial details about early primate evolution, including the origins of monkeys, apes, and humans. I will be adding more detailed content over the next day or so. – Maky « talk » 04:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alt blurb. I was falling asleep last night when I nominated this. (I'm just glad I didn't have to go through the DYK process in that condition!) My only comment is that the specimen is the oldest known skeleton. There are highly fragmentary (and very debatable) fossils that are slightly older. Hopefully when I get home tonight I'll have time to mention them in the article. – Maky « talk » 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. The altblurb reads to me as if this is an extant, living primate. --LukeSurl t c 11:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kandahar massacre

edit
No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kandahar massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U.S. Staff Sergeant Robert Bales pleads guilty to 16 counts of premeditated murder during the Kandahar massacre. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: "Final" resolution to one of 2012's biggest stories & at or near the very top of the headlines on most sites I visit. Kandahar massacre is a recognized Good Article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Kandahar massacre seems to be an important enough event for this to be notable, compared to other similar events; one of the unfortunately more-notable events by our U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This appears to have been one of the most-covered individual incidents related to the war, and an actual conviction for one individual accused of so many deaths does seem notable enough to include. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What makes this "final"? Someone pleading guilty is obviously a major step, but proceedings will obviously continue. And guilt pleas aren't always final anyway. People have been known to plead guilty for many reasons, not all of them to do with actual guilt. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Final" is in quotes because, yes it is not technically over - there will be a sentencing phase in August. However, that is just to decide between life in prison w/parole or w/o parole. It's a military trial, so it doesn't work quite like a civil trial. This is essentially the verdict stage (which is normally when we'd post a trial that we deemed worth posting) - the plea can't be withdrawn or anything like that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This was an event with international implications, and his guilty plea is sure to be big in Afghanistan as well as around the world. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume "Sargent" is supposed to be "Sergeant", though do correct me if it's an Americanism that I'm not aware of! Neljack (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be indeed be "Sergeant" in the U.S., referring to rank. The only exception I can think of is Sargent Shriver, a proper name (and perhaps the source of occasional confusion.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected --LukeSurl t c 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The case isn't over yet. I'd recommend waiting until he's actually sentenced.--Giants27(T|C) 10:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Seems to be the point in the case of peak media interest. --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose spree killers being convicted are rarely ITN candidates. We didn't do one when the guy who shot the judge and congressman took a plea, either - and no doubt we won't when there's a conviction in the theater killings - did we even do one for the conviction or sentence for the guy who killed dozens in Norway? is there a POV being pushed? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the basis for this claim is, but in fact the verdict phase is precisely what we normally post in high profile trials. I am not aware of any specific "spree killer" that wasn't posted, but I'm sure some haven't been nominated. I would be extremely surprised if the Aurora conviction is not posted. No POV is being pushed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been marked ready for >36 hours (when the !vote was 4-1, now 4-2 with fairly weak opposition). I guess this is going to be another nom that dies only because no admin looked at it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are plenty of people convicted of ethnic cleansing/war crimes we have not posted. This pea-deal needs a better rationale, doesn't it? μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Chen Xitong

edit
Stale. SpencerT♦C 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chen Xitong (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mayor of Beijing during the Tiananmen Square massacre, and thus well known internationally --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article says, without source, that Chen was notable as a loyal follower of Deng Xiaoping (and a good student) and served as a scapegoat for Tian An Men. It is written almost as if it were a PRC press release as regards to POV, and in very poor English to boot. (It needs at least three orange tags.) I am clueless as to the rationale here, Chen not being of any grand importance, and neither a leader or even dictatorial suppressor of the student revolt. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good, out-of-the blue, unreferenced sample sentence: "It was later revealed that Chen's embezzlement was a relatively low amount in comparison to other corrupted cadres who embezzled much more but were left unscathed in the so-called anti-corruption campaigns." μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry to lay this on so thick, but the article says he died on the 2nd, not the 5th. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He died Sunday, but it wasn't announced until today, so the article is right on that point. No dispute from me on the article's very poor shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not involved with the actual Tien An Men events other than being named as a scapegoat. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support His status as a former mayor of the capital of one of the world's two most important countries is notable, his scapegoating is notable, and his death is thus also notable, as the New York Times correctly recognises. The fact that our article is a bad article is regretable, but the faults of the article are clearly flagged in the many notices at its start, and readers are entitled to see Wikipedia as it is, warts and all - otherwise we're in some ways worse censorers than the PRC, since unlike them we can't claim that we honestly believe that our censorship of our warts is necessary to prevent the millions of deaths that may occur in China if ending censorship were to lead to yet another Chinese revolution. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one would ever have heard of him if not for Tian An Men. He has no notability beyond that and its repercussions. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'No one' seems a strange and even rather disturbing way to describe a significant fraction of over a billion Chinese. Some of them may even look up English Wikipedia when they have the chance. The omission may even remind some of them of what they were taught at school about Western contempt for Chinese people ('Dogs and Chinese not allowed in this park', etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the day of June 4 1989 canoeing the Delaware river in upstate New York with a graduate student from China whom I will not name and whose father died during the cultural revolution and who wept all day long and part of it in my arms. So you can drop the silly,if not pernicious, claims of bias. Nevertheless, had the massacre not occurred, I am quite sure Chen's name would be unknown by 99% of Chinese. Regardless of that, the article is a huge mess, and if you want it posted it could use your attention. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if what I wrote upset you. But I have not the slightest intention of trying to fix the article (except perhaps to spell out who Jiang Zemin actually is - see below), since I would be completely unable to fix it (though putting it on In The News will greatly improve the chances of others fixing it). But despite its faults and inevitable questions over its reliability (which quite likely also apply to anything from so-called reliable sources about Chinese politics), I found it to be one of the most interesting and informative things I have read on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) in quite some time, and I strongly recommend it to anybody else who like me is vaguely interested in China, but poorly informed about it. And since it states that he was on the Politburo and a rival to Deng's successor Jiang Zemin, it makes him significantly more notable than I had first realised (in US and world terms he would thus arguably be roughly equivalent to Bill Clinton's opponent Bob Dole), and for reasons which have seemingly little or nothing to do with Tien An Men (though even if he were only notable because of Tien An Men that does not seem a particularly good reason for not mentioning him). Once again, I regret if what I wrote upset you, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that you intended no disrespect to Chinese people, but that does not alter the fact that what you wrote came across as rather disrespectful, even though that was not your intention. Regardless of how traumatic has been your personal history (whose relevance here is not particularly clear to me, except to suggest that your emotions may well be clouding your judgment on the issue, especially regarding the notability of a man who was seemingly at least in some small part responsible for a massacre that traumatised you), if only 1% of Chinese had heard of him (which is academic since clearly far more now have), that would still be more than twice the population of my own country, and, unless I'm also 'silly' for not regarding my own people as 'no one' too, I stand over every word of the 'silly' things I supposedly wrote in my previous post. However I've wasted enough time on this discussion, so please feel free to have the last word if you wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I said was silly was claiming my opposition to the article being posted was based on bias. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article does not reasonably cover any rationale for including this. There is no indication of why this individual was notable, past being a former mayor of a large city removed on corruption charges 18 years ago. (And in a country where the political and legal climate is very different than most English-speaking countries, thus especially needing additional rationale.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It already stated he was a member of the Politburo, effectively a member of the government of one of the most important countries on Earth, and that he was a rival to Jiang Zemin. It now also spells out that his rival Jiang Zemin was China's ruler. That seems rather notable to me. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I suggested that as a defeated rival of former President Jiang Jemin, in world terms he was roughly comparable to Bill Clinton's opponent Bob Dole. But in many ways this understates his notability. After all, Bob Dole is not arguably at least partly responsible for a notorious massacre, was not jailed under Bill Clinton and then released early under George W Bush, was never mayor of his country's capital, and was not part of an unelected government that ruled over more than a billion people (and so on...). The fact that most of us have heard of Dole but not of Chen is itself rather interesting, and arguably the sort of thing that Wikipedia ought to be doing its bit to try to remedy (but presumably isn't going to try, judging by the views being expressed by most people here). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Battle of al-Qusayr

