*'''Support''' Former head of government being convicted of corruption is certainly sufficiently newsworthy. [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Former head of government being convicted of corruption is certainly sufficiently newsworthy. [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
* '''Weak oppose''' Needs updating. I can't tell how major this is from the article or provided ref. You state that it's "probably the largest case ... in the last 20 years", but I can't see that from the article or the ref. If that can be validly supported and shown to be notable, then it could make sense to include this, but without, it's just another corrupt politician without specific notability. – [[User:2001:db8|2001:db8::]] ([[User talk:2001:db8|rfc]] | [[Special:Contributions/2001:db8|diff]]) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
It is reported that an increasing number of hunger-striking Guantánamo inmates are being force fed by military medical teams since Barack Obama's recent speech promised again to close the prison camp. (The Guardian)(Press TV)(The Washington Post)
12 Russian citizens appear in a Moscow court charged with offences at a 2012 anti-Vladimir Putin rally; critics claim it is reminiscent of the Soviet-era show trials. (BBC)
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 the founder 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]
Support The election of head of government of a major sovereign nation seems rather notable; WP:ITN/R includes head of state for countries like Pakistan, but in this case, it appears the head of government is a more prominent figure, even if indirectly elected. (I don't quite understand why ITN/R would prefer one over the other in general; which is more notable depends on the individual country and the method of election obviously differs.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the comments of User:2001:db8. Also a peaceful and democratic transfer of power in Pakistan is a rare thing, and the country is over in a precarious position at the present time and thus of international interest. Neljack (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An image known as "The Lady in the Red Dress" showing a policeman in a gas mask hosing a woman with pepper spray becomes the defining image of Turkey's pro-democracy demonstrations thus far. (The Huffington Post)(The Guardian)(The National)
Following Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's denunciation of Twitter as a "menace to society", police arrest 25 people on charges relating to the use of social media to speak ill of the government. (The Guardian)
After a long-running battle, Britain announces a compensation fund of £2,600 each for more than 5,000 survivors of the prison camps it operated across Kenya in the 1950s. (The Guardian)
An 84-year-old woman from the U.S. state of Florida comes forward as the sole winner of the record-breaking $590 million Powerball lottery drawing in May. (Reuters)
A second case of Legionnaires' Disease in less than a week is confirmed in Australia, leading to fears of a possible outbreak of the rare disease. (Herald Sun)
Brian Madrid, who trained Manning, testifies that he ordered him to undergo "corrective training" for an unauthorized use of the phrase "top secret". (The Guardian)
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. --Tone05:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Needs updating. I can't tell how major this is from the article or provided ref. You state that it's "probably the largest case ... in the last 20 years", but I can't see that from the article or the ref. If that can be validly supported and shown to be notable, then it could make sense to include this, but without, it's just another corrupt politician without specific notability. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support I was going to nominate this after having a chance to expand the article. Thankfully, it seems I didn't have to. I have suggested a more coherent altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A new oldest-known primate fossil seems rather notable. As a primate, I support the inclusion of a new discovery about our earliest ancestors. (Prefer alternate blurb, or perhaps modified further.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose 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]
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]
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]
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]
Comment This would certainly be sufficiently notable, but I don't think Syrian state television is a reliable source. We need independent confirmation. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 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]
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. LukeSurltc11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 15 occurrences of "activist" in there, as "opposition activist", or as "activists". Your second point is totally valid. --IP98 (talk) 11:14, 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]
Support - I think the blurb should say "government forces retake the strategic town of Al-Qusayr." Towns change hands all the time in this war, but this one is very important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three corpses are dug up near a former U.S. military base in Narkh bringing the number of corpses whose deaths locals blame on the presence of United States personnel to 10; people flood the streets of Maidan Shar calling for the U.S. to leave. (The Guardian)
Two British soldiers are court martialed for "sexually and racially abusing civilians" during their time in Afghanistan. (RTT)
Lawyers gather outside Britain's Ministry of Justice to demonstrate against £220 million of proposed legal aid cuts and removal of the right of defendants to choose their own solicitor. (The Guardian)
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]
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. --Jayron3219:11, 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: [8]. The US embassy did so previously. The story remains at the top of Costa Rican media 5 days later. [9][10][11][12]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. [13]. 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. Jusdafax07:12, 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. --Tone05:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
(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]
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; [15]. 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]
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 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]
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]
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)
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]
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]
@ 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]
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.
Support for RD. I think his article explains well why Jones is important to the sport of American football (and his honors, such as induction into several different Hall of Fames and other awards), and his importance is also corroborated by other articles as well such as quarterback sack. SpencerT♦C13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the death section as best as I can without straying into too much hagiography. Will work on the honors section presently. --Jayron3218:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also referenced everything I could in the "Honors" section, and removed a few awards I could find no record of outside of Jones's own personal website. --Jayron3219:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Article now has my full support - subject was clearly at the top of his field by any reasonable definition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 4 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]
Support - Major continent-spanning disaster and accompanying news story. Lihaas, there's no need to shout, and this discussion has nothing whatever to do with Boko Haram. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major developing disaster with decent media coverage every day. One may say that it's not unusual for the beginning of June, but floods with such damages and casualities have not been seen for years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Republic experiences its worst flooding of the decade with huge volumes of water surging towards Prague. (BBC)
A Cebu Pacific flight carrying 165 passengers inbound from Manila, overshoots the runway during heavy rain in Davao City, Philippines. There are no fatalities, however the plane is heavily damaged. (ABS-CBN News)
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says the agency's latest report verifies that Iran is having "technical and scientific success in its peaceful nuclear activities" and that this is "an important message to the whole world". (Press TV)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: 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]
Oppose The news articles don't make the case that this is a landmark decision, they seem to largely confirm existing practices at police departments around the United States rather than indicate a major change of policy and procedure. The case is important in the sense that it does give legitimacy to existing practices, but the U.S. Supreme Court telling law enforcement "Keep up what you're already doing" doesn't seem all that big of a deal. --Jayron3203:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a fairly significant decision, but courts around the world render scores of important decisions every year, so I think it would need to be a bit more important than this to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 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. Jusdafax07:06, 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]
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]
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. Jusdafax04:34, 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 Stop04:46, 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.
