This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
Police in Norway evacuate the area surrounding the U.S. embassy in the capital Oslo after a suspicious package was discovered. It is later confirmed as a false alarm. (Reuters)
At least 21 people are killed in two car bomb blasts in Baghdad, Iraq. (BBC)
Advertiser accuses Facebook of fraud after discovering that 80% of the clicks they're paying for are from bots, and not actual potential customers. (Business Insider)
Following the @ reply and # hashtag, social media service Twitter introduces the $ symbol, a way for users to click on stock symbols and see related tweets. (CNN Money)
German global financial services company Deutsche Bank announces plans to cut 1,900 jobs. (Reuters)
In artistic gymnastics, the United States of America's women's team known as the Fierce Five (composed of members Aly Raisman, Gabby Douglas, Jordyn Wieber, McKayla Maroney, and Kyla Ross) wins the Olympic gold medal in the artistic team final, the second ever women's team gold medal for the United States, and the first to be won at an Olympics held outside the USA.
Support Top headline on both sides of the pond: high on NYT and CNN, 2nd highest on BBC, 3rd highest on Guardian, etc. Bestselling author, major cultural critic, and groundbreaking figure in gay literature. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if she continues to age at the same level as the average human being and dies in 60 years at the age of 86? I think the idea was, though, that X number of people are "actually famous" and that those were just some examples from around the world. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Lindsay Lohan maintains roughly her current level of fame for the next sixty years and then dies, then I think it is likely that her death will be posted to ITN, if such a thing still exists. I hope we're both still around to argue about it then. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am in complete shock and saddened about his death, and that I first heard about his death it here of all places instead of my email. I knew Vidal personally and I was in constant contact with him for several years, seeking his advice regarding my history major. I first met Vidal back in 2009 through one of my journalism professors at Florida International University. She managed to get him to speak for one of the main events in the Miami International Book Fair. I volunteered to help organize the event which was a semi-private audience, and I managed to get a ticket despite being sold out within hours. Vidal came to discuss his career what was televised live on CSPAN. During a Q&A section, I asked a question about having a successful career with a journalism major in which he replied that reading books everyday is the only way to succeed in the field. After the event finished, I spoke to this girl handled the front gate and I went to high school. She got me backstage, and I saw Vidal on his wheelchair signing autographs and speaking to some of the organizers. I bought a couple of his books prior to the event to get autographed, but I decided wanted to get his advise further about the history field, and to my surprise he was willing to talk. We spoke about a hour about current journalism standards as Fox News and comparing politics from the 19th century to now. He gave his email and we kept in occasional contact until last July, when I had to stop school just short of completing it to recover from illness, and soon he got ill himself. Earlier tonight received a few text messages and a facebook message that he passed away but I was so occupied tonight so I didn't know until I decided to check my watchlist :( . Anyways, one of the biggest authors of the 21st century. Notability is unquestionable here. Will expand and work with the article if needed. It was a great honor of meeting him was probably the wisest human being I ever met, and one of my biggest influences ever. Secretaccount10:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect and regards for the loss you feel (and thank you for sharing these interesting memories), I doubt if emotional attachment should be relied upon when accessing this (or, indeed, just about any other) nomination. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well known writer and a major influence on American culture. However, the update is still only one sentence. Someone should find some quotes and reaction to include (I don't have time right now). Modest Geniustalk11:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is US domestic news and a prime example of the main page's US centrism if it's added. Very few people other than heads of state and people in that league get it to the main page when they die. Vidal was merely an author, who didn't even win a Nobel Prize. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes Vidal was an American writer, but one of that country's most eloquent contemporary observers and critics. His influence extended far beyond the USA. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the election of a Prime Minister of a state with 8 million inhabitants doesn't get included on ITN, the death of a single person who was neither a head of state, head of government, recipient of any preeminent awards, and who is chiefly known in one country/culture, doesn't get included either. We don't include the deaths of French authors famous in France or Chinese authors famous in China. This is not the US edition of the main page, it's the global main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestion that Vidal was an "American writer" of interest "only to Americans" is one that does not really bear close analysis. And established writers are generally better known (and often far better regarded) than new heads of state. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article (which is rather short, considering his alleged importance), I see nothing in it indicating that he is ITN material. No preeminent awards, no offices held, and the article largely deals with outrageous sexist and racist statements by him, such as ""I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?" (regarding sexual abuse of a 13-year old), or him propagandizing against the "threat" of "40 to 50 million Bengalis" coming to live here. He appears to be a polemicist, chiefly known to a domestic audience of one country. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be? Whether I like or do not like right-wing American polemicists is immaterial. I had never heard of the guy before. I oppose US centrism on ITN because ITN is not for US domestic news. As someone mentioned, Maeve Binchy who is at least comparable to Vidal, was not posted. Thus we have a clear precedent. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very, very obvious difference: Vidal's death was front-page news on both sides of the Atlantic (it's on BBC, AL Jazeera etc.). This suggests to me that it is of more international interest than you've so far acknowledged. I'd also point out that the Maeve Binchy nom is still open without a similar strong oppose from you, creating the appearance that your motivation has much more to with the US than with authors generally (whether you intend that or not). Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, two newer items than Maeve Binchy have been posted and the nomination was met with much opposition, both suggesting it's highly unlikely that Binchy will be posted. I see no reason to participate in old debates where the outcome has already de facto been decided. Also, Irish-centrism doesn't appear to be a problem for ITN right now. If Vidal is posted, then Binchy should be posted too. Ideally, neither of them should be posted. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again the bluntness of ITN leads us to these circular arguments. In all the conventional TV, radio and printed news outlets this issue did not arise - Maeve Binchy's death was news on Monday, Gore Vidal's death was news on Tuesday. But I suspect that weekly publications will mention both. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you find the same article that the rest of us have read (or contributed to), even on the distant shores of the UK, I hope you enjoy reading it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are U.S. sources on U.S. writer deaths given more value than non-U.S. sources on non-U.S. writer deaths? This is exactly the sort of thing Ireland is saying about Maeve Binchy. I don't see the difference. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it needs an update. This is not "US domestic news". We posted Christopher Hitchens, but Vidal is the real deal. Formerip (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been updated. It has been viewed 45934 times in the last 30 days, and this figure does not include traffic related to his death! Speciate (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently does not meet our minimum update requirements. We normally require at least five sentences and three references. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was also a top headline in the two UK sources I cited above suggests to me that he was, in fact, internationally known. In contrast, Binchy's death didn't get nearly the same coverage outside the UK/Ireland. Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English language press coverage does not equal "international". Did he get that much coverage in China or Russia or France? Either way, there seems to be a clear precedent that we do not post the death of people who are authors unless they have received an exceptional prize (Nobel) or there are other exceptional circumstances. Indeed, very few people and mostly heads of state get posted when they die. I see no outstanding/international recognitions, no office held that merits inclusion on ITN, and no other circumstances that merit inclusion. There are numerous more noteworthy authors alive today. As far as authors are concerned: At least a highly prestigious international prize in the given field (like the Nobel Prize for Literature) should be required for an article being posted on ITN upon the death of its subject. I only see various less notable domestic awards. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what precedent you're talking about. In the last few months alone, we've posted the deaths of Carlos Fuentes, Maurice Sendak, and Ray Bradbury, none of whom won the Nobel Prize. Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article Gore Vidal that suggests he merits inclusion on ITN. I see no significant international awards for his books. Actually, the part of the article dealing with his literary work is very short, and most of the article discusses his involement in polemicism on US domestic issues of very, very little international relevance. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's two schools of thought at ITN, representing ends of a spectrum. There's one school of thought that believes that a group of random Internet users should pass a snap judgement on topics they're unfamiliar with to determine the most important news; there's another that believes we should follow the guidance of reliable sources in judging an item's importance, such as international news sources like Al Jazeera, BBC, the New York Times, etc. I personally belong to the second school, but I realize that's still a controversial opinion. =) Khazar2 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the two schools are: The US centric tabloid school, where random (usually American) Internet users read the usual American newspapers and want to have the same headlines because that's what's important in their country right now, and the international school, which maintain that Wikipedia's main page is not a US edition of Wikipedia but an international encyclopedia, and adheres to principles of balance and a global perspective, and treats countries (whether the US, South Africa, France, China or Ireland) equally. It doesn't matter if I haven't heard of Vidal before, the only thing that matters is whether the article (which I've carefully read) demonstrates him to be sufficiently notable. It doesn't. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. I wasn't aware that the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and Al Jazeera had all been bought out by American interests, but I'll definitely keep that in mind in future voting. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, [7] Guardian, [8] and Telegraph [9] all give detailed reports of Maeve Binchy's death as well. And if that is "too European", her death was also covered by the Washington Post, USA Today, Sydney Morning Herald, 3News NZ, Malaysia Star, CBC News. If an Irish writer who is not considered important enough for ITN can get that sort of attention then it is not that unusual for a dead American writer should get a mention in non-American sources and does not mean that these sources have been "bought" by anyone from any part of the world. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). Some of us consider quality of sourced information rather then just quantity of reliable sources. High volume of news sources does not equal high importance alone. From the article Gore Vidal seems to be the Paris Hilton of political commentary, i.e. someone who makes controversial statements that is often reported in the western media but who themselves have limited notability. That is what I get from reading the article anyway, but perhaps the article gives an WP:UNDUE portrayal of the individual? Regards, SunCreator(talk)15:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is the kind of worthless, specious reasoning that makes this candidacy page a joke. Oppose purely on nationality. Can we make a formal rule that any and all supports and opposes based on geographical location should be ignored as... well... ignorant? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we can. Even if all the most notable items for a given day appear to be based in one country, I think Wikipedia usually takes it upon itself to be more "inclusive" and to "widen its scope" to include items that may have received less attention in the popular press, even if this means positive bias to minority groups (or nationalities). Or is this misplaced idealism. (I still actually agree with you about the "reasoning" in the case above). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Much too old at 86. Binchy's death was more unexpected at 72 and greeted with a greater degree of shock. That and the prospect of posting the umpteenth dead North American male writer this year. The absence from ITN after death both of iconic North American women - Adrienne Rich - and iconic non-North American women - Maeve Binchy - is telling. Can't see the difference between Binchy and Vidal in terms of being top in their respective methods, genres, etc, to be honest. Would support the posting of both but not one over the other. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly dispute the categorization of this item as a minority topic. Judging from the article, he seems to be chiefly known as a commentator on American politics (which makes up the bulk of the article), or as someone put it, the Paris Hilton of American political commentary. That's hardly a minority topic. His books aren't that notable, as I see no international preeminent awards, and only a small portion of the article discusses his literary work. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The minority tag appears to have been removed hours ago in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I saw the discussion of this above and thought it happened then. In any case, it's no matter for a nomination with this kind of overwhelming support. Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our minority topic criteria are incredibly vague and, in fact, this can easily be argued as "culture". Like you say, though, it's not likely to make much difference. Formerip (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some folks involved here need to take a deep breath. The accusations of bias are reaching absurd levels (and I hasten to point out, several of the supporters for this item are not American, and a few of them are generally stridently against US-centrism). This isn't a matter of Vidal vs Binchy. There is no rule against multiple items of similar flavor ITN; we can have two authors, two Americans, two Indian disasters, two whatever, it makes no difference if the news is notable. Systematic bias or weighting should be viewed in the long term, not by happenstance of the stories laid at our feet in a given week. I do my best to assume good faith, but it seems rather telling when one nomination is argued for "because Irish are superior" and another is opposed because "American bias." - OldManNeptune⚓17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was intended to point out the association many people make between Ireland and literature. Like I said when I opposed this nomination above, no problem with both being included but really can't find much difference between these two. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As usual, some nominations below without provocative accusations of US bias for or against are stagnating. "Floods in North Korea" is about to disappear with a split verdict and little comment, "Tamil Nadu Express Fire" is about to disappear despite being marked ready for 24 hours, and "Alexey Navalny embezzlement charges" has attracted little comment. Would some of the editors here--especially those concerned with "US bias"--consider chiming in on those? It seems a shame to spend so much energy on Vidal alone. Khazar2 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how very pertinent, Khazar2. If one could only assume that all articles proposed here met the structural requirements, an alternative approach might be to just allow votes in support, with editors having one (moveable) vote per day? After all, something has to go in ITN, and it would save an awful lot of "debate". Or is that undemocratic? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no votes on Wikipedia. This is not a vote. It's a discussion. The number of "votes" is basically irrelevant, what matters is the arguments presented (especially those backed up with sources). Josh Gorand (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare make such an accusation! No way is it "blatantly WP:POINTy". I've already explained this situation - completely unrelated to ITN and my concerns about the nature of reasons given in this nomination - on my talk page. It was like any other edit I've made today on writing-related topics as diverse as Brian O'Nolan and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Snell. I made a good faith edit, consensus disagreed with the edit, I left it that. You're not coming across very well by trying to spread it around to other places, to inflame the situation and threatening to have me blocked. As I've told you before, IPs are human too and are not some lower order of specimens to be censored and told what to do by editors masked by accounts. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So here we have an exceptionally weak article that does not in any way demonstrate why this person is sufficiently notable for ITN (I see some not very famous books (compared to really famous ones), the bulk of the article discussing polemicism on US issues, and no significant awards or offices), and the only arguments cited here for inclusion sound (as pointed out above) like "he is super famous" or "I knew him personally"(!). The posting of this article (and non-posting of the equally famous female Irish writer) is nothing but a scandal, especially since obvious US bias and the obvious lack of notability as demonstrated by the article were pointed out in the discussion before the article was posted. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I'm sure no-one wants to see US bias or even the appearance of US bias. I would certainly not object to the posting of Binchy. But if you felt so strongly, why have you given support to Binchy only now? Didn't you cite her non-posting as a valid reason not to post Vidal? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be roughly equally notable. I don't think any of them should be posted in principle, but if Vidal is posted, then she should be posted too. Considering that underrepresented topics should be better represented, we could even have posted the Irish female only (if we had to choose one of them, which appears to be the current situation), as there are constantly tons of American men on the main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. In a way I feel bad about Binchy not being there. This coincidence in their demise has not been kind to her. I just felt that Vidal had had more range, influence and impact in his career. I think Maeve's death, at only 72, is more tragic. But there is, of course, no room for sentiment at wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who supported both nominations, I do have some sympathies. However, I must always go with what a feel regardless of the opinions of others; just because the other nom was rejected does not make any difference to my decision here. I can't control how others vote, and there's little point in getting upset about it. I just go along with it. ITN is a very small part of Wikipedia, and not worth the stress over. Plus I'm off to London tomorrow and I want to avoid stress as MUCH AS POSSIBLE!!!.... So why the hell am I on ITN?... --Τασουλα (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equally notable? I don't think so. Check out the Gore Vidal stats and the Maeve Binchy stats in June (before they got skewed by news of their deaths), Gore Vidal got 1,200–1,600 daily views, while Maeve Binchy got 150–200. That's almost an order-of-magnitude difference. -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was (mostly) a political polemicist in a much larger country. She was a novelist in a much smaller country. It's that simple. Page views don't equal importance. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'He was (mostly) a political polemicist in a much larger country. She was a novelist in a much smaller country.' Precisely. That's all the explanation needed of why it's right to feature Vidal but not Binchy. Like it or not, writers from large countries (and the United States in particular) simply are more notable than writers from smaller ones: due to the prominence of the US in international culture, Vidal received international attention throughout his life that Binchy didn't. It may not be fair, but it's the way the world is. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a part of the yellow press. There is a reason we don't constantly have Paris Hilton on the main page, regardless of how "famous" she is. So you are in error, I'm afraid. It's irrelevant how "famous" he is in just one country. If he didn't receive any significant literary recognition internationally, he isn't notable as a literary figure. Then it all boils down to him being a locally (=in his own country) known political commentar/polemicist. That has close to zero international relevance. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate voicing opposition after the fact, but I can't help with this one. The article totally fails to establish his outstanding significance apart from listing several of his works, none of which strike as especially awarded. Mostly the article is just about politics, even if he is was not posted as an "American political commentator" but an "American author and playwright". And most obviously, without a good measure like the Nobel prize him being "famous" is just entirely dependant on where one lives or even the political symphaties of the indivudal. No amount of anecdotic supports can change these facts. --hydrox (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article might fail to establish his outstanding significance (I haven't read it), but lots of WP articles fail to do lots of things, and its not part of the criteria we go off. In terms of a measure "like the Nobel prize", he won the National Book Award lifetime medal.Formerip (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas, at risk of being accused of pointiness yet again, I can only observe that Maeve Binchy won what amounts to at least three or four equivalent lifetime achievement awards in Ireland and the UK. If national-level lifetime achievements awards do not improve a writer's chances when won more than once, they can hardly do so when won only once surely? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is. But the two died at more or less the same time and the comparison offered above is relevant to any consideration that Gore Vidal may be more notable on the basis of lifetime achievement awards accumulated. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this (the first thing I stumbled upon while googling Gore Vidal in the hope of being convinced of his greatness) he "failed to become the pre-eminent writer of his time ... judged by most measures to fall behind rivals such as John Updike, Saul Bellow and Philip Roth". Indeed, he seems better known for being "famously attractive as a young man, he would have been a beautiful politician" and his "considerable wealth and fame and a secure place in dictionaries of quotations". One of the comments even calls him "a turgid writer of peculiar novels and his own biggest fan". Sounds harsh, what with him just being dead and all, but if that's what they're saying about him, well... --86.40.106.208 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and a few other recent endless discussions have made me wonder if it's worth starting to "close" ITN discussions after posting, to keep efficiency higher and anger lower. Comments would be welcome here. Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that is on the main page is subject to discussion, and this discussion can result in the removal of the item from ITN, as happened, for example in the case of the appointment of an obscure judge, Elena Kagan, two years ago, incidentally after much discussion after the item was posted. On Wikipedia, everything is open for debate, it's not like the Soviet Union. An ITN discussion here can only be closed when the item is removed from the main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fer Christ's sake, look at the page views. On Aug 1, Vidal's page got 360k views. Compare that with some of the other recent deaths, both ITN-posted and not. Vidals's page was getting an average of 1531 page views a day before his death, compare that to other bios. [11]Speciate (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly fair comment, Josh Gorand. In fact there is litle debate over when an item has become stale and shoud be removed, regardless of order of posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (after the fact) for the purpose of countering systematic bias. Comparisons with Death of Maeve Binchy and contrasts with that discussion are spot on. Both are internationally-renowned authors, translated into the roughly same number of languages (Binchy 37, Vidal 36), and with roughly the same number of books sold (40 million). Yet, she has "merely local notability" and "he is actually famous". --RA (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we need to decide what to post. Also hes got more events and will win more. So its early now.
Also multiple medals in olympics aswimming is not that great. You ahve 4/5 different types for the same length. Athletics could do that if they had 4 ways to runLihaas (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A major accomplishment; no reason to post it a few days late if he doesn't win any more. Given the usual ITN turnover, this will still be up if he wins an additional gold medal for us to update. Khazar2 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We posted in 2008 when he broke the record for most career golds [12] and most golds at a single Olympics [13]. Most career medals in total seems less significant to me when he already had the gold record. If we post it then I don't think we should say "Becomes the most decorated". That type of formulation usually refers to the highest decorations. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there any other participating athlete at the current Olympics that has the chance in the next couple of weeks to tie/surpass this record? If there's a chance that someone else could surpass Phelps, we should hold off until either we have assurance that no one else can surpass Phelps (or whomever might gain that record) or the conclusion of the Olympics. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish support. It's clearly a major achievement, but less major than it might seem at first glance because swimmers have so many more opportunities at Olympic medals compared to other athletes. But, a support vote all the same. Do we normally talk about athletes being "decorated", or is it just soldiers? I'd go for "medalized". Formerip (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he has finished all his competitions for the games. Also, who is number two? Is it possible for him to be surpassed before the end? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The news is not how many medals he has won, but that he is now the most decorated Olympian in history, regardless of how many medals he will or will not get afterwards. This hadn't changed in almost 50 years, so it's pretty significant. --Kreachure (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because what we are posting here is total overall medals, someone could win 20 bronze and be "most decorated". If this was about most gold medals which is how olympic ranking is done then i would give it strong support. However we have already posted him once for most golds in last olympic. -- Ashish-g5501:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"How Olympic ranking is done" by who, exactly? There is no official Olympic ranking method! And sure, someone might win more medals than Phelps one day, but not on this Olympic; it could take another 50 years for all we know. --Kreachure (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The gold first ranking system described above is used by most of the world media, as well as the IOC", im going by whatever IOC and most of the world does. -- Ashish-g5503:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously cannot think of something more important than this that could happen in these Olympics, but maybe that's just me. --Kreachure (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable. Swimming has dozens and dozens of medal events, whilst others (say, shooting) have only a handful, rowing even fewer. It's just an accident of choice that he has so many. It's not that impressive. doktorbwordsdeeds05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winning the most medal in Olympic history is noteworthy enough to frature. Blurb should mention the previous record holder. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of the number of chances to win medals in swimming and other games.We aren't discussing here whether others get equal opportunities or not or if it can change in future.A news is a current event of notability and it is one.Also the blurb should mention the previous record holder.--Ayanosh (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This hasn't happened since 1964, so arguments that this is a modern phenomenon are out the window straight away. All of his closest rivals in the all-time table are from disciplines other than swimming. The closest swimmer is on 12 medals, and she's not contesting any more events at these games. Ryan Lochte on 9 medals, and I believe that he can only get 3 more in these games. Indeed, there is absolutely no-one who could surpass Phelps' record even if they medal in every event they participate in. If Phelps gets another medal, someone will report the outdatedness in a quicker time than it took Phelps to swim the race, and the notable thing is that he has broken the record, so there is no argument whatsoever for waiting until his games are over. Ashish-g55 raises a hypothetical point, but a) has ignored the fact that total medal count is the second most-used convention for ranking medals and b) has not provided a single example of an Olympian coming within a country mile of 20 medals without a gold. This milestone is presumed to be as significant because it is nigh-on universally presumed that to come anywhere near it, you would have to win a significant proportion of golds. To challenge that widely-held view, you need to provide at least a shred of evidence to suggest that this might not be the case. —WFC— 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: One of Putin's leading opponents is charged with embezzlement, prompting widespread skepticism. Top news in Russia, 2nd top story on NYT, 7th on BBC, 6th on Al Jazeera. Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; the verdict for that is likely coming soon and should surely be posted. (At least, I'd vote for it). But I think it wouldn't do us any harm to have two Russia stories in a week given its size and importance. What attracts me to this one is the fact that Navalny's so often described as Putin's leading opponent (as per the BBC: [17]). Who knows whether the charges will be pressed, dropped, or what have you, but the charges themselves seem like a major story; it's definitely getting a lot of international press. Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The impact of this seems fairly apparent. However, the argument that it is not a verdict, merely charges, is valid. In counter, I feel that the verdict will actually get less attention and probably not even be nominated, because the interest here appears to be surprise factor. I could be wrong and the trial could be a real battle and the verdict significant, though. I lack the crystal ball to guess, but at this moment, the charges themselves appear to be a pretty significant development. - OldManNeptune⚓17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. - appears low on the BBC front page but not Al Jazeera or NYT yet. Still, this news is only a few hours old, so more may come later; I also imagine this is getting more play in Spanish-language media. But the article has been orange-tagged for lack of citations since March. Seems unlikely that it will be improved soon enough to post, but I'd be glad to be surprised. Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep going back and forth on this one, but after spending an hour or two playing with it, I feel like Foreign relations of Venezuela isn't main page ready either. Despite having a scope of 190 years of Venezuelan history, it's mostly focused on Hugo Chavez, and I tagged it as recentist. Perhaps the Chavez material could be spun off into [Foreign relations of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez]]? I'm happy to have another pair of eyes on it, though, and if you disagree, feel free to remove the tag. 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
^^Announced but not verified/finalised until now? Anyway, Support for being notable in the realm of South American politics. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are posting this, shouldn't we also mention Paraguay? A country of that size being suspended from the European equivalent would probably be posted as a stand-alone item, and while I probably wouldn't have nominated the suspension alone, if we're posting Venezuela anyway there's a strong case for mentioning it. —WFC— 19:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support many reasons: 1. slow news, 2. full membership of a growing economic bloc (about 6 years ago they stymied the us fta at the summit of the americas in argentina) and a massive emerging markert for a oft-neglected region. 4. this also has repercussions with paraguay;s coup as they were the last holdup (and probs seek to gain support with this). So in summary: repercussions and a first. We post admission to the eu.Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't want to read the gigantic article so I'm going to just ask. Is MERCOSUR an "Association of co-operation" like ASEAN, or a legally binding collection of treaties like the EU? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We wouldn't think twice about "country joins EU", for one thing. It's an important event for the region and significant enough to be carried in some detail on numerous English language news websites. doktorbwordsdeeds05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pull This article had an orange tag for lack of citations that had sat on it for five months; a few hours before posting an IP removed this tag without explanation and replaced it with an orange "outdated" tag. The next editor was the posting admin, who pulled the second tag off to post it. What's more, this article only seems to have had a two sentence update [18]. I don't really oppose this one on notability grounds, but the orange tags and lack of update suggest to me that this one might not be our best foot forward for the main page. Khazar2 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination date and date of event is 30 July, retrieved from archive as discussion is neither complete nor acted upon