edit
Article: Battle of al-Qusayr (2013) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Syrian Civil War, government forces retake the town of Al-Qusayr. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Al-Jazeera
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Important development in the conflict, highly strategic town. --LukeSurl t c 07:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see Reuters quote a rebel statement confirming their withdrawal from the town. If that's true, I will support. Neljack (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article linked above says "Syrian pro-government forces have taken full control of the strategic town of Qusair, state TV and the rebels say." Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once updated. Per nom. Quote from article "[t]he battle has been described as a decisive one, which will determine the outcome of the war." Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question almost every Syria article I see refers to "Rebel activists". It seems highly POV, these rebels are soldiers fighting against another army. I'm thinking to orange tag the article unless someone can tell me why I'm wrong. --IP98 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited out the two instances of that phrase in this article. --LukeSurl t c 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, with Syrian Civil War articles, given the real-world situation, we're going to have to accept a fairly high degree of latitude with Wikipedia:PERFECTION. There's a lot of information, and a lot of it is partisan in origin. I suspect it will be about a year after the conflict ends before this suite of articles will be decently cleaned up. LukeSurl t c 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support came here to nominate it to. Looks like the war is nearly won. Govt reports o winning and opposite of withdrawal by each party. Perhaps add after a surprise night time raid.
In the early days of the article I worked on it and changed the title. But have not seen the current state of update to comment on that.Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

edit
June 4, 2013 (2013-06-04) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] Jairo Maro

edit
Article: Death of Jairo Mora Sandoval (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Costa Rican environmentalist Jairo Mora Sandoval is murdered when attempting to protect leatherback sea turtle nests from poachers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After Jairo Mora Sandoval is murdered protecting leatherback sea turtle nests, the Costa Rican government opens talks with environmental groups on reforming the nation's environmental policy.
News source(s): IndependentBBCNY TimesAP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: How often does the death of a Costa Rican in Costa Rica get covered in the major newspapers of the US and UK? I would say just about never, which would say this is a pretty exceptional murder. Its a really big story in Central America (i.e. getting lots of Spanish language press) and has trickled into English media. No idea how ITN will feel about posting this, so I thought I'd find out. An RD listing wouldn't make any sense to me since the murder is the story, so consider the nomination full blurb or nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider DYK if its a new articleLihaas (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I don't really read Spanish all that well, so I don't know how to search through sources which may be covering this, but the above stories show barely enough depth for me to give this a weak support on the coverage; the article is in decent shape and I can't find any obvious faults with it. I would drop the weak from my support if we could be shown some Spanish language sources which cover this in sufficient depth. While I don't read Spanish all that well, I think I could get the gist of how well this is being covered if shown those sources. If we could get something like that, maybe major national news sources in Costa Rica or something like that, that would be very helpful in helping make up my mind more definitively on this. --Jayron32 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While this looks interesting, a primary rationale of "we don't post enough non-US/UK stuff" isn't very swaying. While I actually agree with that point, it should serve to post fewer US-centric stories, not post more stories from other areas that don't seem particularly notable. Unfortunately, I don't find the death of one person over a semi-routine issue all that notable. Maybe I'm biased from over-reliance on coverage by English-language sources, but I don't think "sea-turtle-protecting environmentalist murdered in California" would be notable enough either, without some sort of larger reason to include it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't actually post very many US-centric items. Spend a lot of time debating them to death, sure, but most don't get posted. That wasn't the rationale - the rationale is that it is getting a lot of press coverage (which doesn't happen to be in English). And I don't think opposing worthy items is the way to combat bias - the way to combat bias is to nominate items from other cultures. No where in the ITN rules does it say "a story must cause some sort of immediately obviously long-time effect on an international level", nor should it. Indeed, the vast majority of what we post only has importance because we (or the media) decide it does... The reason this murder is important is because the media has decided its important. Is the Pistorius case inherently important? No, it is important because the media decided it is important. The same rationale applies here. The fact that it is Spanish media instead of English media, should not matter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point does make sense, and indeed I haven't seen too many US-centric items posted; though it seems to lean in that direction somewhat. (And ITN/C does seem to do a decent job of rejecting a lot of them; I'm a bit new at actually participating in ITN/C vs just seeing what gets posted on the main page.) But my point stands, as for one single environmentalist being killed for his cause. I'm not convinced by the "lots of media coverage" angle; I haven't seen any rationale for why the English-language press coverage actually makes this notable, past being one of many stories that our media occasionally does latch onto a bit. There's obviously a bit of WP:OR to contend with as far as whether a story is newsworthy just due to its coverage in English-language sources, which was more my point; just because something got picked up by certain press doesn't necessarily make it notable. A more compelling argument would be links to major Spanish outlets covering this as a major story, I suppose, and demonstrating why it's a major story of any true significance, past just that certain media outlets deemed it so without necessarily stating why. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The UN has now released a statement about the murder: [62]. The US embassy did so previously. The story remains at the top of Costa Rican media 5 days later. [63][64][65][66] La Nacion has now written about 10 stories on it. CRHoy has 15 stories. The CR government started talks with environmental groups today "to stop the environmental delinquency" of the gov't with Maro's death as the stimulus for talks. [67]. All of that should provide strong evidence this is no ordinary murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support with qualification. After reading the sources (unfortunately, I don't have the time to look at them in depth), I think it may make sense to include this...if you can validly describe the notability of the talks with environmental groups in the blurb, if they did indeed rise to a level of notability as great as the murder, which would then seem to require both to be covered together. E.g., "After Jairo Mora Sandoval is murdered protecting leatherback sea turtle nests, the Costa Rican government [restarted/opened its first/opened/whatever is factual but notable enough] [groundbreaking/significant/whatever] talks with environmental groups." I don't know if this is actually the case, but your only other rationale is that lots of outlets are covering it. My broad interpretation of WP:ITND is that a fairly not-that-well-known field like turtle-nest protection doesn't meet point 2 (because then anyone in any minor field would be eligible; and I don't see that he was seen as important enough in the field of environmentalism itself to be considered for inclusion on that merit), thus one of the other two criteria need to be met. Environmental talks are the only thing you've mentioned along those lines (other than some general reactions that apply to many deaths), but there could be other reasons of notability to support that of the alleged murder. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to June 4 (the date reform talks begin) for further discussion as per User:2001:db8. The Spanish coverage of this latest development (which I am still working on adding to the article) suggests a number of agreements were reached today and that the gov't will fast track the legislation. I will also note that Costa Rica's economy is highly dependent on ecotourism which is part of the reason why this is such a big deal in CR. So we now have a murder that is leading to legislation directly impacting one the primary industries of a nation. Seems pretty significant to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good article that covers this in reasonable detail and documents its impact well. It has clearly attraction international attention, as the UN and Whie House statements indicate. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Neljack just above. Good story with global implications as sea turtle populations are declining worldwide. Jusdafax 07:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Strong oppose blurb First the police haven't officially said it was poachers, it's his boss who said it. Second, even if it were poachers, it's a fairly routine (tragic but routine) murder. The only difference between Mora and Tim Samaras is that Samaras was killed by his work and Mora was killed (probably) doing his work. No blurb needed. --IP98 (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This person is not notable in himself to be listed at RD. The death is notable, which would require a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A full blurb is what is proposed. As I said in the nomination " An RD listing wouldn't make any sense to me since the murder is the story, so consider the nomination full blurb or nothing." --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't think a full blurb would be an actual mistake in the way saying the Hula frog was "identified" as a living fossil is. But I think the murder is less notable than most of our nominations. You can put me at weak oppose to a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the challenge with this item and Tim Samaras is that the notability comes from the death and individual combined: that either on their own (man killed by poachers or environmental activist dies) would never stand a chance. On the other hand, it is a death story in the end. Politicians, athletes, actors and musicians, all much better known, are "relegated" to RD. I stated my position above, but I don't think the supports are wrong either. This is a rare case where the old ITN/DC rules don't quite work, and the lack of RD rules make it hard to decide if this is a fit. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way problematic. The matter was discussed during the various nominations for RD, and the conclusion was that when it is not just a death but a murder or unexpected death the matter would be treated as a newsworthy event in itself with a full blurb. RD is not more fundamental than ITN itself. Deaths like these should be nominated for full blurbs, not for RD as if that's an easier hurdle. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This parallels my own reasoning to call for a full blurb explaining the event. I also oppose it as a RD without a blurb, but would support it with an appropriate blurb per my previous comments. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. There is a consensus to post and it seems to be against the RD. Since the article is strong, full blurb. Also, the Alt blurb is better since we're posting this now. --Tone 05:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hula painted frog