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. --Jayron3214:53, 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]
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]
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. 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]
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 Stop19:08, 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]
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. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 19:38, 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]
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]
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]
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 Stop01:25, 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. --Jayron3203:24, 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]
I only see about 4-5 citation needed tags in the whole article, it is mostly thoroughly referenced, and none of the cn tags are for statements I would find particularly contentious or negative about the person in question. A cn tag here or there normally doesn't hold up an ITN item, so long as the bulk of the article is well referenced, and the cn tags are not for particularly contentious statements. --Jayron3220:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support under general principles for a disater of this magnitude. I've created a stub. If another article has already been created please merge. LukeSurltc08:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though I'm clearly in the minority, I just don't see the significance here. It's a fire. It has a high death toll because of lax safety and enforcement, but all it has is death toll. The 2013 Savar building collapse was an exceptional catastrophe, but this isn't. It's a fire, and the fire doors were locked, so a bunch of people died. The TV is talking about it because the TV likes to talk about dead bodies. --IP98 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsworthy event based on coverage in news sources, however I cannot support a 40-word stub on the main page. If the article can be expanded to a few paragraphs, I'll give this my full support. --Jayron3214:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is small, but no longer a stub. Reporting of the event seems to be fairly limited, possibly because of the fairly remote location. LukeSurltc20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the plant employed 1200 people, with 120 dead, 60 injured and 100 escaped. The numbers don't totally make sense. Or maybe the shifts were uneven. It would be nice to know how many people were actually inside. --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CBC estimated 350 people on site at the time of the fire, this has been added to the article. I'm guessing the discrepancy with the 1200 figure is due to shifts (the fire occurred at 6 a.m. local time), and the discrepancy with the dead and injured toll means the official death toll is likely to rise. --LukeSurltc21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why a disaster that has killed more than a hundred people needs to have some extra significance. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you before, there is no magic number of deaths, so I suggest you stop flogging this dead horse. If you don't regard a hundred lives ended as sufficiently important, I don't know what I can say to you to convince you otherwise. But I think you will find you are in a minority. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready marking ready. Strong support to post. Article meets the minimum. No tags, good sources. There are two "At least"s in a row, so maybe a copyedit is needed, but that shouldn't keep it from going up. --IP98 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb explodes near a police station in the Damascus suburb of Jobar, killing at least eight members of the security forces and injuring civilians. (CNN)
It is announced that three professional storm chasers who were members of TWISTEX were among those killed by tornadoes in Oklahoma, US, on May 31. (Washington Post)
Two British Labour Party peers are suspended by their party after allegations they offered to undertake Parliamentary work in exchange for payment. A third peer, from the Ulster Unionist Party resigns the whip following the allegations. (BBC)
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]
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]
Correct, but some commenters seem to be under the impression that only super notable people get full blurbs, which is incorrect. That is why I asked people to reconsider a full blurb. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to full blurb It is the mode of death that is notable here, Samaras would never have been listed on his own merits. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 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]
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]
Support Massive inspiration to two generations of Aboriginal kids. Died before his time, this being emblematic of the problems facing his people. Great musician. Political stirrer. A name known to just about every adult Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support when updated - legendary in Australia, was coming here to nominate this. I would even support a full blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never heard of this person, but he seems to be notable, given the Australian of the Year award and reaching #1 on the Australian charts for 5 months. Being (one of the few?) Aboriginal Australians to meet those goals also seems particularly notable, as is recognition of his death by Julia Gillard. Needs a good blurb to convey all those aspects of notability; I'd also support a full blurb. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Very important figure whose death is getting wide international coverage, but doesn't quite meet the very high threshold I apply for full blurbs. Neljack (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I'd have already posted this if the article were sufficient. If someone could get some expansion of the article done, this can go up given the support based on newsworthiness. --Jayron3214:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue seems to be the resolution of the orange citations needed tag. If someone can fix that, I can put this up. --Jayron3218:11, 4 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! --Jayron3219:52, 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]
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. --LukeSurltc21:47, 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... --Jayron3218:48, 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 Stop01:37, 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]
UN death-toll figures show more than 1000 people died from violent attacks in Iraq during the month of May, making it the country's deadliest month since 2008. (VOA)
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. --Jayron3204:21, 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. --Jayron3200:14, 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. --Tone06:42, 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]
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]
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]
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... –HTD16:05, 3 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]
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]
I must admit that I've never understood the significance of nominations. In most situations where people are nominated, elections etc, anyone can be nominated or can nominate themselves. It certainly doesn't make someone notable. I guess it somehow does for these awards? HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of a nomination is that someone else has to name you. You can apply for certain games or scholarships on your own. Being nominated means someone else (in these cases, a limited set of elite peers) has named you. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination means you were top 5 (or 4 or some other number depending on the award) in that year. The way these work is eligible voters (usually 1000 or so people in the industry) get a list of all eligible actors, shows, etc. and vote for "up to 5" people/shows they think deserve the award. The field is cut to the top 5 vote recipients which become the "nominees" and a second round of ballets is sent out to determine the winner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support News sources are giving this a lot of attention, so Wikipedia should too. Article and update are adequate. --Jayron3204:11, 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]
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]
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]
Support for RD, Medeis has done some good work on the refs I've asked for, there are some which are a moot point, but nothing that should stop this being at least on the RD ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 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]
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. --Jayron3223:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. It's a stub with some charts. A fuller synopsis of the race would be useful, along with some background etc. The first source used in the article has three screenfuls of honest-to-goodness prose, so there's got to be more to say about this race somewhere in the world. --Jayron3200:11, 2 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]
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]
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]
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. --Jayron3220:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't opposed. I've asked a question to try and properly understand the importance (or lack their of) of this race in a cultural that I am not a part of. Not sure why trying to understand someone else's POV is offensive... If you think Jayron & I are the same person, WP:SPI is over there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of conspiratorial nonsense is highly unproductive, and not helpful to your cause, but I guess it is more exciting than simply answering my question. --21:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
(I typed an extra tilde, big deal.) For the record you and I often post only 2 minutes apart as well. Maybe its a 3-way collaboration! --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:07, 2 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]
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 Levy01:50, 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 Levy21:17, 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
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:
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.