Article:Maeve Binchy (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Maeve Binchy(pictured), whose novels have been translated into 37 languages and sold more than 40 million copies worldwide, dies in Dublin. (Post) News source(s):[19][20] Article updated
Weak oppose - based mostly on lack of prominent coverage. BBC has this obit 3rd, but Guardian puts it way down on the page. NYT, CNN, and Al Jazeera don't have it on the front page at all. As for my own evaluation, she doesn't have much in the way of notable awards and in terms of popularity doesn't come close to making our List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors. Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the sample I use. But thought she appears in the publications you cite, that story doesn't seem very prominent in them, either; it doesn't have front-page posting on USA Today or Wash Post, for example (I didn't check them all). If it's not one of the top 20-30 stories of the day for these news orgs, it's a very hard sell for me to vote to post it (given that we only post 1-2 items a day on average). Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I just don't see it. She hasn't won any major international awards (Nobel or even Booker), her death hasn't been much noted beyond the UK, and she doesn't seem to be in even the fifty most best-selling authors of her generation. If it's any consolation, I voted against the obituary of one of Bangladesh's most popular authors a few weeks ago, too. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. 40 million sales apparently is enough to make the aforementioned list, there's already an entry there with that amount. That aside, Binchy is a phenomenal success this side of the pond and given the variety of translations mentioned I doubt that she's only of interest to one country. To draw a pretty good precedent, we posted Maurice Sendak a few weeks back. GRAPPLEX03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every one on that list seems to have an upper estimate of 100 million copies; it's a confusingly made table. I don't dispute the rest of your logic, though. Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that table even sorts strangely, but only Cussler has a listing of 40 million sales, and that's lower estimate (his upper is 150 million). I don't think sales alone is going to qualify here, even if she were on that list she'd be dead last, and a glance it's what, close to 100 entries, with numerous living authors drastically ahead? Wouldn't even be in the ballpark of the lowest listed British authors. - OldManNeptune⚓17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Who died yesterday? Or the day before? She's gotta be at least the sort of person who dies every three or more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.84 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was exaggerating. Point is, there are usually a lot of worthy candidates, and for whatever reasons it can be difficult for ITN to accommodate them all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't post it. I just think, when it comes to deaths, we need to find a more efficient and equitable way of presenting them. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this particular nomination. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sally Ride was opposed because people here didn't think that the titel of "first American women in space" was notable enough either. And Sendak had some strong opposition, too, but part of that was due to his age (he was 80-something), thus enacting the "death may perhaps have been expected" clause. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well known, and well regarded author in her field, commercially successful enough to be considered notable even with our shifting sands approach to death nominations. doktorbwordsdeeds04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Telegraph obit. "In a survey of Ireland’s 100 bestsellers in the 20th century compiled in 1998, she took first, third and fourth places, with seven of her books in the top 100, outselling not only Yeats, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, but more recent writers such as Frank McCourt, Roddy Doyle, Seamus Heaney and Edna O’Brien." --86.40.96.148 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sighs. First she is not being reported by the correct media organisations. Then she is not winning the right awards to be considered. Now she is not well known enough. It seems from the above as if she is quite well known actually. --86.40.96.148 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - prolific, but not record setting. Popular, but not much outside Ireland. Reaction mostly from Irish writers and press. Death not unexpected. Recent deaths. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for being well known outside Ireland? You cite a CBC repost of an AP article which says she was on the NYT best selling list. When? For how long? With what rank? Back up your claim. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is by no measure (sales, awards, or attention to her death) one of the top figures in her field (literature), if that's what you mean. Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You can make accusations like that if you want, but Sendak's death got sustained coverage in international outlets. For me, that was the obvious difference. I realize I'm starting to WP:BLUDGEON a bit, though, so I'm willing to step out. Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Because she's not American" is not a good rationale for posting this. The bar has been consistently raised on death nominations and she falls below it. I actually believe IP address above me summarized well. To make clear, I'm not saying "if we didn't post x, then not this either," but rather that consensus in the past has repeatedly and over a long period of time excluded persons of roughly similar (or greater) notability who died of age, and for lack of objective guidelines, I feel precedent is the obvious way to go. - OldManNeptune⚓17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seem like the only thing stopping Maeve Binchy from being mentioned at ITN is the fact that she isnt American. Just keeping it real.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. A US author whose death was not reported on any front pages outside the US and who never won a major award would stand exactly zero chance of making ITN. Even US deaths reported on international front pages (e.g., Andy Griffith) are described as of "local interest", and rightly so. Just keeping it real back... Khazar2 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Irish is no more a justification than being American. She isn't among the top selling authors, didn't win any major awards, and isn't a top headline on a good sample of international news outlets (ranked high on BBC, but there's obvious local interest there). "The Irish are far superior" is not a reason to put this on the front page. - OldManNeptune⚓17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with OldManNeptune. In fact, if we did try to nom an American author we would get deluged with "This is a global project, waaaaaaa I don't like America". Nationality has nothing to do with it, unless it's being used as a justification, such as "Irelands favourite author". --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it can be justified in this case. Ireland and writing are inextricably linked. Just as there are some areas in which America is also quite good to the extent that it leaves many others in the shade, e.g. space exploration, to point to the numerous NASA missions to have appeared on ITN. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, good sir! Or anyone who is a registered user...or an IP that makes lots of contributions ;) (Well actually the comment WAS aimed at you and everyone else, feeding the trolls is bad. Assuming good faith can only go too far) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. My insistence on unregistered editing (my choice, my fault) results in the occasional troll label, especially after an IP change. Thanks for clarifying :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good! DNFTT (As in, not feeding the trolls, not trolling) is actually something everyone needs to do more in their lives...er, Wikipedia editing. And ah well, being a registered editor has its negativities. I wouldn't be a registered editor if my IP wasn't blocked because of some asswipe making racist edits just down the road from me...which got my range blocked! I hope you never have this problem :( --Τασουλα (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit like how we clearly didn't post Sendak? Except we did. Nationality is becoming too much of a sticking point here; the fact is a variety of sources have shown international attention, albeit not at the highest level. If papers from both sides of the pond are reporting it then we shouldn't have to resort to jingoism or accusations thereof. GRAPPLEX18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sendak barely made it, and had numerous WP:RS calling him "the most important childrens author of the 20th century", not "Americas favourite childrens author". See the difference? It's subtle but it's there. One is global in reach, the other regional. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this thread's gotten a lot of attention, Zanhe's nom for the Nellore train fire below still has only one comment on it. Would anyone from this thread be willing to weigh in there, whether yay or nay? Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Death of a well-known novelist (with several works made in to film). Widely reported throughout the English-speaking world (e.g. BBC, USA Today, Brisbane Times, Toronto Star, The Hindu, New Zealand Herald from a quick search of Google). Not front page news in most places, but not every ITN need to be "front page news" for it to be suitable for ITN on an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She had her works published into 37 languages and she sold over 40 million books around the globe. This has broad appeal. A very high volume of news sources have reported on this too.Rainthe 119:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless "extra" stuff about her death in European media. Several have three or four additional articles apart from reporting her death. It's like death of the year over here. Here are two others from the same publication. [21][22] Two more additional articles from another publication. [23][24] Two more from a separate publication. [25][26] Two more from another publication [27][28] Here are four others from the same publication. [29][30][31][32]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.148 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I admit I never really heard of her. The sources shown shows that she was one of the most important and beloved writers in a country known for its rich and storied history of English literature. Makes me want to buy one of her novels just because of these sources. It's as common sense as it can be under our current ITN criteria. Update sufficient. Secretaccount02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you think writers like these die all the time? These are probably two of the top writer deaths this year. Here we have an example of the underlying sexism and U.S. centrism when it comes to dead writers on ITN. Two top writers die closely together: one American man and one non-American woman (who has the decency to even die first). Everybody rushes to heap plaudits on the American man and demand he be included on the Main Page, but is blind to the achievements of the non-American woman who outsells James Joyce and Oscar Wilde and is considered "the mammy" of Irish writing in the past two decades. Note that this is not just an accusation of this, here we have the evidence before our very eyes. Nothing has prevented two or more deaths appearing on ITN in the past. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two domestically-reknowned, internationally-known authors who have recently died; what are the chances of bundling the two items together under a wording like "Authors Maeve Binchy (72) and Gore Vidal (86) die"; the bundling would alleviate some of the too-much-weight-on-deaths concern, ease a transition into a possible death ticker, and assuage any of the jingoism going on here. GRAPPLEX21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea. Although not a "respected" writer like Vidal, I think Binchy has certainly been a very much-loved writer in Eire and UK for very many years. Her death has certainly been given equal coverage by national BBC radio. I guess Vidal's page views were that much higher as he was really a US literary celebrity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a sensible compromise. However, I think people should not be so trigger-happy in accusing others of having a pro-American bias. Check out the Gore Vidal stats and the Maeve Binchy stats in June (before they got skewed by news of their deaths), Gore Vidal got 1,200–1,600 daily views, while Maeve Binchy got 150–200. That's almost an order-of-magnitude difference. Gore Vidal, like it or not, is far more notable than Maeve Binchy. I'm not American, by the way. -Zanhe (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is if you base notability on how many times pages are viewed. Wikipedia does not do this. Are you honestly suggesting that the likes of Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga are among the "most notable" people in world history? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a skewed comparison, Binchy's fanbase is generally much older and less tech-savvy than Vidal's; and I'll reiterate the guest-starring-in-cartoons bit again. GRAPPLEX22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is also a woman and many of her readers are women. Very few women contribute to Wikipedia. Also, Gore Vidal, as his article demonstrates, was quite outspoken, to put it rather mildly. Binchy did not make as many public appearances or stir as much controversy. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm saying that hardly any women contribute to Wikipedia and commenting on the differing approaches taken by Maeve Binchy and Gore Vidal. Had Maeve known she could make herself more notable by being a man and airing her opinions on George W. Bush and Roman Polanski, she may very well have thought about obliging. She did comment on Adolf Hitler though. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, very well, she could have opted to remain a woman and air her opinions that way. ;) But she'd still be an outspoken woman unsuitable to grace ITN, nothing like her male counterparts - Maurice Sendak, Carlos Fuentes, Ray Bradbury - or fellow females - Nora Ephron, Whitney Houston - all blessed to have been born in or associated with a certain unmentionable part of the world (before being misunderstood again I hasten to add that I find all their inclusions on ITN to have been as acceptable as just about everybody else probably did). --86.40.106.208 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reading all the comments above i do not see consensus. This should not be posted based on fact Vidal got posted. ITN is not an obituary section for authors. -- Ashish-g5523:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting it is or that it should be. That's a shame Ashish, as GrappleX's idea was a good and constructive compromise. However, the "technicalities" of taking it all to a fresh formal proposal and vote will regrettably not be seen as worth the effort. That idea now seems rather spoiled. I think both Vidal and Binchy are worthy but for ITN, but probably - to be unnecessarily precise - for different amounts of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths are not something that should not be bunched up in my opinion. I see no reason to make compromise, if this has consensus it should go as its own blurb. But its just not there, otherwise it sets precedent on putting bunch of deaths in one blurb. Thats all we'll end up having on ITN. -- Ashish-g5513:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bit late, but for what it's worth. I think the comparison with Gore Vidal is illustrative: it demonstrates the difference between an internationally famous writer and one with merely local notability. Binchy was a successful writer, but not a figure of international fame, and so her death need not be noted here. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily, I take the exact opposite from the Vidal example. To me it illustrates a bias in assessing the importance of between two internationally renowned authors. --RA (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some numbers to illustrate the point: both authors (Vidal and Binchy) were translated into the roughly same number of languages (Binchy 37, Vidal 36) and sold the same number of books (40 million). Yet, she has "merely local notability" and he is "internationally famous"? --RA (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing their equal renown as novelists misses the rather obvious point that Vidal was also extremely famous as an essayist, playwright, and political commentator, while Binchy's reputation relies solely on her novels. That's why Vidal's death was front page news on English news sources around the world, while Binchy's was not. I won't argue with your support of Binchy--if she's posted, so be it--but the accusations of bias are getting silly. Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, you know that not all bias is sinister or intentional. Bias can be (and usually is) completely innocent. As someone pointed out above, the source of that bias in this case may not simply be national, but also the male, age, and interest.