edit
Article: Hula painted frog (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Hula painted frog is declared as a living fossil in Nature Communications. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Hula painted frog, thought to be extinct, is rediscovered in Israel.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I'll leave it to the scientist: "But then we found it was a living fossil: this was amazing." Another nom for positive news. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending update The BBC reports "Tests have revealed". I followed the link to the nature article but I don't have a subscription. The article should cover why it took 2 years from the first re-discovery to the declaration of a living fossil. --IP98 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although not a complete solution to your comment, I've updated the article to at least have the 2013 news story about the re-discovery being published CaptRik (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a species rediscovered, after being previously classified as extinct, satisfies WP:ITN/P #3 --IP98 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems this little frog joins a fairly exclusive group of living fossils. Interesting story. CaptRik (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, it's not a living fossil. Living fossil means it has no close relatives. This frog has many living relatives in its genus, Discoglossus. The story on this frog is that it was thought to have gone extinct back in 1996, until a specimen was collected in 2011. And such findings are common (thankfully). Abductive (reasoning) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, the BBC and Nature Communications are wrong, and you're right. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)You obviously didn't read the story. Yes, it is was thought extinct and then recovered, but that's not the present story. The new finding is that the frog is NOT actually related to the Discoglossus genus but rather to the Latonia (genus), for which no other living examples are known, and hence it is a living fossil. Dragons flight (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article says Discoglossus nigriventer. Abductive (reasoning) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we fix it, right? Or are the BBC and Nature magazine incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, they are incorrect. Don't believe the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, so "Abductive" is a RS but the BBC and Nature aren't? You think a lot of yourself! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wanted to be bold and change the article but I don't know enough about the classifications to know if it's simply a genus change so I haven't risked getting it wrong. CaptRik (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Here are some problems: The genus Latonia is a sister to Discoglossus; [69]. Latonia is known from only 15,000 years ago. Living fossils, according to the Wikipedia article, have no close living relatives and none so recent. Also, morphologically they are supposed to be odd or primitive, such as the Coelacanth or Ginkgo biloba. Quoting from Wikipedia: A subtle difference is sometimes made between a "living fossil" and a "Lazarus taxon". A Lazarus taxon is a taxon (either one species or a group of species) that suddenly reappears, either in the fossil record or in nature (i.e. as if the fossil had "come to life again"), while a living fossil is a species that (seemingly) has not changed during its very long lifetime (i.e. as if the fossil species has always lived). The mean species turnover time (the time a species lasts before it is replaced) varies widely among the phyla, but averages about 2–3 million years. So, a living species that was thought to be extinct (e.g. the coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae) could be called a Lazarus taxon instead of a living fossil. Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record some 80 million years ago (upper Cretaceous). Of course, species do not just appear out of thin air, so all living Lazarus species (excluding disappearing and reappearing red list species) are nonetheless considered living fossils, if it can be shown they are not Elvis taxa. Note that "(excluding disappearing and reappearing red list species)" was not added by me. :) Abductive (reasoning) 20:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So fix them. You claim to be more reliable than the BBC and Nature, so please ensure our encyclopedia is accurate. Otherwise, why would you be here? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, the living fossil article is correct, and you and the BBC are not. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And Nature and the National Geographic? (And shedloads of other prominent RSs). Wow, Abductive, you're incredible! (and for your information, I just cited reliable sources, so it's nothing to do with whether "I'm correct" or not... please). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The authors (who have a COI) can claim that it is a living fossil, but according to the consensus among scientists, it does not meet the definition. All the other sources are blindly following the authors; as it typical with science reporters they don't know their ass from their elbows. Now, if you like I can find secondary sources that will show that science reporters often are wrong. 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • Abductive is correct, this is not a living fossil. There are three suborders within the frog order, Archaeobatrachia, Mesobatrachia, and Neobatrachia, similar in taxonomic distance to that between iguanas, monitors and snakes, although that is a huge simplification. The Hula frog belongs to the least derived group, the Archaeobatrachia. But that doesn't make it a living fossil any more than a among the primates a lemur that was thought to have gone extinct being rediscovered would make it a living fossil. It has other living relations within the same family, the way humans have living chimp and gorilla relatives within the ape family or the giant panda has other bear relatives within the bear family. This is far, far less distinct than the difference between the Ginko or the Coelocanth and their closest relatives, which were distinct from their closest living relatives since long before the dinosaurs went extinct. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Taxonomic ranks are often misleading as regards evolutionary distance. All of superfamily Hominoidea (e.g. humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons) are closer to each other than this frog is to all other living frogs. Similarly, all living members of family Ursidae (e.g. giant pandas and other bears), are also more closely related to each other than this frog is to other living frogs. The fact that Latonia was merely labeled as a different genus is side effect of the morphological similarity to other frogs, but it is not a fair indicator of the genetic distance or time since last common ancestor. Yes, this frog is not as unusual as a Ginko or Coelocanth, but it's also not as similar as discovering a gorilla or a panda bear. Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very rare event; an area of news we don't have often. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the right timing in ITN for this type of discovery (on paper publication), and a rar scientific topic. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pretty obvious. Rare and important event.--Giants27(T|C) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm The main blurb is not in the article and is vehemently objected to by Abductive. The altblurb would make us look silly - the species was rediscovered 1.5+ years ago and the discovery was previously announced. Surely there is another angle we can use in a blurb? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to posting this, but all abductive's points above are correct. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The peer reviewed study in Nature Communications labels this a living fossil on the basis that the split between Latonia and Discoglossus occurred approximately 32 million years ago. That's not as old as a Ginko or a Coelacanth. Nor is it as surprising to find a living member of this genus since fossils were known that are only ~15,000 years old. Even so, it is still remarkable to find a single extant species that is the only known remnant of a split that occurred tens of millions of years ago, and that's why the authors labeled this a living fossil. Obviously, I trust the experts in the field and journal editors' judgment about when to apply the label "living fossil" more than I do the arguments offered by Abductive / Medeis. It's a remarkable find. Of course, the value of this as "news" is still pretty low, but as a diversion from our typical content I think it serves nicely. Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt BlurbIt still remains that the Coelacanth is the only living member of its subclass, having split off from the lung fish in the Devonian over 360 million years ago and the Ginko is the only member of its phylum, or division, while this frog has living relatives so close they were mistaken as co-generic and are still in the same family. An accurate description of the claim made in the article would be "The newly rediscovered Hula painted frog is assigned to the heretofore fossil genus Latonia" which is a bit esoteric. Given the animal was uncontroversially the first amphibian to have been declared extinct, a much better neutral and to most people meaningful blurb would be
The first living amphibian ever declared extinct, the Hula painted frog, is discovered alive in Israel. μηδείς (talk) 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)
I Support this blurb if it is true. Is it really the first living amphibian ever declared extinct? Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's actually much sexier, and totally uncontroversial: "In fact, the Hula painted frog was the first amphibian to officially be declared extinct" -NatGeo. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb The rediscovery of the first amphibian to be declared extinct certainly seems sufficiently notable. Neljack (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Extinct amphibians already lists 29 species, what about them? Brandmeistertalk 11:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt Blurb 3: The rediscovered Hula painted frog, previously thought extinct, is identified as a living fossil. The actual news is that this is a living fossil, i.e. the only extant member of a group of frogs that diverged from all other living groups of frogs roughly 30 million years ago. By itself, the rediscovery of this species is not new. The rediscovery was reported and included in the article back in 2011. Hence the blurb suggested by Medeis and Abductive above doesn't seem appropriate. If we want the blurb to actually report new facts then we need to say that scientists have identified this a "living fossil". Dragons flight (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the rediscovery was published in 2011 then the story is stale, and all we have is a living animal being reassigned to another genus within the same family. That's hardly news. Neither is there any agreed upon definition that would allow it to be officially identified as a living fossil. This is basically us falling for a sensationalist headline the media fell for. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 
We do have the frog picture, unless there is a better one from Syria. --Tone 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support frog picture. The Syria article has no images in it. --IP98 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the similar coloration of the frog and its surroundings, the photograph doesn't work well at 100px. —David Levy 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ User:Tone; The ultimate source of the term "living fossil" is the authors in Nature Communications. All other uses stem from this one instance. Nature Communications own "Aims and scope" page says it uses a "...streamlined peer-review system, together with the support of an Editorial Advisory Panel, allows a team of independent editors to make rapid and fair publication decisions. Prompt dissemination..." and that it "encourages submissions in fields that aren't represented by a dedicated Nature research journal; for example developmental biology, plant sciences, microbiology, ecology and evolution, palaeontology and astronomy. The editors particularly welcome submissions from cross-disciplinary fields, including biophysics, bioengineering, chemical physics and environmental science, although no area is excluded from consideration. In all cases, papers published in Nature Communications will be of high quality, without necessarily having the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals." What this means is that the "peer review" is weak (due to review being done by generalist editors) and sacrifices are made for haste/speed of publication. So it is possible that the term "living fossil" was not properly vetted. Now, one has to weigh the one usage by the authors of the paper (a primary source, and an unreliable/COI one at that) versus the scientific consensus on what differentiates a living fossil from a Lazarus taxon. Regardless if the species was assigned to the wrong genus, it was never a fossil--it was alive in 1955. On that basis alone is is not like the Laotian rock rat or any of the other taxa known from the fossil record and then found to have a living descendant millions of years later. To top it off, the Hula painted frog is so similar to many other living frogs that it fooled experts into classifying it into a closely related genus. So, what has happened here on Wikipedia is use of a primary source, which is okay unless challenged. I am challenging the primary source, and therefore it falls to other users to look at the secondary sourcing. Now, the secondary scientific sourcing on this species is non-existent, but the body of secondary sourcing on what constitutes a "living fossil" is not in favor of the primary source. Accordingly, it is safer to drop "living fossil" from the blurb and perhaps call it a "Lazarus taxon". Abductive (reasoning) 23:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To other editors: Please note that Abductive has taken to removing the claim of being a "living fossil" from the Hula painted frog article in order to replace the judgment of the peer reviewed literature with his own point of view. I reverted him. Dragons flight (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note; this claim that the species is a living fossil is sourced to a primary source, which I am challenging per WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Deacon Jones for RD