Support with comment I believe that this is very important to report, although I believe that "environmental issues" are not the main subject of the protests at all and to say so is extremely misleading. A better choice would to be to say the protests are anti-government. --Dagko (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a poorly written article with clear pro-activist anti-government POV and synthesis, lacking in vital citations ("The protests are strongly influenced by ... Tahrir Square protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement.[citation needed]" "Turkey ranks low in press freedom index, freedom of speech index and democracy index" "Brutality of police got wide attention online, with support of celebrities on Twitter.") and providing no objective details of the numbers of protestors, or support among non-activist groups. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - the protests are definitely "in the news" and worthy of posting. However, I have to agree with Medeis that the article needs some work. In particular I agree it is pushing a particular point of view. As such I have to oppose at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The protests are going to continue throughout the weekend and has spread to other major cities as well. What started as a small environmentalist protest evolved into a common protest ground with the blatant police brutality. The recent issues with the new alcohol law, the PKK negotiations, the third bridge across the Bosphorus - these are all important issues that the government ignored opposing views. CNN, BBC and Euronews are giving the events full coverage while the Turkish media is effectively trying to blackout the protests. I agree that the article needs some work, bt last bight it was nearly eempty and will be improved as soon as interest improves. 46.197.10.95 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Candymoan (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The article has improved significantly. The Turkish media is blacking out the protests and the events need as much coverage as possible... Candymoan (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about ready. The article is a LOT less POV than it was when the tag was inserted, and many refs have been added. Can someone please review whether the tag can now be removed? By the way, if main-page posted this will need to be monitored as there is considerable potential for POV editors to cause problems for the article. --LukeSurltc10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to say whether the article is a good reflection of the reality, but it is at least adequately sourced, so I've de-tagged. Formerip (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also today there will be protests all over the world in front of Turkish embassies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)
Urge The article looks ready. If we can agree that the POV issue has been resolved and the citations are all in place, the article should be included in ITN. Candymoan (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article has greatly improved from when it was first nominated, and more eyeballs on the article will only improve it further. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks likely that this will be posted shortly, it's just that ITN doesn't have a system which guarantees there will be someone around to do it every minute of the day. Formerip (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Azirlazarus's blurb is better, as it makes clear the shift from environmental complaints to the current anti-gov protests. It just needs to highlight the article. Mohamed CJ(talk)16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we update the blurb with a little more info and and a few more links? We're an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. ITN is supposed to provide hooks into our content. An ITN entry with just one straight-forward hook isn't worth much to the project. --RA (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this was really improved greatly. I am concerned the external link is POV rather than factual, so I am removing it. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bump date as these are ongoing [21], it seems silly to age this off the template as it looks like its about to do soon. Let's reassign this to a more recent date. LukeSurltc18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for bump, but three suggestions: make a new proposal under today's date where people will see it; propose a new blurb; check that the article has continued to be updated, just in case. Formerip (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Admittedly this is a long shot, but it doesn't hurt to try... Scripps is the oldest and largest educational contest in the United States. The spelling bee is a cultural icon featured in numerous documentaries/novels/TV shows/etc. Yes it a contest for children, but this is not at all the same thing as amateur sport. There are no professional spelling leagues or equivalent contests for adults, for example. Although it is called the "National Spelling Bee" it is actually open to children from Canada, Mexico, and several other countries so it is not actually a US only event. I personally would gladly support other youth educational contests of similar cultural significance to other countries, although I think ITN should be more accepting in general (notability wise) than some other ITN regulars. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, participants come from at least ten countries besides the US, including Canada, New Zealand, China, Japan, and South Korea; see below. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This gets covered every year prominently, it's on ESPN every year, borderline ITNR if you ask me. The article is in very good shape. --Jayron3221:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff there is a damn good article, i.e. approaching high B - low A class. If we main-page featured this, it wouldn't be under the usual ITN/R reasoning of "this event was important, here is an article about it", it would be "Look! We can produce a good-quality article on such a seemingly minor event in the space of days (take THAT Britannica)" --LukeSurltc22:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate the sincerity of your comments re national bias, Thaddeus, and I'd also like to see the day when ITN is less obsessed with shadowing CNN, but I think the disparity would be just too great as things stand. In recent memory, we've rejected things like the Turner Prize, the AFC Asian Cup, the FA Cup, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (which I would guess is the closest thing to this spelling bee thing internationally), all because they didn't have sufficient international profile. Formerip (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think an item of cultural importance to Europeans would have a decent chance to pass if properly explained. I think we have been moving towards being more accepting of stories recently... I did support FA Cup (the others were apparently before I was active again). FA Cup is not really a good comparison though, as it was at least partially rejected due to other football stories coming up, and mostly for not being the top competition even in England.