To many of us (predominantly male, younger, and wannabe intellectuals), Vidal may be "super famous" and "obviously the kind of author that should be front page". That doesn't mean that Vidal was actually a more notable author.
Vidal was also an essayist and political commentator, as you say. But Binchy was also a journalist and humourist. And both were playwrights. Regardless of these differences and similarities, both were measurably equally popular as writers (given the stats above).
So when we estimate their importance, what are we measuring? How important they were? Or how important they were to us?
I admit there was an observable difference in the coverage of their two deaths. Like you point out in supporting Vidal, his obituary was 2nd on the BBC site, for example — clearly pipping Binchy who was only 3rd, as you also pointed out :-P --RA (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's disingenuous to say that "both were playwrights" as if they achieved equivalent success--given your interest in quantifiable stats here, you've probably realized this. Binchy wrote a single play for which our only source is her website; Vidal wrote 6-7, one of which was nominated for a half-dozen Tonys, made into a Henry Fonda film, and continues to run on Broadway 52 years after its premiere. Binchy's journalism and humor writing haven't been mentioned as significant in the sources I've looked at, including her Wikipedia article; Vidal, in contrast, was one of America's best-known political commentators for decades, appeared in a variety of movies and television shows, and was involved in some of the most legendary dust-ups in American television history. I suspect these are some of the reasons that a news source based in Qatar, for example, made Vidal front-page news and ignored Binchy.
Again, if you feel Binchy is front-page news, well and good, and I won't dispute you on that. But to say that bias is the only possible reason to differentiate between them is a silly insult to your fellow editors. Why not just consider that some people may have different rationales than yours--such as prominence of international coverage? Khazar2 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, please don't think I am "insulting" you by indicating that not all voices are represented equally in Wikipedia discussion. If that was so insulting, I'm sure you would not have signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Now, I did not say that bias is the "only possible reason" to support or oppose either's inclusion (who are you quoting there?). There are sound reasons to support or oppose both. However, I'm am attributing the great discrepancy in supports and opposes between the two to an (innocent) systematic bias.
Both were primarily authors (and had other activities too). They both sold the same number of books and were translated into roughly the same number of languages. Yet, the mainstay of Binchy's opposes are that "many users have not heard of her nor of her writings", "not seeing the international notability", etc. whereas Vidals supports are that he is "super famous" and "a man of clear notability". The numbers just don't add up to account for that kind of divide. So, I am putting the difference down to systematic bias (i.e. how many readers of nostalgic chicklitt are posting here vs. the number of postmodern political junkies?).
With respect to your final comment, I have considered it. I indicated that in my final sentence above (albeit tongue in cheek). Vidal received greater coverage, I've no doubt. But, in truth, I don't think that is very strong argument. Binchy's death received very significant coverage worldwide too, with full-article obituaries in newspapers from around the English-speaking world. Both were very famous authors in their own genre, and both deaths received significant worldwide media attention. Trying to divide them based on who was 2nd on the BBC website vs. 3rd is splitting hairs. --RA (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would be, had a single person voted on that basis. But it's not splitting hairs to say "front page news on three continents" vs. "front page news in UK and Ireland only"; it's a pretty obvious difference. Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Vidal was "front page news on three continents". (His death was not on the front page of any newspaper I picked up.) But even if it was, I say it's splitting hairs because, regardless of what was on the front page, both deaths were "in the obituary section on three continents".
That matter, however, which we can disagree on, is a separate from the point I was raising about bias leading folk to believe Binchy was only of local notability, whereas Vidal was of international repute. The point I was raising was that both authors were equally successful and well-known internationally as each other. That the deaths of both were intentionally reported (whether font page or back) underlines that. --RA (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs attention with a quick !vote count I count +4 support, and a lot of compelling arguments. I would like an admin to give this a good read and make a decision. It's not too late. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be a weighing up of the content of the comments which offer reasonable input into the argument, rather than straightforward supports and opposes. Unfortunately this seems to have made little difference to the outcome of this particular "vote/non-vote". Various editors, of Irish and international origin, have argued, quite reasonably on numerous counts, in favour of this nomination. Yet this is being overlooked by some sort of collective blindness that appears to have taken hold. Binchy seems to require a higher standard than other writers who have been included in the past (and the future(!) if Vidal, who died later, is considered), and it seems virtually impossible for her to reach that required standard, be it on awards, sales, legacy, translations, media coverage, appearances on Oprah and the NYT bestsellers list, monuments, continued interest in her funeral, or any other possibility. She simply cannot match the requested levels of "fame" or "superfame" reached by Gore Vidal, whatever "superfame" is actually supposed to be. I can only assume there is some differing level of understanding among editors of what is to be "famous" and why or why not this is so important to the outcome of nominations in general. --86.40.98.26 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some editors do use different criteria than others, including prominence of media coverage, number of page views, or (my own least favorite) personal evaluation of "importance". It's fine that your criteria are different, but it hardly makes other editors blind or inconsistent. Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, but I thought the opposes had been responded to intelligently and hoped an admin would take a look. After all, it isn't a vote, but a consensus. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know I waited until now to weigh in, but isn't this too late? She died almost a week ago, that's not really "in the news" any more. I know supporters will jump down my throat for saying so, since they'll have a legit point about all the back and forth that's gone on for this subject in that (almost) week, but I see the passage of time as saying there isn't enough momentum to get this posted on the main page, and even if there is consensus now (which I'm not sure about), it's too late. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more recent than the bottom two entries on the template at least, and occurred on the same day as the third from bottom; I can't see how you could oppose the addition of something newer than at least a third of the present content on the grounds of it being too old. :/ GRAPPLEX22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her death isn't in the news any more. You could make an argument that those older items still on the main page should be taken down too, but the design is that they get pushed off by more recent news and nothing else so newsworthy has been happening lately. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely on a slow news week it's still manageable to have old news bumped off for less-old news? It has already been an absolute joke how long this has languished for, and to see it drop off completely due to sheer apathy is a bit of an insult given how quickly Vidal, Sendak et al were thrown up. Even to go up for a day or two before newer news rotates it off is still better than it being shamefully ignored. GRAPPLEX23:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference between Vidal and this was the overwhelming consensus for Vidal before editors started coming up from the Binchy thread to make their WP:POINT. But I agree that it would be fine to insert this on the main page in its proper chronological place. We've had slow turnover this week, so that would still put it about the middle of the template. Khazar2 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is nationality. It's already been demonstrated that both had near-identical bona fides; any points raised above are legitimate. The overwhelming initial !vote support for Vidal shouldn't mask the fact that it had no more weight and merit as an ITN item than this. GRAPPLEX23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it's been demonstrated that they had roughly equal novel sales and translations, but since Gore Vidal was also known for decades as one of America's leading political commentators, best essayists, and a major playwright, a one-to-one comparison remains silly. As a thought experiment, if neither had ever written a novel, Vidal would still have an extensive Wikipedia article and be a well-known figure comparable to Britain's Christopher Hitchens; Binchy would be lucky to have a three-line obituary. I realize we simply have to agree to disagree on this, but to act as if this is proven fact is probably overstating your case; certainly the accusations of bias are in poor faith when there's room to legitimately disagree. Khazar2 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basing this entirely off our own article on the man, his political career seems to be dominated by the kind of electoral failure and fame-through-controversy that makes me doubt it would engender the kind of noteworthiness you imply. I'm not denying that it's enough to make him notable, and if you believe there's more to it than what we have in our article I can only take your word for it, but not being elected to any post and receiving attention more for his outspoken asshole-ishness really doesn't give me any faith in him being a particularly notable public figure. It seems to me as a political figure he was the equal of Iris Robinson or Michael Grylls, neither of whom I'd be willing to declare a support !vote for on grounds of lasting impact. As an extra feather in his cap it's worth something, but not a whole lot on the face of it. However, both sides of the argument are entirely academic until someone sticks this thing where it belongs. :/ GRAPPLEX23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I see consensus in favor of posting this. There are a number of more general discussions that we probably ought to have concerning the death criteria and other issues, but here is not the place.--Chaser (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A power grid failure in Delhi leaves more than 300 million people without power in northern India. Minister for Power Sushilkumar Shinde announces that all those affected should have power restored within "hours". (Reuters)
Article:Maeve Binchy (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Maeve Binchy(pictured), whose novels have been translated into 37 languages and sold more than 40 million copies worldwide, dies in Dublin. (Post) News source(s):[33][34] Article updated
Weak oppose - based mostly on lack of prominent coverage. BBC has this obit 3rd, but Guardian puts it way down on the page. NYT, CNN, and Al Jazeera don't have it on the front page at all. As for my own evaluation, she doesn't have much in the way of notable awards and in terms of popularity doesn't come close to making our List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors. Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the sample I use. But thought she appears in the publications you cite, that story doesn't seem very prominent in them, either; it doesn't have front-page posting on USA Today or Wash Post, for example (I didn't check them all). If it's not one of the top 20-30 stories of the day for these news orgs, it's a very hard sell for me to vote to post it (given that we only post 1-2 items a day on average). Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I just don't see it. She hasn't won any major international awards (Nobel or even Booker), her death hasn't been much noted beyond the UK, and she doesn't seem to be in even the fifty most best-selling authors of her generation. If it's any consolation, I voted against the obituary of one of Bangladesh's most popular authors a few weeks ago, too. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. 40 million sales apparently is enough to make the aforementioned list, there's already an entry there with that amount. That aside, Binchy is a phenomenal success this side of the pond and given the variety of translations mentioned I doubt that she's only of interest to one country. To draw a pretty good precedent, we posted Maurice Sendak a few weeks back. GRAPPLEX03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every one on that list seems to have an upper estimate of 100 million copies; it's a confusingly made table. I don't dispute the rest of your logic, though. Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that table even sorts strangely, but only Cussler has a listing of 40 million sales, and that's lower estimate (his upper is 150 million). I don't think sales alone is going to qualify here, even if she were on that list she'd be dead last, and a glance it's what, close to 100 entries, with numerous living authors drastically ahead? Wouldn't even be in the ballpark of the lowest listed British authors. - OldManNeptune⚓17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Who died yesterday? Or the day before? She's gotta be at least the sort of person who dies every three or more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.84 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was exaggerating. Point is, there are usually a lot of worthy candidates, and for whatever reasons it can be difficult for ITN to accommodate them all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't post it. I just think, when it comes to deaths, we need to find a more efficient and equitable way of presenting them. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this particular nomination. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sally Ride was opposed because people here didn't think that the titel of "first American women in space" was notable enough either. And Sendak had some strong opposition, too, but part of that was due to his age (he was 80-something), thus enacting the "death may perhaps have been expected" clause. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well known, and well regarded author in her field, commercially successful enough to be considered notable even with our shifting sands approach to death nominations. doktorbwordsdeeds04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Telegraph obit. "In a survey of Ireland’s 100 bestsellers in the 20th century compiled in 1998, she took first, third and fourth places, with seven of her books in the top 100, outselling not only Yeats, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, but more recent writers such as Frank McCourt, Roddy Doyle, Seamus Heaney and Edna O’Brien." --86.40.96.148 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sighs. First she is not being reported by the correct media organisations. Then she is not winning the right awards to be considered. Now she is not well known enough. It seems from the above as if she is quite well known actually. --86.40.96.148 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - prolific, but not record setting. Popular, but not much outside Ireland. Reaction mostly from Irish writers and press. Death not unexpected. Recent deaths. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for being well known outside Ireland? You cite a CBC repost of an AP article which says she was on the NYT best selling list. When? For how long? With what rank? Back up your claim. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is by no measure (sales, awards, or attention to her death) one of the top figures in her field (literature), if that's what you mean. Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You can make accusations like that if you want, but Sendak's death got sustained coverage in international outlets. For me, that was the obvious difference. I realize I'm starting to WP:BLUDGEON a bit, though, so I'm willing to step out. Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Because she's not American" is not a good rationale for posting this. The bar has been consistently raised on death nominations and she falls below it. I actually believe IP address above me summarized well. To make clear, I'm not saying "if we didn't post x, then not this either," but rather that consensus in the past has repeatedly and over a long period of time excluded persons of roughly similar (or greater) notability who died of age, and for lack of objective guidelines, I feel precedent is the obvious way to go. - OldManNeptune⚓17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seem like the only thing stopping Maeve Binchy from being mentioned at ITN is the fact that she isnt American. Just keeping it real.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. A US author whose death was not reported on any front pages outside the US and who never won a major award would stand exactly zero chance of making ITN. Even US deaths reported on international front pages (e.g., Andy Griffith) are described as of "local interest", and rightly so. Just keeping it real back... Khazar2 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Irish is no more a justification than being American. She isn't among the top selling authors, didn't win any major awards, and isn't a top headline on a good sample of international news outlets (ranked high on BBC, but there's obvious local interest there). "The Irish are far superior" is not a reason to put this on the front page. - OldManNeptune⚓17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with OldManNeptune. In fact, if we did try to nom an American author we would get deluged with "This is a global project, waaaaaaa I don't like America". Nationality has nothing to do with it, unless it's being used as a justification, such as "Irelands favourite author". --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it can be justified in this case. Ireland and writing are inextricably linked. Just as there are some areas in which America is also quite good to the extent that it leaves many others in the shade, e.g. space exploration, to point to the numerous NASA missions to have appeared on ITN. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, good sir! Or anyone who is a registered user...or an IP that makes lots of contributions ;) (Well actually the comment WAS aimed at you and everyone else, feeding the trolls is bad. Assuming good faith can only go too far) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. My insistence on unregistered editing (my choice, my fault) results in the occasional troll label, especially after an IP change. Thanks for clarifying :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good! DNFTT (As in, not feeding the trolls, not trolling) is actually something everyone needs to do more in their lives...er, Wikipedia editing. And ah well, being a registered editor has its negativities. I wouldn't be a registered editor if my IP wasn't blocked because of some asswipe making racist edits just down the road from me...which got my range blocked! I hope you never have this problem :( --Τασουλα (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit like how we clearly didn't post Sendak? Except we did. Nationality is becoming too much of a sticking point here; the fact is a variety of sources have shown international attention, albeit not at the highest level. If papers from both sides of the pond are reporting it then we shouldn't have to resort to jingoism or accusations thereof. GRAPPLEX18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sendak barely made it, and had numerous WP:RS calling him "the most important childrens author of the 20th century", not "Americas favourite childrens author". See the difference? It's subtle but it's there. One is global in reach, the other regional. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this thread's gotten a lot of attention, Zanhe's nom for the Nellore train fire below still has only one comment on it. Would anyone from this thread be willing to weigh in there, whether yay or nay? Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Death of a well-known novelist (with several works made in to film). Widely reported throughout the English-speaking world (e.g. BBC, USA Today, Brisbane Times, Toronto Star, The Hindu, New Zealand Herald from a quick search of Google). Not front page news in most places, but not every ITN need to be "front page news" for it to be suitable for ITN on an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She had her works published into 37 languages and she sold over 40 million books around the globe. This has broad appeal. A very high volume of news sources have reported on this too.Rainthe 119:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless "extra" stuff about her death in European media. Several have three or four additional articles apart from reporting her death. It's like death of the year over here. Here are two others from the same publication. [35][36] Two more additional articles from another publication. [37][38] Two more from a separate publication. [39][40] Two more from another publication [41][42] Here are four others from the same publication. [43][44][45][46]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.148 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I admit I never really heard of her. The sources shown shows that she was one of the most important and beloved writers in a country known for its rich and storied history of English literature. Makes me want to buy one of her novels just because of these sources. It's as common sense as it can be under our current ITN criteria. Update sufficient. Secretaccount02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you think writers like these die all the time? These are probably two of the top writer deaths this year. Here we have an example of the underlying sexism and U.S. centrism when it comes to dead writers on ITN. Two top writers die closely together: one American man and one non-American woman (who has the decency to even die first). Everybody rushes to heap plaudits on the American man and demand he be included on the Main Page, but is blind to the achievements of the non-American woman who outsells James Joyce and Oscar Wilde and is considered "the mammy" of Irish writing in the past two decades. Note that this is not just an accusation of this, here we have the evidence before our very eyes. Nothing has prevented two or more deaths appearing on ITN in the past. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two domestically-reknowned, internationally-known authors who have recently died; what are the chances of bundling the two items together under a wording like "Authors Maeve Binchy (72) and Gore Vidal (86) die"; the bundling would alleviate some of the too-much-weight-on-deaths concern, ease a transition into a possible death ticker, and assuage any of the jingoism going on here. GRAPPLEX21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea. Although not a "respected" writer like Vidal, I think Binchy has certainly been a very much-loved writer in Eire and UK for very many years. Her death has certainly been given equal coverage by national BBC radio. I guess Vidal's page views were that much higher as he was really a US literary celebrity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a sensible compromise. However, I think people should not be so trigger-happy in accusing others of having a pro-American bias. Check out the Gore Vidal stats and the Maeve Binchy stats in June (before they got skewed by news of their deaths), Gore Vidal got 1,200–1,600 daily views, while Maeve Binchy got 150–200. That's almost an order-of-magnitude difference. Gore Vidal, like it or not, is far more notable than Maeve Binchy. I'm not American, by the way. -Zanhe (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is if you base notability on how many times pages are viewed. Wikipedia does not do this. Are you honestly suggesting that the likes of Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga are among the "most notable" people in world history? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a skewed comparison, Binchy's fanbase is generally much older and less tech-savvy than Vidal's; and I'll reiterate the guest-starring-in-cartoons bit again. GRAPPLEX22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is also a woman and many of her readers are women. Very few women contribute to Wikipedia. Also, Gore Vidal, as his article demonstrates, was quite outspoken, to put it rather mildly. Binchy did not make as many public appearances or stir as much controversy. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm saying that hardly any women contribute to Wikipedia and commenting on the differing approaches taken by Maeve Binchy and Gore Vidal. Had Maeve known she could make herself more notable by being a man and airing her opinions on George W. Bush and Roman Polanski, she may very well have thought about obliging. She did comment on Adolf Hitler though. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, very well, she could have opted to remain a woman and air her opinions that way. ;) But she'd still be an outspoken woman unsuitable to grace ITN, nothing like her male counterparts - Maurice Sendak, Carlos Fuentes, Ray Bradbury - or fellow females - Nora Ephron, Whitney Houston - all blessed to have been born in or associated with a certain unmentionable part of the world (before being misunderstood again I hasten to add that I find all their inclusions on ITN to have been as acceptable as just about everybody else probably did). --86.40.106.208 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reading all the comments above i do not see consensus. This should not be posted based on fact Vidal got posted. ITN is not an obituary section for authors. -- Ashish-g5523:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting it is or that it should be. That's a shame Ashish, as GrappleX's idea was a good and constructive compromise. However, the "technicalities" of taking it all to a fresh formal proposal and vote will regrettably not be seen as worth the effort. That idea now seems rather spoiled. I think both Vidal and Binchy are worthy but for ITN, but probably - to be unnecessarily precise - for different amounts of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths are not something that should not be bunched up in my opinion. I see no reason to make compromise, if this has consensus it should go as its own blurb. But its just not there, otherwise it sets precedent on putting bunch of deaths in one blurb. Thats all we'll end up having on ITN. -- Ashish-g5513:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bit late, but for what it's worth. I think the comparison with Gore Vidal is illustrative: it demonstrates the difference between an internationally famous writer and one with merely local notability. Binchy was a successful writer, but not a figure of international fame, and so her death need not be noted here. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily, I take the exact opposite from the Vidal example. To me it illustrates a bias in assessing the importance of between two internationally renowned authors. --RA (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some numbers to illustrate the point: both authors (Vidal and Binchy) were translated into the roughly same number of languages (Binchy 37, Vidal 36) and sold the same number of books (40 million). Yet, she has "merely local notability" and he is "internationally famous"? --RA (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing their equal renown as novelists misses the rather obvious point that Vidal was also extremely famous as an essayist, playwright, and political commentator, while Binchy's reputation relies solely on her novels. That's why Vidal's death was front page news on English news sources around the world, while Binchy's was not. I won't argue with your support of Binchy--if she's posted, so be it--but the accusations of bias are getting silly. Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, you know that not all bias is sinister or intentional. Bias can be (and usually is) completely innocent. As someone pointed out above, the source of that bias in this case may not simply be national, but also the male, age, and interest.
To many of us (predominantly male, younger, and wannabe intellectuals), Vidal may be "super famous" and "obviously the kind of author that should be front page". That doesn't mean that Vidal was actually a more notable author.
Vidal was also an essayist and political commentator, as you say. But Binchy was also a journalist and humourist. And both were playwrights. Regardless of these differences and similarities, both were measurably equally popular as writers (given the stats above).
So when we estimate their importance, what are we measuring? How important they were? Or how important they were to us?
I admit there was an observable difference in the coverage of their two deaths. Like you point out in supporting Vidal, his obituary was 2nd on the BBC site, for example — clearly pipping Binchy who was only 3rd, as you also pointed out :-P --RA (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's disingenuous to say that "both were playwrights" as if they achieved equivalent success--given your interest in quantifiable stats here, you've probably realized this. Binchy wrote a single play for which our only source is her website; Vidal wrote 6-7, one of which was nominated for a half-dozen Tonys, made into a Henry Fonda film, and continues to run on Broadway 52 years after its premiere. Binchy's journalism and humor writing haven't been mentioned as significant in the sources I've looked at, including her Wikipedia article; Vidal, in contrast, was one of America's best-known political commentators for decades, appeared in a variety of movies and television shows, and was involved in some of the most legendary dust-ups in American television history. I suspect these are some of the reasons that a news source based in Qatar, for example, made Vidal front-page news and ignored Binchy.
Again, if you feel Binchy is front-page news, well and good, and I won't dispute you on that. But to say that bias is the only possible reason to differentiate between them is a silly insult to your fellow editors. Why not just consider that some people may have different rationales than yours--such as prominence of international coverage? Khazar2 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, please don't think I am "insulting" you by indicating that not all voices are represented equally in Wikipedia discussion. If that was so insulting, I'm sure you would not have signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Now, I did not say that bias is the "only possible reason" to support or oppose either's inclusion (who are you quoting there?). There are sound reasons to support or oppose both. However, I'm am attributing the great discrepancy in supports and opposes between the two to an (innocent) systematic bias.
Both were primarily authors (and had other activities too). They both sold the same number of books and were translated into roughly the same number of languages. Yet, the mainstay of Binchy's opposes are that "many users have not heard of her nor of her writings", "not seeing the international notability", etc. whereas Vidals supports are that he is "super famous" and "a man of clear notability". The numbers just don't add up to account for that kind of divide. So, I am putting the difference down to systematic bias (i.e. how many readers of nostalgic chicklitt are posting here vs. the number of postmodern political junkies?).
With respect to your final comment, I have considered it. I indicated that in my final sentence above (albeit tongue in cheek). Vidal received greater coverage, I've no doubt. But, in truth, I don't think that is very strong argument. Binchy's death received very significant coverage worldwide too, with full-article obituaries in newspapers from around the English-speaking world. Both were very famous authors in their own genre, and both deaths received significant worldwide media attention. Trying to divide them based on who was 2nd on the BBC website vs. 3rd is splitting hairs. --RA (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would be, had a single person voted on that basis. But it's not splitting hairs to say "front page news on three continents" vs. "front page news in UK and Ireland only"; it's a pretty obvious difference. Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Vidal was "front page news on three continents". (His death was not on the front page of any newspaper I picked up.) But even if it was, I say it's splitting hairs because, regardless of what was on the front page, both deaths were "in the obituary section on three continents".