edit
Article: Deacon Jones (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox, ESPN Sports Illustrated
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hall-of-Fame American Football player, widely considered the best or second best player at his position in history: named to the NFL All Century Team by Sports Illustrated: [70], the National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team by the league itself, 15th best player at any position in history by the NFL, invented the term "quarterback sack". This video speaks to his iconic status even among other Hall of Fame players. --Jayron32 12:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Central European Floods

edit
 
Article: 2013 European floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Heavy flooding causes widespread damage across central Europe. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Widespread and serious flooding event. At least 8 fatalities. Seems to be higher water levels than the 2002 European floods. --LukeSurl t c 11:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet, but this story [71] says that Angela Merkel has set aside 100m euros (£78m; $130m) in emergency aid. CaptRik (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech prime minister announced yesterday that the goverment will release 4 billion CZK (€ 155m, £ 133m, $ 203m) from the state reserves [72]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE "widespread damage" is more than the vague rejection of such things as Boko Haram. What damage? Was it landmark? Or was it just a seasonal storm? And this is NOT rare in Europe, occurring at least every 2 years.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, "widespread damage" is in my opinion totally OK for a short blurb, the extent of damage should be elaborated in the article ... and an event of this extent is not so common in Europe (Historic High Water: Passau Suffers Worst Flood in 500 Years (Spiegel Online)), more than 19,000 people were evacuated in the Czech Rep. (as of 5 June 2013) [73]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

edit
June 3, 2013 (2013-06-03) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] Maryland v. King

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Maryland v. King (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States Supreme Court rules that it is permissible for police to DNA profile suspects. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian Chicogo Tribune
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Landmark ruling that will either lead to thousands of criminals being caught or massive privacy violations depending on one's point of view. Regardless of POV, the ruling explicitly affects the lives of millions of people for years to come. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all the academic evidence indicates that the US Supreme Court is not very influential overseas. If this was the Canadian or the British Supreme Court, you would have a point. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Huge Supreme Court 5-4 decision that legitimizes DNA harvesting of people unconvicted of any crime. Fascinating issue in the news. Article obviously needs work with a reaction section and more prose overall, but I think this is ITN-blurb worthy. Thanks for nominating. Jusdafax 07:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's really not such a huge thing. It's a logical extension of fingerprinting laws. And suggesting that it's special precisely because it's in the US really is at risk of pushing US-centrism a bit far. Does anyone know the legal situation in any other country? That's a serious question. If it's already done elsewhere, it makes this even less of a biggie. If not, maybe I'll change my thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; only confirms what was done already. 5-4 is also a close vote that might mean this gets narrowed or struck down in the future(as with Miranda v. Arizona). 331dot (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The US is indeed well behind the curve on this issue. It ceased to be a major controversy a long time ago in Britain for example, with the last minor ruling coming a good few years ago now. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the article will require substantial expansion. A major shift in police powers in the USA. --IP98 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Utterly non-controversial when you think about it, especially since other countries are leagues ahead of the US in this regard. And doesn't "DNA harvesting" imply something more sinister or dystopian than what is actually being done here? Soylent Green comes to mind.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's news worthy that outsiders have said "other countries are leagues ahead of the US" and "The US is indeed well behind the curve", when the dissenting opinion suggests this is a regressive decision. --IP98 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how the US merely "catching up" with the times is a reason to oppose, but Andorra catching up (on income tax) is a reason to support. And I assure everyone that the ruling is decidedly not "non-controversial" within the US. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think changing taxation laws is comparable with legal issues. Countries, territories etc are entitled to charge tax however they see fit, taxes go up and down. This story, unless I'm mistaken, is about a technology originally discovered in 1869, then modelled in 1951. A lot of the world has already adopted the approach, the USA is behind on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this isn't really "in the news" here in the U.S. Hot Stop 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd have to strongly disagree with you, Hot Stop. This story is at the top of the front page of the Los Angeles Times today, Tuesday June 4, just for starters, so your statement of fact is simply not true . Your opposing rationale, to be as polite as possible, carries zero weight, and I challenge you to do better in your ITN !voting. As it stands, your judgement and indeed overall credibility in my eyes is badly damaged. Jusdafax 04:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. It's not in the news enough to justify putting on ITN. This case didn't receive the attention of the DOMA/Prop 8 cases, or the Obamacare ruling last spring. Hot Stop 04:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to RD] Frank Lautenberg - Recent death