I went ahead and looked up the others: Turner Prize does not appear to have ever been nominated for ITN. Junior Eurovision was nominated once with no explanation as to why it should be considered important. When asked the nominator said "that's not up to me". Asian Cup is currently ITN/R so if it was rejected it must have been due to lack of update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not what you supported or opposed, though. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'd say we should be on our guard about rejecting the world's most significant art prize - essentially because American media don't care about it - then posting a prize for coaching kids to spell - essentially because American media care about it. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guess the search function is not infallible. Some interesting discussion there. It certainly sounds like the kind of story I would like featured more often. I'm not surprised by the arguments as I was expecting similar ones here. (Of course there are also differences between the two items, so it would be unwise to dwell on it too much.) I am trying to change consensus to some degree, after all. I encourage everyone to nominate items important to their native cultures going forward and I will fight for them. (And yes, I realize no one was accusing me of any bias.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried. It doesn't work. I've given up. But I'll keep opposing trivia from the big, dominant, bully cultures whose editors can't even see that that is the case. And I'm getting really sick of being told that trivia from the dominant cultures should be posted because I'm allowed to pointlessly nominate stuff from my much smaller culture. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think (hope) times are changing. Let me know what the next cultural item relating to Australia that you want to see covered is and I'll nominate it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we post any story at all from Australia within the next ten days, I'll guarantee my support for next year's Spelling Bee. AFAICT, we have posted one so far this year, and that was only because an Australian won a US sports competition (The Masters), which underscores my objection. Formerip (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be having the AFL and the NRL Grand Finals later this year, and those are supposedly automatic posts once updated... –HTD13:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Formerip gives a very good rationale. A large problem is that the above competitions listed (with the exception of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest) could be regarded as being prestigious in that any winner must be near the top of his field, whereas very few of these children continue to achieve anything notable. If it were a competition like the International Mathematical Olympiad, where many participants become esteemed mathematicians, then I might be more supportive. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to remember to nominate International Mathematical Olympiad when it happens in July. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons Formerip opposes: we need to stop shadowing CNN and stop being obsessed with the profile of nominees in news media. Those aren't the criteria we should be making decisions by. We're an encyclopaedia. The purpose of ITN is to provide hooks into our content. This is a great topic to hook people in with. For added value, we should link to kneydls in the blurb, which Mahankali correctly spelt to win. --RA (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not the reasons I opposed. We should not be shadowing CNN, but we should also, more generally, not be shadowing US media. An ITN where we were able to artfully pick out the stories from around the world which were the most interesting in one way or another - of which this would be one - would be a better ITN. The problem is in applying that aspiration unevenly. There's no way, as things presently are, that we would ever post something like Junior Eurovision, because more contributors are American than European. With a fair wind, we may grow to be something better one day. But we should develop while keeping one eye on balance. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that post highlights the big image problem with Scripps. Many (I am among them) see it as just a trivia quiz, testing a very weird bunch of kids on something that has no practical application at all. When did you last use use the word kneydls? Promoting something for its weirdness is not good publicity. Do you really want that? HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A memorization contest would be a better way to describe it, if you want to go that route (that is the way people who say it has no educational value choose to describe it here. Anyway, it was not nominated on the inherent value of the contest, but rather its cultural significance. Sports, for example, have no significance other than that people give it. Of course people give sports a lot of significance and they should be posted. Likewise, other things that people give significance should be judged by the value attached, not inherent value. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is well done, and winners (children, and often immigrants) are not media darlings on steroids and coke. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. How else do you explain their ability to spell "kneydls"? That's not even a word unless you're on something. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's last sentence. In the "news" is something of a misnomer as the stated purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." For reasons I can't fully comprehend this is of wide interest (ABC were updating live), so it matches the criteria. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose And it's NOT ready. Didn't think I would have to vote here because I thought those in favour would be polite and rational enough to discuss the several points made against, such as those I made. They haven't even responded. This is not ready, unless typical appalling discussion practices are accepted here again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you get off calling the supports here impolite and irrational. I refrained from pointing out above, but will now mention that we have weird (google "soccer crotch grab) grown men kicking around leather balls with their hands behind their backs for no practical purpose posted here several times a year. Posting a child's mental contest hardly looks bad in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon we need a Template:Misrepresentation tag. That's a perfect example of an irrational post. I didn't say the support posts were impolite and irrational. So you still haven't addressed the points I did make. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am removing the ready tag in favor of having more discussion about the item (not for concerns about article quality, which I have not evaluated). This is a nomination that I would prefer to wait a little longer before possible posting, rather than rushing a posting that then leads to large amounts for calls of a pull. I know there's not hard and fast rule about posting times, but preferably this nomination should run for at least 24 hours, not just 3 or so before being marked ready. SpencerT♦C01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a start-class article with three sections and a three-paragraph four-source update and no tags at sentence, section, or article level. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - With great respect to the nominator and supporters, I can't support this one. It's at best a regional spelling contest. I don't care for the promotional aspects for Scripps either. I try not to oppose items of this type but this time I feel we have to draw a line somewhere. If we won't support the CIA Director's nomination, this one doesn't cut it. (I know, I know, comparisons are odious. Nevertheless.) Also agree that the article should not be marked ready. Jusdafax01:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it's not a "regional" competition. There are participants from all over the US, Department of Defense schools around the world, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea. The winners of all the regional competitions come to participate at this bee. SpencerT♦C02:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only DoD schools, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea; you omitted contestants from Germany, Mexico and New Zealand.