That matter, however, which we can disagree on, is a separate from the point I was raising about bias leading folk to believe Binchy was only of local notability, whereas Vidal was of international repute. The point I was raising was that both authors were equally successful and well-known internationally as each other. That the deaths of both were intentionally reported (whether font page or back) underlines that. --RA (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs attention with a quick !vote count I count +4 support, and a lot of compelling arguments. I would like an admin to give this a good read and make a decision. It's not too late. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be a weighing up of the content of the comments which offer reasonable input into the argument, rather than straightforward supports and opposes. Unfortunately this seems to have made little difference to the outcome of this particular "vote/non-vote". Various editors, of Irish and international origin, have argued, quite reasonably on numerous counts, in favour of this nomination. Yet this is being overlooked by some sort of collective blindness that appears to have taken hold. Binchy seems to require a higher standard than other writers who have been included in the past (and the future(!) if Vidal, who died later, is considered), and it seems virtually impossible for her to reach that required standard, be it on awards, sales, legacy, translations, media coverage, appearances on Oprah and the NYT bestsellers list, monuments, continued interest in her funeral, or any other possibility. She simply cannot match the requested levels of "fame" or "superfame" reached by Gore Vidal, whatever "superfame" is actually supposed to be. I can only assume there is some differing level of understanding among editors of what is to be "famous" and why or why not this is so important to the outcome of nominations in general. --86.40.98.26 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some editors do use different criteria than others, including prominence of media coverage, number of page views, or (my own least favorite) personal evaluation of "importance". It's fine that your criteria are different, but it hardly makes other editors blind or inconsistent. Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, but I thought the opposes had been responded to intelligently and hoped an admin would take a look. After all, it isn't a vote, but a consensus. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The northern power grid failed, leaving 360 million people across Delhi, UP, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and HP without power since 2.30 am IST. Described as worst one in 11 years. Most of it has been restored around 7/8 am IST. It is not fully restored yet, and certain remote parts will not have power till about mid afternoon IST. 200 passenger trains were stalled. The Delhi metro which transports 2 million people daily was halted from between 6 am to 8.45 am. Only hospitals, security establishments, airports, etc had power. Major traffic jams as traffic signals werent working. TL;DR: Life was paralyzed across most of Northern India. On a Monday morning. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability once updated Obviously top news for India, also on front pages of NYT and BBC. One of the worst blackouts in India's history, with 30% of the country without power. Given the amount of coverage of this, it might be better to have an article on the blackout itself rather than linking to Electricity sector in India if possible. Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--luckily, my daughter stayed asleep so I could keep trucking away. This probably has enough content now to be considered for the main page; I think I've rounded the corner into start class. Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not only is this obviously a big story in India -- and likely to have longer-term consequences, but it has received significant international attention. A nice little article exists, suitable for use in ITN. One U.S. news media outlet pointed out that the population without power was larger than the population of the U.S., leading me to think that this could be the largest electricity outage in history, as measured by population affected. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- this is certainly now notable enough with an article on it and lots of coverage in the media along with impacting a large number of people. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but suggest adding "affecting 360 million people" as, speaking as Western hemisphere resident, "7 states" doesn't give me much size influence, but 360 million people does. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. It had been tagged as non-notable four minutes before I posted it, but after I had double-checked the article. Personally, I don't see any basis for the tag. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has now been a second day of power outages, this time impacting even more states and hundreds of millions more people. So could we possibly look to update the blurb? [50] and [51] are a couple of sources reporting on the latest.
Good job with the article and the post, I see the article is now in the works thanks to the second outage of the East and North Eastern grids. Thought I'd just drop in a line before the Southern Grid goes down and takes me offline tomorrow! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news is somewhat misleading. The text should be "A power grid failure leaves seven states in northern and eastern India without electricity, affecting over 600 million people". Article has many references for the above mentioned changes.Regards, theTigerKing18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Vaibhav's proposed update. For source, see for example here [52] or [53]. We might also add this is the world's largest blackout ever, per NYT. Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A widely reported disaster with significant death toll; the reports that sabotage may be the cause give this one extra interest as an ongoing topic. ITN has been a little India-heavy this week, but it's a nice break from being US/UK heavy. Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant train disaster. I have no problem with multiple Indian news items if the news exists, and I'm happy to see an improved article turnover rate in any case. - OldManNeptune⚓20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mundane transportation accident. When compared with 300 million without power this will look absurd. Maybe when the inquiry is complete, if the result is shocking or causes a change to rail transport in India, we can revisit. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the Burlington train crash and the dutch bus crash and a plane in africa hitting a bus all got sour faces. I see no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past (such as Buenos Aires and Szczekociny). These types of incidents, while tragic, are not particularly unusual. Crappy wiring shorted out and started a fire in a super crowded Indian train. Sabotage would be different, but there is no evidence yet. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs update the Romanian presidential impeachment referendum, 2012 has no background explaining why this is taking place, or what the consequences are. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportper FormerIP's conditions. Since this appears to be final whether yay, nay, or "too low a turnout", I'm also good either way. Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of finality, we can probably go ahead and post. It's still an "estimate", but it's an estimate from the official body overseeing the election, and it doesn't even seem close (4.1% short of the needed turnout). Haven't checked the current state of the article, though. Khazar2 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not absolutely sure that the turnout is below 50% since the figures do not appear to take into account people who voted away from their residence. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should give you a good idea of what's going on. It is very complicated, and has had the adverse effect of splitting the country between supporters and opponents of the President. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready In fact I am about to tag this with a neutrality template. According to news broadcasts I heard earlier the President had explicitly advocated that his supporters do not vote in the referendum. With this in mind the current lede that portrays his survival as a mere legal technicality as opposed to legitimate will of the people is grossly unfair: the lack of support for the President was a clear political strategy on his part. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's a good change to make, but it seems like something that can be cleared up with a single additional sentence to the lede rather than requiring a tag. Khazar2 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the tweaking I just did and let me know if it's mutually agreeable; we can continue the discussion at the talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's looking a lot better now and I'd consider that issue addressed. Didn't get around to looking at it sooner since I've just been drafting several pages of legalise that needed to be in today. And no, Nergaal, there is no partisanship going on here: I'd never even heard of him until this arose. It simply can't be asserted to be NPOV to cite limited turnout as the reason the poll failed when that turnout was in itself a tactical position adopted by the President. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notwithstanding the results, the event was a major one. We usually do not have headlines like this one either, so I'm cool with it. ComputerJA (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with the note that some of the above support rationales may be out of date. The result of the referendum appears to be that the poll is invalid because turnout was too low. I might have supported if there were a result, and I'm convinced that most of those above supported on the presumption of there being a result. But we cannot seriously be thinking about posting a referendum that failed because people didn't turn up!? The fact that the low turnout may have been a tactical ploy is interesting (and something I would mention if this blurb inexplicably goes up), but doesn't alter the notability of the story. By the way, the article has been 3x expanded in the last two days, so a DYK nomination might be a realistic alternative. —WFC— 07:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notable thing is that the PM/President power struggle came to a head, and the President won. The fact that he won it by boycott rather than by straight vote doesn't make it less notable to me. Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this non-neutral? The results are contested. While the president claims victory, the PM and the acting-president are waiting for the Constitutional Court to confirm. They allege the voter turnout percentage is based on outdated population figures and might be reconsidered by the Court (RL, Revista 22). --ELEKHHT00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. On the day of the election, the BBC and Reuters both reported flatly that Basescu had won ([54][55]), and it appears the Central Election Bureau did report a figure of 46%. How is the latest development being reported in international media? That would give us a good guide for how we might phrase any revision. Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet that a pull is required. English-language media seems to consider the referendum over, per the links above and in the article (for example, the NYT called the election over and stated that election officials had called it [56]); the Romanian articles are difficult for me to get the nuance through translation. Ponta has pledged as of four hours ago to respect the decision that the impeachment failed. [57] How are today's news stories phrasing the situation? Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best sources in this (technicalities) are Romanian sources. (Non-"native" sources aren't that reliable as they leave out the specifics.) Now we need someone who reads Romanian. For the meantime, there's no reason to be safe and pull this; it'll certainly be back before the week's end. –HTD01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news hasn't reached yet the English media. The Hungarian national TV however reported on the dispute around the outcome. The German media questions the notability of the referendum, qualifying it only a battle within a larger war. I would say to pull would be the cautious thing to do. --ELEKHHT02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, of the two Romanian sources cited here, both appear to state (through Google Translate) that the referendum failed and that USL is trying "trickery" to change the rules; the second source describes the USL's action as an attempted "coup". The leaders of both sides agree that the referendum failed. I won't object further if you want to say better-safe-than-sorry and pull anyway, but I'd be more comfortable with we had multiple reliable sources saying that the referendum's results were still unclear. Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's SOP for a court (or something else) to rule on something once there's a dispute. That's pretty much universal. –HTD02:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update the official final results are out, and the turnout is 100% surely under 50%. The side that voted for the referendum is trying some small trickeries which have essentially very, very little chance of changing the situation. The result of the referendum is clear at this point, and if any major changes appear, the blurb can be updated. Sometimes today, the Constitutional Court will give the final verdict, and after that, all that is left is to delay the impeached president from actually getting his rights back. Nergaal (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but than with a neutral blurb which would reflect that, instead of suggesting validity or failure. According to Romanian media Viviane Reding stated that the European Commission will not comment until the decision is taken by the court Source. Seems that the English media also chose to "pull" and not to report on the confused unfolding events. The Court did not take a decision on the 1st August as expected, and asked for further evidence Source. --ELEKHHT00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Top story on BBC and Al Jazeera at the moment, dominating world news. Article looks like it could use a little cleanup, but I'm starting in on that now. I also cleaned up the grammar in the blurb a bit--hope you don't mind, MCJ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - top story. also want wikipedia to make people aware of the syrian regimes atrocities and the russian and chinese support of the atrocities... assad will soon fall.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Syria is in a civil war, and battles will continue to be fought. Civilian deaths, while tragic, are in the 100s, not 1000s or 10000s. Maybe when the battle is over if it has some larger impact on the overall course of the war, I can support. But right now 100 civilians are dead, in a war zone, it's simply not news. Sorry. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's obvious this city is an important stronghold, and a lot rides on this battle, but I still think it's best to wait until the battle is over. The TV is bored and it's talking about something that started 12 days ago. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support — Syria's largest city, with a population of over two million people, becoming the centre of a bloody battle between regime loyalists and rebel forces. I should think this is fairly significant news in and of itself, but when you really think about the situation, it starts to become quite harrowing. For those living in stable democracies, imagine this — your city winds up in the middle of a war. You hear tanks blasting outside your home, you're sick to your stomach in fear over whether you'll be safe inside your house. You have no idea what's going to happen, if your friends and family are OK, if anything will ever be the same again. Sitting in a corner in the fetal position with your heart racing and your whole body trembling with terror. You're scared. You just want it to end. You've never experienced it before, have you? Neither have the people in Aleppo. This is the reality they're facing today. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is terrible, but the country is at war, and that's how it goes. Further, it's been at war for many months. This is a status update, and seems heavily charged with "boo to the dictator Assad and long live a free Syria". The war won't be won on Wikipedia. Wait until the battle is over, please. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thesis argument remains that a bloody battle in a city of over two million people is worthy of being included on ITN. The rest of my comment was an aside. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've indicated my support above, I do agree that this is a pivotal battle. But my concern is that the article and the tone of some of the support arguments here do not even bother to make a pretense of being neutral. Not saying human rights violations did not occur before, nor am I condoning them but not everyone sees this as "Brutal regime crushes helpless people". Some see it as US/NATO fanning civil war and destabilizing a sovereign country. There are insurgent/separatist/revolutionary movements throughout the world - as long as they campaign through peaceful protests and democratic means, its all fine - but the moment they take up arms, its the stated policy of almost all governments (or where the US/NATO does not favour them, "regimes") to put them down by force. Russia (Chechnya), Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam), Pakistan (Baluchistan/Waziristan), Thailand (South Thailand), almost all African states, I can go on. And forget pointing fingers at other countries, the Indian government allows peaceful protests in Kashmir, the North East and Maoist dominated areas. But the moment they take up arms, they are put down by force (and IMO, rightly so). Since we are now friends with the US, its not a "regime" oppressing "freedom fighters" but a democratic nation fighting terrorism. If the US were to arm the Kashmiri fighters, its not like we will just stand around, we would have to use more force to put them down. If you amass rebel fighters within a heavily populated city, the government/regime will have no option but to go after them. It's fine to have a POV, and its natural that your POV will, in most cases, coincide with that of your government, but to use Wikipedia to promote it, is not fine. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's some soapboxing here in the supports, but it's also led into by perfectly valid arguments--in BabbaQ's case, that this is a top international story, and in M&E's case, that it's a large-scale battle in a nation's largest city. As for the tone of the article, that's probably an issue better raised on the article page (or better yet, if you'd be up for doing some direct editing to fix it). I'll take another look, too. Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose based simply on lack of prominent international coverage--doesn't seem to be on the current front page of New York Times, BBC, CNN, or Al Jazeera, despite having happened today. Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's a personal choice, but I'm not a fan of the approach of amateur Wikipedia editors (myself included) overruling the professionals on what news stories are the most significant. A few days ago, for example, you strongly opposed the posting of Oswaldo Payá's controversial death to the main page as not notable enough, though it had easily twenty times the prominence of this item. (Indeed, Paya continues to be front-page news on the BBC today, a full week after his death). I realize an encyclopedia has different goals than even the most dignified news source, but as the "In the News" section, I think it's useful for us to generally parallel what's in the news; hence, the vote. Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main impact (Tropical Storm Khanun making landfall) was about 10 days ago, which would explain why its not on the front pages of various things.Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the blurb probably needs to be changed to "North Korea's KCNA news agency raises the death toll from Tropical Storm Khanun to at least 88 people dead and more than 60,000 homeless" or something like it; if the actual flooding happened ten days ago, it's technically too late for that part to be an ITN posting. Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 88 people killed and 60,000 more being driven out of their homes by massive flooding is pretty major news in any country. In North Korea, catastrophe seems to be the norm: totalitarianism, poverty, famine, human experimentation, slavery, thought control, incarceration, isolation, repression. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. At the present time, the ITN box badly needs stories that do not begin "At least XX people are killed...". Formerip (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the article needs work. Most of it is unreferenced. It might be hard to find sources for a disaster in this notoriously secret state. Modest Geniustalk19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Armed Forces renew a bombardment of the city of Aleppo. (Reuters)
Sixteen civilians, including five children and four women, are killed in bombing attacks of the Syrian army in Yalda village, south of Damascus. (Albawaba)
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urges countries to bridge differences ahead of a deadline for a draft of a new global agreement to control international arms sales. Despite this, no agreement is reached. (BBC), (Miami Herald)[permanent dead link]
76.110 - I imagine you're refering to the ceremony but you're right to leave it ambivalent; it could be the finish of the whole damn games before we get a decision on any consensus, and which article to link to. Sigh. Pedro : Chat 21:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are. And we're going to wait for the article to be properly updated too. Please keep all the discussion in the nomination that already exists below. Modest Geniustalk21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the slapped wrist Mr. Genius - even if you didn't actually get it right (below) about the events that took place prior to the offical opening, we will all bow to you better knowledge about where to place comments on this page. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Army is reportedly preparing for a large-scale offensive in Aleppo, with the US State Department citing credible reports of tank columns moving into the city, backed by special forces, helicopter gunships and fixed-wing aircraft. (Al-Jazeera)
The pro-government newspaper Al-Watan calls the incoming operation 'the mother of all battles'. (Al-Jazeera)
At least 200 people are killed in violence throughout the country according to the Local Coordination Committees of Syria. The toll is highest in Aleppo and the capital Damascus, where a total of 94 are killed. Dozens of casualties are reported from Idlib, Daraa and Homs as well. (CNN)
A bomb explosion in a crowded market in northwestern Pakistan close to the Afghan border kills at least seven people. (USA Today)
Insurgents attack an Iraqi Army checkpoint north of Baqubah, downing a helicopter and sparking an intense firefight. At least 19 people are reported killed, including 11 policemen and a soldier. (San Francisco Chronicle)
Officials in Beijing raise the death toll from weekend flooding to 77 after rescuers located additional bodies. This follows criticism, including from the Chinese state media, of the city's handling of the storm.(Wall Street Journal)
Oppose on notability grounds. As WSJ and Reuters put it, it's a "hint" or "glimmer" of hope. Although encouraging news, it's not a major enough event for ITN. WSJ's "turning point" headline seems speculative, and might turn out wrong (as so many economic predictions do and have done). --hydrox (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of prominent international coverage--I couldn't seem to find this on the front pages of the New York Times, BBC, or Al Jazeera. Even if we were to post a blurb on the European economic crisis, Spain's 25% unemployment appears to be the bigger story today. Khazar2 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Context: Milosevic's allies are now firmly back in power in the country that is a candidate for the EU (both prez and PM) --Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a stub (not necessarily a preclusion, but still a concern), and the article needs more of an update anyway. As of my reading, it says he is "expected to assume office on 27 July" without any source for the statement. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. This was not the presidential election so that you would know who is going to be inaugurated. It took three months to determine it will be Dačić. You are probably thinking that the First-past-the-post voting is the one in Serbia like in the UK but it's not. The Government is formed through a coalition of many parties and unless some party won 50%+1 there is no winner.--Avala (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not making many top international headlines (though I did see it on the top five for BBC yesterday), but huge repercussions in terms of dead and displaced. Appears to be the top story for English-lang Indian news sources. Article is taking good shape, too. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note on blurb Suggest using the phrase "ethnic violence" instead of the vaguer "violence", and possibly including the nearly 200,000 displaced, which to me is more shocking than the death toll. Khazar2 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note- indian media is horrid in terms of sensationalism. We all itch (in the usa) bout maintream media but you see it here and its far worse.
And the lead needs to be cleaned as does backrground.
FWIW, BBC put the figure at "at least 170,000" displaced yesterday if you're worried that Indian media can't be reliable sources. [59] I'll see what I can do about the clean-up in the next few hours but may need a break for now--Little Miss Khazar is starting to fuss. =) Khazar2 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issues This article should be checked for copyright issues before appearing on the main page. I removed one section wholly cut-and-pasted from a source; duplication detector suggests that other problems may be spread through the article.[60] I'll try to do more of this later, but have to put in some dad time again... Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have been almost entirely sentences cut-and-pasted from various sources, and has thus been returned to a 2-3 sentence stub. Still seems like a worthwhile topic if anyone wants to tackle it. Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good now. More or less ready to post. Just wondering, does it make sense to have a link to Muslims or there can be a more specific link? Muslims in India? Muslim community in Assam? Or post it without the hyperlink. --Tone11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article appears ready. Cheers to CH for putting it together on demand. I agree that a link to "Muslims in India" or possibly "Assam#Islam" would be more informative here. Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Regarding the link, its a tricky one which most mainstream sources wont touch with a 40 foot pole given that the local Bodos claim the Muslim settlers are not from within post-Independence India. I'd say its best to just leave it at Muslims and not take a call either way - the background section of the article shows both views. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. "Muslims in India" still would technically fit, but perhaps as you say it's better without. I'd say it's your call, Tone. Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have Islam in India, possily engali Muslims would e good as theyre more than liely from Bangladesh (and i know ppl from Meghalaya who complain abou migration and the recent surge in mosque building as a sign of their presence)...possibly a handful of Assamese Muslims but bby an dlarge engalis...as in their now majority presence in Tripura.Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can the text be changed to "At least 58 people are killed and 400,000 displaced in ethnic violence between Bodos and immigrant Muslims in Assam, India." These are the latest figures.Regards, theTigerKing17:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before we change, can we confirm that from multiple sources? I saw that Al Jazeera is now reporting that figure, but it'd be good to confirm with other news organizations; if there are conflicting figures, we should stick with the lowest and say "at least". Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nine people are killed overnight in ethnic clashes in the Indian state of Assam with the total death toll since last Friday being 35. (AFP via New Straits Times)
Official figures indicate economic output in the United Kingdom fell by 0.7% between April and June, meaning the recession has deepened in the country. (BBC)
The UK's Manchester Airport launches an inquiry after an 11-year-old boy boarded a plane to Rome unaccompanied, and without passport, tickets or boarding pass. (BBC)(The Guardian)
Nominator's comments: Now that the Olympics have started, its a good time to discuss the utility of posting this as a sticky for the duration of the tournament. Its going to top of the news (and for positive reasons (we hope)). Perhaps the men's 100m can get special mention. (its marked up in cost as the most expensive tickets) Arsenal got the first goal! Woo hoo! --Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the opening ceremony until posting a sticky. None of the updates will be significant enough 'til then. Also, the start of the games aren't ITNR, but the ceremony itself is. Hot Stop18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR doesnt say that. It just the Olympics and the games are under way. Its fine to [pose it in 48 hours (or little earlier), should give some 36-odd hours of sticky discussion. We didnt do this for other month-long sports tourneys, but then aain the Olympis is far more globalLihaas (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it opens on Friday then sticky. This is one of the few events where I feel a sticky is justified. It might be worth having separate blurbs for the opening and closing ceremonies too (which are on ITNR). Modest Geniustalk19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it would be a good idea to make a shortlist of individual olympic stories apart from opening and closing ceremony that could make it to ITN. If I remember correctly, in 2008 we posted Bolt's world records, Phelps winning the 8th gold at one games and the Team US winning the basketball event. Basketball is an easy choice, probably, possible athletics world records as well, while noone will most likely win 9 gold medals at these games. Any opinions? --Tone20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we have a sticky, we should be extremely conservative in terms of posting individual events. Posting basketball last time seems to me like a bad call. Formerip (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that BBall, track, and swimming are the three highest profile events in the games, but that's subjective. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basketball one of the top sports at the olympics? Really? I guess it must vary with the country you live in/coverage. Every olympics I've seen it's had a similar profile to sailing or walking, far below sports such as cycling. Modest Geniustalk22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah even as I typed that, I figured it was my American perspective coloring that. I thought Ricky Rubio's emergence in 2008 was the big story, though. Oh well. USA! USA! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its difficult to put a pin on the "high-profile" events ... it'll vary quite widely depending on your country and the events your country is likely to win medals. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting the 100 meter winners, the mens BBall champion (which is the effective global champion of that sport) and any significant records set.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, you're right. That's weird, why is there soccer (I know what you call it) being played before the opening ceremonies? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are too many fixtures to fit into the two weeks. It's only the women's preliminary rounds that take place before the official start. Modest Geniustalk21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not wholly true. Men's football also starts prior to the opening ceremony [61]. But you're mostly right - it is due to the timescale to get all the fixtures in, and the requirements for rest days between football matches. Pedro : Chat 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No: it is the round robin group stage to determine who reaches the quarter finals. Kevin McE (talk) 21:42, 25 July 201
2 (UTC)
Given that there are some games, and the opening ceremony is imminent anyway, I'm now indifferent on posting it now or waiting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's possible for a team to be eliminated before the opening ceremony even starts? Sorry, I don't know much about soccer and I'm honestly not going to read the whole thing just to find out. I agree that we should wait for the opening ceremony to post, since that's the "official start", but why the hell would they start competition before the ceremony? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, footballers need 2 days (at a minimum) of rest in between games. Since in the Olympics, there are 3 days in-between games and there are a maximum of six games to be played per team, the football tourney has to start earlier. So, after the games of August 1, the teams advancing to the knockout stages will be known already. This is different from other sports where there are even no days of rest in-between games. –HTD04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above Sticky once the opening ceremony commences / has been completed (depending on time of update). Indeed if the opening ceremony is as noteworthy as is currently being reported, then a possible link to 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony may be of consideration for a short while. Pedro : Chat 21:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until opening ceremony, then sticky. A lot of the headline news from the Olympics will come after the posting of the opening ceremony drops off the template. Being able to point to a blanket sticky should ensure that the bar for posting anything other than the ceremonies is very high. —WFC— 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note on basketball: 2008 Olympic Basketball wasn't included in the ITN and isn't in ITN/R. I just so hope ESP wins so we can have an excuse of posting what should be the highest competition in basketball, and arguably the team sport with the highest interest in the Olympics, unless someone comes up with an argument that Asians are watching the water polo tourney. –HTD01:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted to support given that we've already made a complete hash of things with the two Koreas issue. ("We" here is us Brits, and I take great and patriotic pride in that particular display of incompetence) However, that does seem to be jumping the gun: the fact that the organising committee can't arrange things such that the opening ceromony commences the events is not our concern. Leave it until then, that way we have at least officially screwed it up. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wait until Friday for the reasons given above. Also, Lihaas, your sentences are meandering into almost complete nonsensical keyboard smashes again, can you please proof-read your sentences before pressing Save? doktorbwordsdeeds07:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment now that were 20 hrs away, someone should mark ready and it should be posted in about 14 hours. Plenty of consensusLihaas (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We still havent arrived at a consensus on what to include in the sticky. Apart from the men's 100m and world records being broken, I would think that interest in events remain divided along country-lines. Americans will naturally be interested in basketball, Indians in boxing, Pakistanis in hockey, South Koreans in archery, most football playing nations in that and so on. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's this myth that the Americans are madly interested in Olympic basketball. They are not. Sure, they're interested, but they'd rather see the Lakers or the Tar Heels win. The countries that are more interested in Olympic basketball have to be Lithuania and China. Could've counted the Greeks but they've let the Nigerians, of all people, beat them in the pre-Olympic tourney.