edit
Article: Frank Lautenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, NY Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: On top of being a sitting United States Senator (also the oldest and final World War II veteran), he is credited with writing the legislation that (1) increased the drinking age to 21, (2) established 0.08% as the blood alcohol level for intoxication, (3) banned smoking on flights, which led to banning smoking in many public places. Daniel Inouye, also a former Senator, was posted to RD when he died late last year. --– Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support for RD, but the article has an orange tag that needs fixing. Otherwise, it is a really good article (excepting that one tagged section) and would be fine to highlight on the main page, news is certainly covering the story from what I am seeing. Fix up the problem, and I'll bold that support. --Jayron32 14:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added enough sources to that section to remove the orange tag. More sources would certainly still be helpful in improving the article quality. I'll keep working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Looks good. --Jayron32 15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just "every US Senator"; wrote significant legislation, last WWII vet in the body which represents a fundamental generational shift in the Senate. Inouye was posted as a long-serving senator/politician(had represented Hawaii in Congress since they got statehood) and a Medal of Honor winner. That said, I'm not convinced "every US Senator" that dies in office wouldn't be worthy of posting, as it is a somewhat rare event. We're also not talking about a full blurb here. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@HTD, yes, we should. There are only one hundred members of the upper chamber of the most powerful country in the world. That makes each one's death significant, at least for an RD. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't. If he is one of 100, he is not in a sufficiently "high-ranking office of power at the time of death" so DC1 not met, and if DC2 is being claimed, there is no time bar on being " widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", so you would be claiming that every senator, past or present, would be equally eligible. The notion that it is "only" RD mention has been repeatedly defeated as an attitude: the threshold and requirement that ITN/DC is met should not be any lower than it was pre RD. Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your notion that "widely regarded as a very important figure" means the absolute top in the world has also been defeated. In practice, consensus is quite clear that people will accept a somewhat lower standard now than before RD was implemented. Saying over and over again "but the wording of the policy hasn't changed" is not helpful - policy is determined by practice (i.e. it's descriptive), not the other way around (i.e. not prescriptive). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to be at the absolute top of their field to be notable in it. Being 1 of a 100 out of 300 million Americans seems notable to me. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So "being American" is a field of expertise now??? Kevin McE (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I didn't suggest that it was, but if becoming something that only a hundred out of 300 million people can be at one time and have a lengthy, successful career in doing it isn't near the top of a field, then what is? Again, one doesn't have to be at the absolute top of a field (in this case, politics) to be notable in it. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD. per nominator's reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD. He was in office for 28 years and drafted significant legislation. There are only 100 US Senators and very few die in office, so deaths of sitting Senators aren't a frequent occurrence. Also, deaths of Senators can affect the balance of power in the Senate. Lautenberg he is a Democrat, and his death means that the Governor of New Jersey, who is a Republican, will appoint a replacement (probably a Republican) to serve for the next 1-1/2 years. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infrequent is not one of the death criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is is prohibited from being taken into account as part of the consideration of its merits. 331dot (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD, unsure about full blurb. Per Orlady. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose surprised this was even nominated given the opposition when Spector was nominated. Lautenberg would have died in retirement had his fellow senator Bob Toricelli withdrawn in disgrace. Sponsor of anti-smoking legislation does not make one the top of one's field. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the claim that a sitting U.S. Senator isn't at the top if his field is insane, and yet somehow par for the course around here. The Arlen Specter comparison falls flat because at the time of his death there was no death ticker on ITN. Hot Stop 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The top of a field for US politics is president. How can 100 people in one nation be simultaneously and equally at the top of a single field? How many people are to be included to spread the equivalent rank globally? And our general understanding is that 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field' is not dependent on current involvement (or we would not have all the long retired figures that we have in RD), so this would have to be applied to every current or previous senator or holder of an equivalent role in another country. Way beyond what was intended. Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other 100-member bodies that act for 300 million people? 331dot (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if the 24-member Senate of the Philippines, a country of 100 million people that speaks English, is a good enough comparison... –HTD 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD, oppose full blurb. A U.S. Senator dying in office, especially one where his seat will change parties is significant, but not enough for a full blurb. If he had been/was President or VP, he would qualify for a full blurb IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the orange tag (more cittations needed) will have to be addressed before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nomination says he's the oldest and final WWII veteran, presumably that's "oldest and final American WWII veteran"? There are many, many vets from WWII still alive in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD, oppose full blurb - per above supports, which make a good case. Jusdafax 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most supporters aren't very clear about which death criterion they are supporting under, so I will consider the potentially relevant ones in turn. Firstly, was Lautenberg "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death"? While I have a more liberal interpretation of this criterion than, I suspect, most people (many seem to virtually restrict it to heads of government, whereas I would regard, for instance, a Cabinet minister as meeting it), I don't this just being a member of a legislature meets it. If any member of any national legislature qualified, that would just be too much. Secondly, did he have a significant impact on, or make a significant contribution to, the US? Of course, significance is a highly elastic standard, but I think we need to impose a reasonably high threshold here or else all sorts of politicians etc will qualify. Lautenberg seems to have been a fairly important Senator, but I would only regard the most important ones as meeting this requirement: the likes of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye. Thirdly, was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? I will happily admit that he was an important figure in US politics, but there are lots of important figure in that field, and I'm not persuaded that he qualifies as a "very important figure". Neljack (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think being a member of a national legislature automatically qualifies one to be listed at RD. Much like Neljack notes above, we need to have some sort of threshold so that RD isn't flooded with thousands of politicians, and I don't think that Lautenberg reaches that "very important figure" threshold". Canuck89 (have words with me) 23:24, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
I would be more skeptical of posting a deceased member of the US House as there are 435 of them, but there are just 100 Senators for 300 million Americans. If someone can become one of those 100 and have a lengthy career, it should be notable. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support members of a national legislatures don't have domestic awards ceremonies to prop them up (unlike actors and directors). What he did have was six terms in Senate, so that's one thing. It's not like every former politician would be eligible. The drinking age and smoking bans are both items which had a direct impact on society. The article is very thorough, well sourced and laid out. It's certainly good enough for a few characters of space on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull interesting this has been posted after a mere nine hours, even though it is true various editors who opposed Arlen Specter's nomination as just an old politician are supporting this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Minimum_24_hour_wait_for_posting. Yes, I opposed Specter but supported this one. I'm trying to be more supportive of items (except football, ugh). Barring a time machine, there is nothing I can do about my Specter !vote. --IP98 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people opposed one senator and supported another, that would tend to undermine the opposition argument that posting one senator automatically makes every senator RD worthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's intentionally misleading to compare this with Specter. As I said earlier there was no death ticker when Specter died. He was also not on office at the time of his death. But go ahead and keep making the assertion. Hot Stop 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This demand to pull is based on the assertion that the only possible reason for opposing the posting of one senator's death and the decision not to post another MUST be based on politics. That seems a rather narrow and pointed idea, and speaks more to the person who made the assertion than it does to anyone who commented in either or both discussions. --Jayron32 03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's a lot of "information" in this article which isn't referenced. I know it's now longer a BLP, but shouldn't we still be making sure main page listings are properly referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] China 2013 Jilin Baoyuanfeng poultry plant fire

edit
Article: Jilin Baoyuanfeng Poultry Plant Fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 119 people are killed in a fire at the Jilin Baoyuanfeng Poultry Plant in Northeast China. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua CNN Reuters Newsday Herald Sun Al Jazeera CBS News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A pretty high number of deaths in a poultry plant as a result of a fire that broke out inside the plant. Andise1 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

edit
June 2, 2013 (2013-06-02) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted to RD] Tim Samaras

edit
Article: Tim Samaras (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fourteen people, including famous storm chaser Tim Samaras, are killed by a tornado near Oklahoma City, US. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Fourteen people are killed by a tornado near Oklahoma City, US, including TWISTEX storm chasers Tim Samaras, Paul Samaras, and Carl Young.
News source(s): Weather ChannelABCLA Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death happened Friday, but was not announced until Sunday. Samaras was perhaps the most respected storm chaser in the world; certainly "at the top of his field" by any reasonable measure. As near as anyone can tell, this is the first ever death of a storm chaser while chasing. Since his death itself is the story, a full blurb makes the most sense. Article is on OK shape, with much more work planned for tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose full blurb, Support RD. This man was not a figure with worldwide notability/influence in world affairs and name recognition, (like Margaret Thatcher who got a blurb). I would support a listing in RD as someone notable in the field of storm chasing, since he seems to have been the first death of someone in his field while performing his job. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD per 331dot. Clearly notable for his specific field and the TV is certainly known outside of the USA as several series have been in UK tv too. Unusual newsworthy death in my opinion. CaptRik (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tim Samaras for RD or a full blurb mentioning all three storm chasers killed by the tornado. As has been said, they are the first ever recorded deaths of storm chasers while actively pursuing a tornado, and it came as an extreme shock to the entire meteotological community because Tim Samaras' team was well known for being careful and safety minded. Tim Samaras on his own is notable for recent deaths, as he was certainly one of the top in his field. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD, oppose blurb. I'm surprised this is the first recorded death of a storm chaser, considering they, you know, chase major storms. It's been widely reported and deserves posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are too reasons why a death could get a full blurb. The first is a super duper notable person, like Thatcher. The second is where the death is part of a larger story and/or itself is exceptional. Clearly, a full blurb was suggested here on the second basis, not the first. Perhaps people should consider "upgrading" to full blurb to feature the Oklahoma storm (which had some support for posting on its own)/the deaths of other TWISTEX members. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the storm's overall death toll was raised to 14 today, closer to the level of deaths that a natural disaster "needs" to get posted on its own. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post hoc oppose and vehement oppose to full blurb. If such minor and restricted fields as making documentaries about a specific weather phenomenon is considered to fit the definition of DC2, then DC2 is seriously in need of changing. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • DC2 states "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". It says nothing about judgements about a field being "major" or "minor". What is a "minor" field to you might be "major" to others(such as those in Tornado Alley). If you don't think the field of storm chasing (which isn't just about making documentaries, but about scientific research) is broad enough, then what broader field did this man belong to, that he isn't notable enough in? The point of this is to direct people to articles about subjects that are in the news, not just to list the tip-top elite people of this planet.(which is what full blurbs are for) 331dot (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Mandawuy Yunupingu