That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just say, in regard to the Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Mexico and New Zealand, Hilo, that "That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania"? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being silly. Obviously a lot of those geographically not from the US are US citizens (or their kids) temporarily located elsewhere. And there was obviously a simple piece of confusion between region meaning part of the US, and region meaning a much bigger part of the globe. It's a US competition. Stop pretending otherwise. I defended claims that the Boston Marathon was international because a lot of non-Americans participate. That's not the case here. I shouldn't really have had to explain this. (And I won't make this whole post small, because these points are important.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea of posting stories that might appeal to a different wikipedia-using genre than the kind that would often read the regular ITN stories. Would be interesting to get a feel for page views after it drops back off again. Support because if we are going to try something a little different, this story seems as good as any. CaptRik (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant. Doesn't seem to be getting a lot of international coverage either. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was nominated and has significant coverage and cultural impact. As a European I find the contest odd, but that is not a reason to oppose. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant cultural impact"? - that is plainly an Anglophile privilege. The English Wikipedia is not the Anglo-Saxon version, but rather the international version of Wikipedia, and practically we have to work on the Westener bias mbedded in its culture. Candymoan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is easier for him to first invent a reason to attack your character, and then use that invented reason to actually attack you, than to come up with a legitimate, evidence-and-reason based rationale for opposing. --Jayron3216:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support top competition in it's field, globally sourced competitors. As for the "a regional competition" camp, I shall look forward to your support removing the UEFA Champions League from ITN/R. Sponsorship a problem: fine, drop it. We don't call the EPL the "Barclays Premier League" we it was posted on 4/23. We have a "Please do not" above regarding items relating to a single country, and it's very effective in getting a wide array of traffic accidents posted. Article is in ok shape. --IP98 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Iconic and long-running competition which is easily as significant and well-known as several of the ITN/R contests that we normally post, and it would be nice to add a little variety for a change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose niche topic, niche interest, niche geography and, as mentioned above, pretty close to exploitation of kids' abilities to be super trained (like Pavlov's dogs) to regurgitate facts by rote. Comparisons with European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions is standard chalk-and-cheese. The fact that only five of the winners since 1925 (that's 5 from 84) are notable enough for a Wikipedia article is indicative of the true long-standing impact of this "award". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article is not indicative of lack of notability. An editor of your experience surely knows that. No one compared this to "European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions". Your description of the real people who participate in the event is quite insulting (comparing kids to dogs, geez) and completely unnecessary. Why do you feel to need to use insults and hyperbole every time you oppose something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip, the idea of children being taught to regurgitate the spelling of words they don't know the meaning of, that's Pavlovian, you know that. Stop being so histrionic about it. And yes, IP98 compared this to the Champions League. So please read it all more carefully next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mayeb you should "get a grip" if you feel so compelled that an ITN nomination shouldn't be posted that you have to resort to insults of millions of children. And if you honestly think memorization by rote is a Pavlovian response, so clearly do not understand Pavlov's famous experiment. Also "bully bullshit" is not an appropriate edit summary - just b/c someone disagrees with you doesn't make their opinion bullshit and it certainly doesn't make them a bully. And to answer your accusation below, the reason no one "ganged up on" Neljack, HiLo, etc. is because they made reasonable non-offensive opposes. They did not feel the need to equate spelling bee participants with dogs or grossly misrepresent others opinions to get their point across. Only you felt the need to do so, and not surprisingly, people were offended by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say that in almost every thread involving an exclusively US event like this I always feel at least a little bit bullied, if only by the sheer volume of posts from American editors. I don't blame any one of you for the fact that there's an awful lot of you, but it would be good if everyone could read about and think about Wikipedia's many systemic biases. It's OK. I've been in a minority many times in my life, and right, so I'm strong psychologically about it and will probably survive, but it's good if we all realise what's goes on here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, roughly 50% of the sites editors are American, so I can understand why other cultures might feel overwhelmed. Still, that is no excuse to make insulting posts and grossly misrepresent the position of American editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he realizes that saying those things doesn't make them true. One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination, but the mere act of asserting that this is a niche topic doesn't actually mean anything. What it means is that he finds this something outside of his own interest, but I don't know that "Does not interest The Rambling Man" is a criteria for ITN. I'll double check the list of criteria, as I haven't looked recently, but I don't remember reading that... --Jayron3218:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realise exactly the same thing. This is not an "in the news" article just because you say it is. This is in no way culturally or historically significant. You can gang up on me but it won't make any difference, your bandwagon (and pathetic "Does not interest The Rambling Man" nonsense) is symbolic of desperation I'm afraid. Funny that your tag-team bully tactics aren't being deployed against User:Neljack, or User:HiLo48 or User:FormerIP or User:Ericleb01 or IP:131.111.185.66, no, just me. What a surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready marking again, has been up 24 hours, 86 years-old, 11 million participants from over 10 nations, top contest of kind in world, well-written updated article, various opposes based on false (just a regional) and deprecated (US only) criteria. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff this "over 10 nations" crap. It's obvious that at least some of the claimed "non-American" competitors were American kids living in other countries with their families posted their on military or other activities. Can I see a list of competitors who were not US citizens or the children of such? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Observe there are no more 'supports' than 'opposes', so there does not appear to be consensus to post yet. I think the regional issue is relatively minor, yet one cannot deny that it is essentially an American display that appears rather strange to many others. The larger problem is that these children are hardly notable, nor is it common for them to become notable in later life. It is unlike a competition in the sciences, arts or sports, where competitors are already notable for their actual abilities: a winning artist would be well-known for his previous works, and not simply the winner of some competition who is usually little more than a name in a table of 'winners'. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No way is this should be marked ready, with all due respect. Since the word "regional" seems to have drawn fire, let me put it another way. If we feature an English-language spelling contest, should we feature one for all major languages? Like Russian, or French, also spoken around the planet? If not, why not? What about Chinese, though I couldn't tell you how the Chinese language would have such a contest. Should we seek one out if we post this? Point being, this is an English-specific contest and the ITN-blurb has drawn considerable objection as to its "ITN-worthiness" - again, there is no way I see consensus here, as I understand the term to mean. Let's take the "ready" term off this one and unless there is a new fast surge of supporters and few opposers in the next day, let's just move on, because one can also make the case this story is stale. Jusdafax23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is majority support for this, although some of the opposes have been quite emotional, to the point of vulgarity, and we've even had an attempt at bargaining above. So far as I am aware, there are no French or Russian spelling bees on the scale of the "national" one (few languages besides English have an irregular enough spelling to merit one). We're not here to argue wp:otherstuff, wp:engvar, or that an item is limited to one nation--see the guidelines. This quite obviously meets newsworthiness and update criteria, and it has been held 24 hours in good faith to make sure there wouldn't be a majority for pulls. Unfortunately the supports follow criteria and the opposes are based on criticisms that are specifically warned against. It is ready to post now. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I responded to your claim above of "over 10 nations". Please respond to that. Your argument is based on it being international. Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --IP98 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, again. Quality of discussion here is appalling. Or maybe some just cannot read. I did NOT complain that the event relates only to one country! Medeis, who just claimed this was ready, is basing her case for posting it on it being international. I questioned that. Medeis ignored my question and claimed it was ready. Can you please retract the attack? Or redirect it to the either deliberately manipulative or incompetent editor Medeis? Maybe then we can all move on with a quality discussion. HiLo48 (talk)
Thank you. Even though they are obviously primary sources, I'll accept that. Though I'm not sure it was actually the countries that sent contestants, rather than that they were dug out of the woods by spelling bee scouts. And out of the massive numbers claimed as part of the justification for posting, these are obviously only a very tiny number. Now, why were you able to respond, while Medeis ignored the request to prove her claim, and instead just posted that this was ready? Do some not think it necessary to prove unusual claims? I really do despair over quality of discussion here. HiLo48 (talk)
I don't speak for other people. You ask for sources, I gave you sources. I'm not in the business of speaking good or ill about other individuals. My only concern is that we try to base our arguments, any arguments, on what we can back up with sources and evidence, and not on what our own views and attitudes are. Otherwise the discussion degrades to "I've heard of it" vs. "I haven't" or "I don't think this should be important" vs. "I do think it should be". It is much better to look for how news sources cover these events, and make our decisions based on that. My support is based primarily on the level of coverage this receives in news sources. --Jayron3201:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. (Although the media, even the good media, talks a lot about Hollywood romances and the consequent babies, and the like, and we do, thankfully, judge whether stuff like that deserves to be here, but you point is broadly valid.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you've brought up this strawman argument in the past when I have tried to point out that we should base our judgements on media coverage of an event. Basing our judgement on media coverage means what sources cover it (BBC yes, TMZ no), where it is covered ("above the fold", top story, headline coverage yes, buried in the entertainment section, no), and how much depth of coverage it receives (long articles, unique per source, multiple articles from different perspectives all good, short, cursory articles not so much). Its' quite possible to create an evidenciary-based criteria where we can all present our sources, and check them all out, and the judge "is this coverage an indication that this is an important event in the news". That goes over much better than "I don't think this event meets my standards for what I think the world should care about" or whatever. --Jayron3204:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a valid objection that the event relates to only one country, per our "please do not" (although, IMO, that's badly in need of a Spring clean anyway). However, it is an event of major interest only to people in one country and it is a relatively minor event which occurred in country to which we already give plenty of airtime. These are both perfectly valid objections (they may be weak, they may be strong, but they are valid). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, we should change it to read "Please don't bother nominating items which occur in the United States of America. People will derail the discussion to the point where they'll never get posted anyways, regardless of the actual merit". That would reflect current practice. --Jayron3201:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I DIDN'T COMPLAIN THAT THIS WAS A NOMINATION RELATING TO ONLY ONE COUNTRY!!! AND I DON'T APOLOGISE FOR THE CAPS. YOU DIDN'T NOTICE IT WHEN I WROTE IT IN NORMAL SENTENCE CASE SO I HAVE TO TRY SOMETHING!. (Or did you just ignore it?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear again, again. THAT was because Medeis made that part of her justification for posting this. But we should probably stop now. I don't want to have to revert to CAPS again to repeat things I've already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because obviously we never ever post anything that happens in the Untied States of America. We could have a notice saying "Please don't assume that because something happened in the US it will automatically get unanimous support". Needn't be necessary, but it might be quite useful to be able to point to. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every once in a while we can sneak a quick nomination in while other parts of the world are asleep or at work, so correctly timing the nomination does allow an occasional exception. --Jayron3201:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making conspiratorial accusations and worse, answering them, is not helping. There are various criteria, and outside them we should remain silent. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, niche interest and "there is no there there". They hold a contest on an obscure semi-obsolete skill and each year declare a winner. Same story every year, only the names of the winners and words they spelled change. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe-- because people who throw or kick balls around get millions and millions of fans, impacting the lives of whole populations. Fights between rival Spelling Bee hooligans, now that'd be news! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked ready until someone other than Medeis deems it so. Update is good, consensus isn't clear. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)18:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose not gobale worth, not itnr (rightfully). shockingly its on espon? sports???? all these mugpot Indians cant event spell coloUr..Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment vote is 9 to 8 in favor, with most of the opposes calling China a regional dependency of the US or something of the sort. I am ignoring Lihaas' shocking racist bizaarity as a vote, and reporting it to talk. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WE DON'T VOTE HERE!!!! Your appalling misinterpretation or misrepresentation of policy is worth reporting too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do we scream, lie, curse, make stuff up, resort to racist taunts, complain that a nomination is related to only 10 countries (or even one) or a whole lot of other things. Or do we? An admin needs to look at this disregarding deprecated criteria and comments and post or close on the merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curse? I don't think that's something I do. It's an uncommon concept around these parts. I'm not even sure what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin needs to look at the behaviour of an editor who resorts to misrepresentation about both the process and the behaviour of others. You do it all the time, while ignoring the more difficult comments made in opposition to your views. So, why did you count the votes? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis has apparently ignored the concerns that these children are not currently notable and are unlikely to ever become notable: instead, he has merely asserted that opposition to this item is based solely on geography and he has consequently dismissed all opposition to it. I would call this misrepresentation. It is a pity to think that news stories can be chosen to feature on the front of Wikipedia in such a dishonest manner. As an outsider to this general process, I cannot help but feel that a change in procedure is warranted here (especially since it appears that so few editors are involved in making decisions that affect the homepage of one of the most popular websites in the world). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this item most likely not be posted, I'm not sure what the calls for reform are based on. (We only trust a select group of admins with the ability to post items for a reason.) User behavior can't be regulated by the project, if that's what you are after; but there are venues for dealing with inappropriate behavior in general. And for the record, I think a lot of ITN regulars (of all nationalities) engage in poor behavior from time to time - not just a few "dishonest" Americans. --01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My 'call for reform' is simply due to seeing the numerous heated debates that this page induces, something that is seldom seen when discussing 'Today's Featured Article', for example. I am just very supportive of the idea, for instance, of discussing these types of events with regard to 'recurring items': I am sure a similar discussion about this will take place next year! If a comprehensive list of items of these items could be made (however difficult it might initially be), it should make this entire process considerably easier. Also, I agree that editors of many nationalities engage in poor behaviour here: I simply addressed my comment to Medeis since I am discussing this current item. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily due to worthy points of regionalism made by others. While this is "news" in some fashion, it's really just a routine competition that has no real significance outside some coverage in the US, or in the long term in general. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Last time we did not post it despite some supports. Reports coming in last 1-2 days indicate lot of deaths and a video released by the leader saying its not over. --Lihaas (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see anything in the nomination or the article that indicates this has suddenly become ITN. (And I don't understand the blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also confused What does "redux" mean. It's a word I never hear and hence never use it, so I looked it up. dictionary.com says it means brought back or resurgent. I still don't understand what this is about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas is referring to the fact that another item related to this conflict was nominated before. Redux isn't about the war occurring again (I think). SpencerT♦C01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redux was not the part that has me stumped. The section linked to mentions the terrorist leader released a video to prove his existence. No other obvious reason for notability for posting this is given here or discernible there. If there are specifiable important deaths or large casualties they should be mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Asteroid 1998 QE2
Article:(285263) 1998 QE2 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Closest approach by the asteroid known as 1998 QE2 for the next two centuries. QE2 also has it's own satellite or moon. (Post) Alternative blurb: Asteroid(285263) 1998 QE2 and its moon make their closest approach to Earth for the next two centuries Credits:
Oppose - interesting to astronomers, but this isn't making mainstream news. LukeSurltc 14:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Seems to be getting a bit more attention as it approaches. Switching to neutral. LukeSurltc22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 15 lunar distances is a relatively routine distance in near-earth terms. Admittedly this is much larger than most objects that get so close, but given the level of certainty about its trajectory people aren't paying too much attention to it. —WFC— FL wishlist17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently featuring (low down) on the BBC News homepage so clearly attracting some international attention, still 3.6 million miles away, but as WFC says, much bigger than the last flypast of a space object. A nice opportunity for scientists to examine this kind of phenomenon but not much more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article's updated, and its top news on a lot of sites today. Readers who aren't sure of the name will check the front page expecting we'll have an article on the asteroid. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second story under "top news" heading at USA Today front page right now, Top of the page "breaking news" shown live on FOX and currently second tier "above the fold" on their front page, Third story on front page of CNN's "Latest" heading "above the fold"--those are the first three places I've looked, more would be simple. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, it features on the BBC homepage in the midst of other news too. But using that approach, I'd expect nominations for "Holder tries to calm media after AP", "Did US Crowing About bin Laden Raid Sabotage Hero's Shot at Freedom?", and "'This is only the beginning, our struggle will continue'" (Turkey protests). Which are topping those news outlets. The asteroid is really of minor interest, it's meaningless and borderline trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but those sorts of things happen every day, not civilization-killer asteroids with their own moons passing. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting astronomy story that is 'in the news.' I like that the asteroid has a moon, which is different. Fairly big item to be this close to earth. Jusdafax21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too many people these days live in places too brightly lit for them to even see the stars at night. Let's tell them what's really up there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Stub is not a yellow tag and even if it were it meets both the three paragraph and the five sentence update rules depending which relevant criterion you want to use. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I'm a bit surprised this was posted quickly with the given level of consensus. However, that is not a complaint as I came here to !vote weak support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This outbreak was not as severe as the May 20 outbreak, however, it's significant for its impacts on an already-stricken area and the flooding. (NWS currently has about a dozen flood and flash flood warnings active at present, and several major rivers are expected to crest above flood stage.) —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]09:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be wrongly headed, or described. Tornadoes do not cause major rain events (unless they were very weird tornadoes). Obviously other storm activity was happening too, and that probably caused the flooding. Can we get a better meteorological explanation please? HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tornadoes do not cause flooding, no, but the widespread supercell thunderstorms that are involved in producing the tornadoes can and often do produce flooding, although this flooding was quite unusual in its magnitude. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, please change the blurb so that we're not discussing tornadoes causing floods. Others among you may not care, but I believe we have to get the science right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. While this outbreak is making huge shockwaves among the meteorologist community due to a combination of very poor safety advice being given on TV, several deaths occurring in vehicles, and the fact that numerous storm chasers took direct hits by the tornadoes, I'm not quite sure the significance outside of that has quite risen above the fold. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't have the level of death and destruction that would usually get a disaster posted here, and I'm not convinced that the fact that the area has recently has a more serious tornado disaster (which we posted) should change that. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, we have to determine things like this based on the number of fatalities and the scale of damage, and also compare against recent events like the 2013 Moore tornado. I would support posting an article about the TWISTEX team members being killed though, including the event as context, as what seems to be the first major fatalities of well-known storm chasers. Perhaps someone can expand on that and write a blurb. That seems more notable than the tornado itself. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A series of bombings across Iraq kills at least eleven people. (BBC)
Abdul-Baki Todashev, father of Ibragim Todashev who was killed by the FBI last week, describes U.S. agents as "bandits" who killed his son "execution-style". (The Guardian)(Al Jazeera)
Arts and culture
Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine makes an "unpatriotic" comment on television, prompting calls for him to be removed to a "Communist country" or pursued by secretive anti-terrorism hit squads. Levine responds by tweeting dictionary definitions of words such as "joke", "humourless" and "lighthearted" but is later forced to apologise for his indiscretion. (The Guardian)
It is announced that Internet sensation Grumpy Cat will star in a feature-length movie. (Reuters)
Health and environment
There is no added benefit obtained from a double dose of Tamiflu according to a new study. (Reuters)
Nigeria soldiers uncover a large stock of weapons that they believe belonged to Hezbollah. (Fox News)
Law and crime
Parents in Polk County in the U.S. state of Florida protest against their children having their irises scanned by authorities without permission by schools. The EyeSwipe-Nano program is temporarily suspended. (RT)
After a three-year trial, a U.N. tribunal in The Hague acquits two former Serbian security officials accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 1990s Bosnian War. (Al Jazeera)
A court in Mold, Wales, finds Mark Bridger guilty of abducting and murdering five-year-old April Jones in October 2012. (BBC)
The asteroid (285263) 1998 QE2, expected to approach within 3.6 million miles of Earth on May 31, is discovered to have its own moon.(Los Angeles Times)
Nominator's comments: This is a part of the world that has suffered from repeated violence in the recent past but this recent outbreak highlights the importance of gum arabic, which is used primarily in the soft drinks industry, in the country (that accounts for between 50 and 80% of world production). The violence between rival tribes has left at least 64 dead, dozens wounded, 1,200 homes burnt and 6,500 people displaced. --Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready so it has a chance of going up before it cycles off the template. Feel free to revert if you disagree or if someone wants to oppose - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support for RD oppose full blurb, seems like fairly successfull in field but otherwise unremarkable though obviously sad death. EdwardLane (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Seems reasonably notable in this field. Death section is more than ready, indeed it may be too extensive. LukeSurltc16:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking Ready not much conversation here, but it's been nominated for almost 20 hours with no opposition. Plus, the update is one of the best I've seen for any ITN nominee, let alone deaths. Hot Stop02:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider blurb: I am surprised to see the comment "he was fairly successful". Fairly successful? Eh! He redefined success. If you see today's The Times of India newspaper, they have dedicated 8 full pages on Rituparno Ghosh's death! In a career spanning 20 year, 20 films and 12 National Awards (i.e. India's highest film awards).... in India there is not any other film director with 12 national awards! So, there'll not be any other similar news soon. Yesterday the Wikipedia article got 216,000 views. I am requesting to reconsider blurb! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ready--agree myself this should be posted but one more support and answer to the blurb question would be nice. Then remark ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't re-add it, but it was my understanding that it could still be promoted to a full blurb after being put on the death ticker. Hot Stop03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify I am against a blurb, but Titodutta has expressed a concern. An admin should judge after that concern is posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment In regard to my line "fairly successful" I was basing this on getting national rather than lots of well known international awards, I am generally less enthused about sport/entertainment getting full blurbs (especially for deaths) unless they are 'massively important' in terms of having made a significant 'step change' in their field. The article didn't seem to be telling me that applied in this case (but I'm not an expert in the genre, so I may have missed something obvious).EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Posted to RD as Medeis was commenting... Article is very good, so consider myself an RD support, if necessary. No comment on blurb - I am happy to upgrade it to blurb status if a consensus to do so emerges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support for blurb: A very very important cultural news regionally (South Asia); however, the personality lacks significant global recognition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