edit
Article: Mandawuy Yunupingu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): news.com.au The Australian Billboard San Jose Mercury News ABC The Guardian The Age The Australian BBC Sydney Morning Herald USA Today The Times The West ABC Reuters Brisbane Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Mandawuy Yunupingu was the lead singer of the band Yothu Yindi. According to The Australian, "Statements from musicians, politicians and indigenous leaders remarked on the life of a talented musician, who was a "giant among his people"." and "PIONEERING Australian musician Mandawuy Yunupingu has died, aged 56." BBC says "Mandawuy Yunupingu was a significant cultural figure whose music helped bridge the divide between white and black Australians." USA Today states that Mandawuy Yunupingu was "one of the country's most famous Aborigines". BBC also refers to Mandawuy Yunupingu as "One of Australia's leading indigenous figures". The Times also claims Mandawuy Yunupingu was a "giant among his people". Julia Gillard (the Prime Minister of Australia) was quoted saying "We have lost a uniquely talented musician, a passionate advocate for Aboriginal people and a truly great friend". Mandawuy was named Australian of the year in 1992 and also was given a doctorate by Queensland University of Technology "in recognition of his significant contribution to the education of Aboriginal children, and to greater understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians". In December of 2012, Mandawuy (and his band Yothu Yindi) became a member of the ARIA hall of fame. Andise1 (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Palestinian PM

edit
Article: Rami Hamdallah (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Rami Hamdallah is appointed as the new Fatah Prime Minister of Palestine. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Head of government of the most recognized non-Un state. Prety notable.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The choice of Prime Minister has international ramifications, including on the Israel-Palestine conflict.Stilbes (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting article expansion before I can support. This is a story which should be on ITN, but the article as yet is a three sentence stub. A decent biographical sketch on who he is and how he got elected and what he's done up till now would be quite nice before putting this up for people to read. People will want to click through to the article for more information, and right now it doesn't say anything more than the blurb does! --Jayron32 19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question He's the factional prime minister of a non-sovereign territory? μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too am confused. I assume the blurb is supposed to mean he is a member of the Fatah political party & the was selected as the (only) prime minister, but that's not what it says at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused as well. Is him being the Fatah Prime Minister the notable part? I honestly don't know the situation very well. The blurb and the articles don't explain the significance, and does not properly differentiate between the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas; it perhaps gives undue status to the Palestinian National Authority, perhaps? (Just editing the blurb and article might help with this...thus not outright opposing it at the moment.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority is a very poor article and doesn't even start to explain the necessary detail regarding this position (i.e. the factional disputes). As this article will probably be of as much interest to readers as Rami Hamdallah it needs significant work before any posting. --LukeSurl t c 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra to introduce income tax

edit
Article: Andorra (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Andorra agrees to introduce taxation on income, for the first time in its history. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22745895
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looking at the source, you might make the mistake that this is a report about someone hinting that something might happen ("Antoni Marti, the head of the Andorran government, told French President Francois Hollande that he will introduce a bill before 30 June."). However, Hollande is the joint head of state of Andorra, so this is him receiving official notice. It is true to say, though, that the legislation is not yet in place. Formerip (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, maybe there's not much point in a fork article that is a stub, and the contents should be merged back to the parent article. Formerip (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Economy of Andorra would probably be the "parent" article, with Andorra as the "grandparent". I would oppose posting this as a bold link to Andorra. There isn't scope for sufficient depth in the top-level article about the country as a whole for this to be a useful encyclopedia article regarding this news story. --LukeSurl t c 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent nomination! Introduction of income tax in a country for the first time in its history has very big importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what is the update I'm judging? I'd like to read what is written in Wikipedia that we're going to be promoting on the front page, and the Andorra article is far too long to find information about this. What section is this in? If there's another article, that'd be good too, but we need something in Wikipedia to read to decide if it is something to put up on the main page... --Jayron32 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding the election article as a non-bold link as this was twhat the election was aboutLihaas (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when properly updated. Interesting and eye catching ITN. I've modified the blurb to include an extra link. --RA (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Luke that Taxation in Andorra should be updated and linked to as the bold item if this is to be posted. (Obviously said article need work.) This item is about as local interest as they get. I'm fine with that, as I'd like to see a more inclusive ITN, but I find it extremely ironic that some would support an item affecting only Andorra (population 85,000) while opposing an item affecting only the United States (population 316,000,000). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to tax policy in tax havens do have international implications. And in any case, I'm not sure of the relevance of the comparison to the US: I (and I suspect most people here) would unhesitatingly support a nomination if the US abolished income tax, or if (counterfactually) it didn't have income tax and then introduced it. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An income tax would presumably only affect those who actually live/work there, but that's not really the point... Health care reform, by far the most sweeping legislation passed in the US in a decade, was vehemently opposed by some. For some reason the "only important to one country" opposes only seem to come up on US items. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the BBC article notes, the EU has been pressing Andorra to do this to help combat tax evasion, so I stand by my statement about it having international implications. Neljack (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have some reservations about posting an item affecting a country so small -- when the city I live in (pop. 100,000) passes a property tax increase in the fall, will it be posted? Anyway, we should at least wait until the tax is approved. Hot Stop 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only on the basis that we should not pre-empt the decision of the Andorran legislature. It might reject the bill. I suggest this be renominated if the bill is passed. I'm not convinced that FormerIP's point about Hollande being head of state is very relevant: if David Cameron told Queen Elizabeth II that he was going to introduce major changes to British tax policy, would we post that before Parliament had passed the bill? Neljack (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Neljack. I would support this if Andorra had indeed passed such legislation, but it is not notable that it has just been announced. When and if it does pass, we should post it at that point. Even if it seems very likely to pass (it's hard to tell from the sources), that's still not enough to justify not waiting until it's actually law. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Let's wait until it is actually passed before posting it. Great story for ITN, but a little too soon.--Giants27(T|C) 11:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting until it is passed- they could still change their mind. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

edit
June 1, 2013 (2013-06-01) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] FC Bayern Munich treble

edit
Article: 2013 DFB-Pokal Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, FC Bayern Munich becomes the first German team to win a continental treble by winning the DFB-Pokal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, FC Bayern Munich becomes the first German team to win a continental treble by winning the DFB-Pokal.
News source(s): 2013 DFB-Pokal Final
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We post several football stories each year, but it is the world's most popular sport, so I think there is room for more postings when something exceptional happens. The DBF-Pokal is not that significant, but winning it, the Bundlingsa (significant but not posted), and champions league (obviously posted) in the same year is significant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose According to what I saw, it's the seventh time a team has done this. Being the first time it's a German team isn't that noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SuportFCBM is stadisticaly a machine of win (something weird in a sport that have a lot of ties), what is need to win a treble, the seventh time is still scarcity --Feroang (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be a weak support if not for the quality of the article. There's about 30 words of prose. And it's in the wrong tense. A full synopsis of the game would be necessary before we even begin to consider putting this on the main page. --Jayron32 04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, the altblurb links to an article, 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season with better prose, but still needs some cleanup if I'm going to lend support to this. There's an entire section and a half that consists of variations on the sentence "Bayern faced Mainz 05 on 15 September...Bayern faced Valencia on 19 September..." with nothing else. The rest of that article looks to be in really good shape, so if someone could get on fixing that bit up by putting some actual prose in there, it would really look great on the main page; but if that isn't done, and the article is left in the current state it is in, I don't see this as something we would be proud of showing to the world. Make those fixes, and I will put my full support behind this. --Jayron32 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although this is quite an achievement, I believe the ITN bar for this type of achievements was set a couple of years ago when Barcelona won 6 titles in a single season. Potentially support if they win one or more titles later. --Tone 06:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As Thaddeus says, football is the world's most popular sport. I'm not really a fan, but given that remarkable popularity I think we should post more stories about it. Winning the treble is a rare and highly notable achievement. (As an aside, just in case anyone is confused, I assume Thaddeus means the Bundesliga when he says the "Bundlingsa".) Neljack (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rare and notable achievement. As the postable achievement is the sum of the season, I think 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season is the important link. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose far from rare, Internazionale did it in '09, Barcelona the year before that. Looking at the Treble (association football) article it's clear that this has happened somewhere roughly once a year for the last 10 years or so. Nothing special about this first beyond it being in Germany. We have record breakings on ITN/R, so it would need to be a record number of cups in a season to get my support. --IP98 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only the seventh European treble since 1966, a truly rare occurrence, we have more European Cup winners since then. The BM season article seems pretty much up to scratch, and is more relevant to this ITN item than the DFB-Pokal final (whose article needs significant work), so I'd plump for the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support famous first.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, very important record in history of association football. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a new record. Just matching an existing one, that's been matched many times before. Others have done better. This is not a standout. (I can see that it is to some fans of the game, but it's simply not.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extremely rare event and one that is very important in association football.--Giants27(T|C) 11:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the page view stats it seems that this was more of a ordinary day, as the day of the UCL final had tons more views. Not that page view stats are an indicator of reader interest... –HTD 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready - article (2013 DFB-Pokal Final) has now been updated and there appears to be a consensus to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on balance. I can sort of see the argument for oppose on this, but I think it meets our requirements. very big news in at least one country, of interest internationally. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In global domestic football, the traditional continental treble (first rank continental cup, first rank domestic cup, top domestic league) is as good as it gets. It's not a 'record', it's an acheivement. The highest achievement. Nobody really knows why it's happened more often these last few years, but frankly in terms of it still being seen as an acheivement, nobody really cares. Nobody in football really cares about 'records' like Barcelona's 6 trophies in a season, because they by necessity will always include less important domestic trophies, or FIFA's glorified friendlies, just to make up the numbers. None of those on their own are more notable than the 3 trophies that make up the treble. let alone the treble itself. In pure 'record' terms, if a club wins 4 or 5 trophies in a season without winning the treble, nobody would even treat that as being a higher achievement than the treble itself. Having said all that, anyone who thinks a continental treble is hugely significant to both a club or football in general, but something like Gibraltar joining UEFA really isn't all that important, is on extremely shaky ground. Only one of those things for example leads to a significant permanent change in the fortunes, stature and profile of the actual team. While the treble is notable this year, it won't make Bayern any richer, more famous or even change who they will be playing next year. They get nothing for doing it except the prestige of a place in the history books. To get close to an event as significant as Gibraltar joining UEFA (something ITN dismissed as a 'foregone conclusion'), Bayern would have to be permanently expelled from the Bundesliga itself, ironically meaning they could never win the treble ever again. And even then it would be less significant for other obvious reasons such as the differences between club and international football, and the fact that, as far as I know, there's no notable dispute in UEFA/FIFA over whether Bayern should be allowed to represent Munich in European football. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you won't let that dead horse go unbeaten, will you? --Jayron32 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Jean Stapleton, RD

edit
Article: Jean Stapleton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT Daily Mail Global NewsGolden Globes in NYDaily News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Seven decade stage, film and TV career, multiple emmy-winning and nominated Protagonist of record five-time-consecutive first-place-rated groundbreaking US television show All in the Family, a US remake of Till Death Do Us Part, similar in stature to Richard Briars for non-Americans unfamiliar with her career μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose She seems to have been an important actor with a distinguished career, but I don't see that she qualifies as being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in acting (or in any of stage, TV or film acting, if you want to consider them separately). I believe we post too many actors, basically because they are well-known. Just because they may be a household name (in their own country) doesn't mean they are a very important figure in their field. I am open to being convinced otherwise about Stapleton though, if people can provide details of her influence and impact. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To help you as a foreigner judge her impact beyond her awards and record five-year run on the top-rated US TV show (not just sit-com) you might consider her article's averaged over 500 hits a day random month even though she hasn't been on TV since 2001. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Elsewhere I've been having discussions about how we can balance posts from cultures with large populations with those from places with many fewer people. Would you be impressed by someone with 33 hits a day, but from Australia? It's hard to know if I should be impressed with your number.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the field I'd be glad to publish an American with only 33 hits a day. In this case the nom is one of the few remaining grand old dames of TV, only Betty White and Angela Lansbury in competition, and both more sure to get support recently active and as an early British film star. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 3 best actress Emmys and 2 best actress Golden Globes implies "top of her field" (during the 1970s, but notability is permanent). An article on her death is the number one viewed news story today in the US according to Google News. Update is good, but body of article could use a few more refs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The Golden Globes are unsourced in her article. Were they both for All in the Family too, just as her Emmys were all for that show? It was obviously a popular show. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support News sources are giving this a lot of attention, so Wikipedia should too. Article and update are adequate. --Jayron32 04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per other supports. Iconic in the role of the good natured "dingbat" who married Archie Bunker. Jusdafax 05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm an American, I love All in the Family, but I don't support this. It is the show, and not she, that is the item of massive cultural significance. She hasn't had a huge impact; indeed, she has been practically invisible since the show went off the air. I highly doubt we would be having this discussion if we were talking about someone who won a few BAFTAs in the 1970s and didn't do much of consequence thereafter. If this does pass, I will remember it when Liz Torres (Teresa Betancourt on All in the Family) dies. She, after all, has actually had a cultural impact as a Puerto Rican-American woman who has been in mainstream television programming since the '70, helping pave the way for the Rosie Perezes and Victoria Justices of the world. -Rrius (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Won five awards (three Emmys, two Golden Globes), lengthy career wide coverage- this knocked the recent round of Oklahoma storms off the top of NBC News for a bit(and is still on the front page as of this moment) Liz Torres has not won any awards for her work so I'm not sure how that would be a similar situation- but should be judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amount of media coverage is not the be all, end all. The question is whether she is "widely recognized as a very important figure". Her death is significant because of the show she was on, not because she herself was important. As for Torres, you are quite wrong. In addition to her Emmy and Golden Globe nominations, she won awards from Latino organizations for her work, underscoring my point about why she actually does have some significance. I'm not saying she should be listed, but if Stapleton is, then she most certainly should be. In any event, Stapleton is known almost exclusively in the US, and in decreasing numbers as you move down from 50 years of age. News sites posting "That lady from that show you used to watch just died" is not enough to imbue here her with wide recognition as a very important figure. -Rrius (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: How do you establish that she's widely recognized? Answer: The level of media coverage... --Jayron32 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • While not the be all, end all, this is "In The News", hence media coverage is important. Award nominations are just that- nominations- and Latino-based awards are certainly relevant but do not have as wide a base as more general awards. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I struggle to see her as "widely regarded as very important". Important, probably, but not extraordinarily important. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked ready, well updated, approx two to one consensus to post. μηδείς (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was tagged for weak (IMDB) sources--they have been replaced with published periodicals. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work (although I had to replace each of the refs with correct templates), but on examination, plenty of unreferenced material in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out rather than fully deleting some material. Claims that she appeared in a certain episode can be refered to that episode as a primary source, so I have made sure they are named and dated so they can be verified by the original work. For GEW. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ruler of the World wins the Epsom Derby

edit
Articles: Ruler of the World (talk · history · tag) and 2013 Epsom Derby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, Ruler of the World wins the 2013 Epsom Derby, becoming the first Chester Vase winner since Shergar in 1981 to win the Derby. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 --Horsemeister (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (assuming good update) - the first Derby was run in 1780, this is 234th "edition". This is the pre-eminent horse-racing event in the world, the Kentucky Derby (for instance) wouldn't be called the Kentucky Derby if it wasn't for this race. (It would be called the Kentucky Bunbury for those who care about history). If you know of a "derby" between your club and another, it's because of this event. Okay, there's no article (yet), but the support is in principle. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as far as notability goes. I'm assuming the redlink will disappear reasonably soon as we have articles for all races since 1986. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withholding support pending an article to judge, but this seems like a significant sporting event (never heard of it myself, but I don't really follow horse racing) but a quick google search and run through the relevant articles at Wikipedia easily establishes this as a prestigious event. Once a decent-length article is written with good references, and a relatively complete synopsis of the event, I would support this. --Jayron32 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. This is not "the pre-eminent horse racing event in the world". It's maybe the fifth or sixth biggest event in the British horse racing calendar. And I guess I need to be consistent, having opposed the spelling bee nomination as being important only in its own back yard. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My opinions on the blood sport of horse racing aside, It's obvious this is not in the same league as the Kentucky Derby or Grand National and is tier2 sport. --85.211.122.225 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this Derby hadn't existed for over 200 years, you wouldn't even have the Kentucky Derby....!! Presumably you already know that the use of the word "Derby" in this context and in matches of all sports around the world is derived from this very race? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How much cultural impact does this race have in Great Britain? Do large amounts of people look forward to it each year? Or is in viewed as a second tier event? (FormerIP seems to indicate it is the latter) I get that it is very old, but that doesn't automatically make it highly relevant today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no horse expert, but I'm pretty sure the three big events in the UK would be the Grand National, Royal Ascot and the Cheltenham Festival. After that, I think the Epsom Derby comes in a group also including the St. Leger Stakes, the Oaks Stakes, the 2,000 Guineas Stakes, the 1,000 Guineas Stakes. The concept of tiers doesn't really apply, though, since these are all really just independent races. Formerip (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, by "tier" I meant informally in terms of interest/assign prestige. Obviously, horse racign has no formal tier structure in the way football does, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the International Cataloguing Standards Committee, UK is the "Part I" countries, all group races is opening worldwide freely. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In UK, Epsom Derby broadcast right are protected by UK government, must be free aired, as same as Olympic Games, Grand National and FIFA World Cup. (source) Also the race is aired in worldwide who watch horseracing. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a source showing strong international viewing figures would make this a stronger contender. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reported internationally, e.g. CNN or Yahoo Singapore, or Bloomberg or New Zealand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeNeutral a totally unsourced section reference this as part of the Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing#United_Kingdom, but since the Grand National is already ITN/R, and the Grand National is part of the triple crown, it's plenty good enough. --IP98 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your English here at all, the bold article is not the one you've linked. Are you suggesting that all articles in the blurb or linked from those articles in the blurb now need to be fully referenced? Ideally, of course, but practically...? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look at Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing to search for signs of prominence for this race. It's there, but that whole section is unsourced so I don't know if it's factual or just some drive-by opinion. I'm switching to Neutral though, because even though the Grand National is richer, this is the richest flat race (the other being a jump race), but won't support because the Grand National is already on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Being a once-prominent race doesn't make it a forever-prominent race. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's true, but it's over 200 years old, and there'd be no Kentucky Derby without it. How many international sporting events have run over 200 times annually? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Horse racing is ancient, going back thousands of years. The Kentucky Derby would probably exist regardless of the Epsom Derby - it would just be called something else. I suggest you focus on other arguments. Do you dispute FormerIP's assessment that the event is viewed as (at best) 4th most important horse race in the UK?--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to belabor the point, but as yet, there still hasn't been much work done to expand the article. There's approximately 50 words of organized prose in this article as of right now, and as I've noted above, there's far more to say on this topic. It would be very helpful to have a full article, rather than 50 words and some charts and tables, to work with here. --Jayron32 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note... updated my vote above based on recent expansion of article. --Jayron32 00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to no one disputing the "5th or 6th" most important horse race within the UK claim. To post the 5th most important horse race when no other country gets more than 1 and the US's 2nd or 3rd most popular sporting events (NCAA football and NCAA basketball) are routinely rejected would, as my esteemed colleague put it be "just too great of a disparity". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/comment Sorry I'm not familiar with the workings of ITN, but I do know a lot about horse racing and have written more than 500 WP articles on the topic. I can assure you that the claim that the Derby is the fifth or sixth most important horse race in the UK is incorrect. It is the most famous and important British flat race and second only to the Grand National among all British races in terms of public interest.  Tigerboy1966  21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly aggree, but I very much doubt that there's less public interest in Ascot/Cheltenham. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. This was a close call. The question of whether the race generally is sufficiently notable remains unresolved, but this particular running had an exceptionally noteworthy outcome. That tips the scales. —David Levy 01:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to the Chester Vase connection, that's hardly notable. It's a factoid at best. Noteworthy outcomes in the Derby would be a record time, or the fact that this was the fist time in years that the winner came from outside the top 3 favourites, or the various reasons why the the standout favourite came last. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The information's inclusion in both the article's lead and the ITN blurb seems to reflect disagreement with this assertion. —David Levy 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Epsom Derby is considered one of (if not the) top races in the global sport because thoroughbred breeders since time immemorial have been aiming for one thing - an Epsom Derby winner. It's the perfect test of speed and stamina, and as such has become a defining race in any entrant's career/worth, with the consequent importance to both breeders and owners. This is why it has epithets like 'blue riband of turf'. And on any objective measure you care to use, in terms of wider cultural significance it ranks at least equal with the other top British meetings - the national, Ascot and Cheltenham. The tragedy of ITN is that you don't need to be an expert to realise any of this, it's all deducable by the non-expert using logic and readily available facts/sources. Every single oppose in here could have been struck out based on my suggested strikeout rule, and therefore the item could have been posted days ago because it is anything but a close call in real terms. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] At least 17 people killed in Mauritania due to extreme heat

edit
No consensus to post, no article. --Tone 06:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ At least 17 people killed in Mauritania due to extreme heat. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 17 deaths from heat in a country of more than 3 million doesn't sound that significant. Maybe it's just the tip of the iceberg or something like that, but we'd need evidence first. Compare, for example, to a heat wave like the 1995 Chicago heat wave that killed 750 people in 5 days from a somewhat smaller population. Dragons flight (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No article to evaluate (and I would question whether this situation merits its own article, let alone an ITN nomination). As stated by others, not yet at high enough scale of casualties given the situation to be posted. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ "'Horror at Their Capabilities' Drove Leak of NSA Spying Program", Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/horror-their-capabilities-drove-leak-nsa-spying-program
  2. ^ "The Washington Post and Guardian say it appears that, based on the leaked documents,...", The Week, http://theweek.com/article/index/245317/what-we-know-about-prism-the-nsas-data-goldmine
  3. ^ "Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook", Guardian, http://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1920&bih=886&tbm=nws&q=prism+leak+top+secret&oq=prism+leak+top+secret&gs_l=serp.3...1885809.1887881.0.1888457.11.11.0.0.0.0.215.866.3j3j1.7.0.cpsugrccggmnoe..0.0...1..16.serp.ezY24SsNrpI
  4. ^ "PRISM, the top secret National Security Agency program...", The Week, http://theweek.com/article/index/245317/what-we-know-about-prism-the-nsas-data-goldmine
  5. ^ "The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers", Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
  6. ^ "allows the U.S. government to mine all sorts of electronic communications,...", The Week, http://theweek.com/article/index/245317/what-we-know-about-prism-the-nsas-data-goldmine
  7. ^ "communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants", Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
  8. ^ "collected without a warrant...", The Week, http://theweek.com/article/index/245317/what-we-know-about-prism-the-nsas-data-goldmine
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2013&oldid=1158848647"