The sticky should direct to the main article, 2012 Summer Olympics. Plain as it is. Eventually, we could post it when the opening ceremony begins. And we post the ceremony itself when the article is updated sufficiently. --Tone12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (or even chronology ut its scant at the moment, we could move it on sat onwards)...6 hours to go, can we stikcy this now?wnt accuse you of "quickness" ;)Lihaas (talk)
Agree that the chronology is the article to link: I have added times of tomorrow's finals, which seems a minimum requirement for beginning of each day if it is to be stickied. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could the blurb be reworded to something like "The XXX Summer Olympics open in London"? The current version is a bit unwieldy and gives too much importance to the opening ceremony and not enough to the games itself..216.252.84.251 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Leonid Khabarov (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The court hearings have been rescheduled for Leonid Khabarov, an alleged mastermind behind the new Russian revolution (Post) News source(s): There's plenty of them:
Nominator's comments: Events, which are happening right now with a Russian ROTC chief, whose coup d'état charges do not hold water, and the trial itself looks more like a political farce, as it was noted by the majority of political observers in Russia. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're on about, and this is receiving next to no coverage in any news source internationally, even on the wires. I don't see how this would ever make ITN. (Oppose, btw.) —Strange Passerby (t × c) 13:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just a intermediate decision. The conclusion of the complete trial that puts Khabarov as either guilty or innocent will be the ITN item. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's obscure at all. This one is clearly a "no-end-trial." The purpose of this red tape is to keep him in detention as long, as it possible, i.e. right until he die, or the revolt begin (which is unlikely.) 93.75.44.49 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a fringe/conspiracy theory, but even if it is widely known that the trial is going to be indefinitely delayed as to prevent it from ever occurring, the news is the finality of the action (death or revolution), not "yet another delay". --MASEM (t) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... take that as an example: "Ronnie O'Sullivan announces his decision to take time off from the game" (June 6, 2012 (Wednesday). He did not retire, nor did anything else happened. He just "take time off" for a little while. Following your logic, we should wait until the WPBSA is disbanded, to become a decent media event for ITN? You might be joking. 93.75.44.49 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't find any other archive for WP:ITN. If you have one, please link us to it. I don't have any doubts, there could be hundreds of similar cases. As for the Portal:Current events, I definitely will post it there, but only after this thread is finished. 93.75.44.49 (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to the summary on the BBC website, they have also announced that he is a woman: "State media in North Korea confirm for the first time that the country's leader is married and mention her by name". I'm not sure whether to include that in the blurb, though.
Oppose - Not a significant news item. It would be one thing if there was a large official wedding (ala the UK one last year) but just the fact that this item has just been revealed is nothing significant. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're understanding the story right. The story isn't the marriage, but the lifting of a state secret (and quite an unusual thing to be a state secret). Formerip (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more of the world had "state secrets", if that is the description to be given to refraining from smothering us with irrelevant details of the personal life of anyone in the public eye. Kevin McE (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not see any significance in this event and in its declaration by North Korea state media. If it is a change, it is not a deeper one.Egeymi (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like clarified above, if there was a large official wedding ceremony, like that for UK's prince or Bhutan's king, both of which have solid independent articles, we could have considered this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worst fighting in Tajikistan for several years, potentially hundreds of casualties, long-term implications, widespread international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi appoints the Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation, Hisham Qandil, to the position of Prime Minister and asks him to form the new government. (BBC)
NOT ITNR: "The succession of a head of state: In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not (emphasis added) an elected position"Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And mine: "in those countries which qualify under the criteria above". Ghana's presidency is an elected one, thus the results of elections are ITNR. Additionally, the succession of a head of state in Ghana, as a "country (qualifying) under the criteria above", is also ITNR. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: for those who consider such issues relevant (I would be supporting it regardless), it is an anglophone nation; president is head of govt, not merely ceremonial; and population is greater than that of Australia. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some work still needed? I am concerned that the Mills article has so few citations; entire sections are still unsourced. Oddly, we also seem to have no information at all on his four years in office, though we have detail on his schooling, appreciation of hockey, etc. I'm not sure on the rule for a bio piece hitting the main page, but my vote would be to hold this one until it's improved a bit. Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(God damn (edit conflict)) I had a similar concern, however by precedent the requisite section is updated with sources. As long theres no dispute/pov concerns its okey. Many an article have gone up with tags as long as the update is there.Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but article appears to be only minimally updated at present. Presumably, Ghana also has a new president or interim president, which would be ITNR and could also be worked into the blurb. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source [64] says the Vice President John Dramani Mahama would be sworn in at 1800 GMT. (15 mins time) so hopefully new sources will be available soon confirming that has happened, so he can be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The death of any sitting head of national government deserves to appear here as long as the article's properly updated, which this one has been. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly this is not ITNR since the presidency is an elected position and this is not the result of an election. However, that is something of a technicality so I am not going to oppose this - death in office of a president must surely be notable. OTOH although the Mills article has a healthy update I see nothing at all in Mahama article aside from a change to the infobox. That should be updated before posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I've requested help from WP:WikiProject Africa in getting these two up to speed, but if anybody here could pitch in too by sourcing a few sentences, that'd be great. Shame to have a head of state of a populous country not have a real article. Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, was amazed how it went through this long. Let me try dgging through the EL.
Marked ready per update
comment Khazar2 and me have done quite a cleanup of the article. A few tags left but nothing bit anymore and the update is there with sourcesLihaas (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also done what I can with the new president's article. Should be sufficient for now, or when he actually gets sworn in. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Mills article now has an orange tag for incompleteness on the "Presidency" section. Un-marked as "ready" until resolved. Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a requisite when the update is done. Anyway, i was just trying to answer something about the presidency. Ill remove it. Should be good then, so remarking on that premise (not warring)
(ec) I believe this is not an issue that would postpone the posting. There is an extensive update on his passing and most of the article is in good shape. Posting, though I expect the editors to expand the section soon. Nice work with the article, by the way! --Tone20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that soon, come on. A strong consensus, updated article and clearly not contentious topic (such as some sport events where a world-wide consensus can change during the day when editors wake up). --Tone20:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, i was being sarcastic. The smiley and the small text should giv eit away.
Syria Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi declares that Syria has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that it plans to use them in case of a foreign attack, but never against its own citizens. (AP via ABC News)
The European Union tightens sanctions on Syria, adding 29 more names to the existing list of 170 Syrian individuals and companies. (AP via ABC news)
After the heaviest rains in 60 years kill 37 in Beijing, 9 million microblog users criticise the government for the lack of warning and poor infrastructure. (Al Jazeera)(Reuters)
I was shocked when I got this news today. She's one of the few astronauts of the Shuttle era whose notability would rise to the level of ITN mention. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally speaking I think the death of anyone who was the first to do notable achievement X is worthy of an ITN posting if the article meets requirements. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
−
Oppose 1. The update needs expanding. 2. does she have any notability beyond being the first female American in space? If these items can be satisfied I will gladly change to support. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that I am definitely not opposed to this being posted. However, given that she was neither First American in Space or first woman in space, I would strongly suggest revising the blurb so as to avoid accusations that we are only highlighting this achievement because she is American. If there is consensus to post, I would suggest something like "(American?) Physicist and NASA astronaut Sally Ride dies at the age of 61". —WFC— 01:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When you take away the fact that she was only the first female American and not the first female, I don't think Kitch's comment about her role in the investigations of Columbia/Challenger meet notability requirements, but admittedly I don't know much about the subject. While other people feel differently and will probably tell me so, I don't think being the first female American is notable since that means she was neither the first American or female in space. --PlasmaTwa201:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. Sorry, the reports of that are still coming in. In perspective, we don't know that to be 100% true. What if one of the Mercury 7 or other astronaut/cosmonaut dies and we find out they were gay post-mortem, just like this case? --WingtipvorteXPTT∅03:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't seem to have been confirmed in as many words. And (despite my own keen advocacy of LGBT history topics) I must oppose this amendment, as it's not remotely what she's notable for. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Iconic is right. This is a well-known astronaut that was a symbol to a lot of people. Of interest world-wide. If we post an Indian actor I've never heard of, we post this or face the fact that ITN needs a serious shakeup. Jusdafax02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just that more people are interested in Indian actors outside India than American astronauts outside America. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this but @Jusdafax: "If we post an Indian actor I've never heard of" ... if you havent heard of Rajesh Khanna, I doubt you know enough about Indian cinema to take your knowledge of the actor as a determining criteria. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support One of the best known of a very narrow field. I understand the desire to avoid US centrism but let's be completely honest, the American space program was and is kind of a big deal, and being the first woman in space from that program is a very noteworthy achievement. Just so the distinction is clear, it's not "because she's American" but because she was a part of the American space program, and a household name at that. - OldManNeptune⚓03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern doesn't relate to US-centrism per se, but that the way the current blurb is written would justify complains of US-centrism. "American physicist and astronaut Sally Ride" implies that she was significant enough to post in her own right – her nationality is stated as we would do with someone from any country. On the other hand, "...the first female American astronaut in space" implies that she wouldn't have been posted if she wasn't American. —WFC— 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The first woman to go through space though NASA is a notable achievement by itself, considering that they are considered the biggest and most iconic space program in history. If there was several women who few before Ride with NASA and none of them were American, I don't believe Ride would have been the iconic global figure she became when she first few to space. Secretaccount03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning oppose per FormerIP and level of coverage--I find deaths a tough sell when they're not one of the day's lead stories. New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, and CNN all seem to have it around 5th-8th, which is right on the line for me. Khazar2 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She wouldn't rank among the top 81 individuals in my science, engineering and technology category. She wouldn't even rank among the top 200 allowing an overly generous fuzz factor. Chief appeals to notability in the nomination are that a) she was a woman and b) she was an American. Neither of those survive the most perfunctory of neutrality tests. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support - She was well-known to me, a Brit, so I for one don't regard this nomination as excessively parochial. Her participation in both the Challenger and Columbia crash committees is highly notable; serious accident investigations for spacecraft are (mercifully) rare, so to be an expert participant in two is quite significant. And given how few nations have put their own citizens in orbit, and the cultural importance of the space race, I do feel that being the first American woman in space is of more than trivial significance too. I'd also submit that this falls under the minority subject of science and technology. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notability seems to be dependent on overlap in a Venn diagram, not any personal achievement per se. No evidence that her contribution was particularly greater than that of any other astronaut. Among c650 astronauts, would her contribution be considered to be among the most important 50? 20? 5? Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Overlap in a Venn diagram" suggests two equally irrelevant criteria; the fact that she was American isn't a particularly big deal (although as mentioned, participation in the US space program is something notable), but she was the third overall female in space, and the list of female astronauts is actually rather short. Of that field, she is most certainly among the top 3 or top 5, and I would say there is a strong case to be made that she's in the top 10 overall most widely known astronauts. But besides cultural significance, her participation in two separate shuttle disaster committees is itself no small matter. There's also five books, numerous awards, and a handful of buildings named after her. - OldManNeptune⚓10:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Simply not sufficiently well-known internationally, or sufficiently important as a pioneer - certainly not an "iconic global figure" as someone has claimed. The fact she was American doesn't add anything to her notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Did not do anything particularly significant, her claim to fame lies entirely in her 'overlap in a Venn diagram' as Kevin McE eloquently put it. Would we post the death of e.g. the first Dutch woman in space? Or the first Ukrainian in space? Or the first person with ginger hair and blue eyes? Modest Geniustalk11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that her notability does not derive from the 'Venn diagram' aspect, but from her specific achievements. I already mentioned her participation on the accident investigation committees above. And the Netherlands, Ukraine, and the Red-Headed League do not have their own space programmes, so I do think that her status as first American woman in space is important. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but first woman of a country in space is not notable at all. If we're going to post the first American woman in space, then we should do the same with the first woman of every single country in the world as well. Different designations, such as first NASA female astronaut, do not help this towards posting, because it still remains clear that it's not the first flight of such type in the space.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose being first U.S. woman in this field doesn't strike me as significant enough, given the absence of any other notable individual achievement, or her part within the overall NASA programme or space exploration in general. Leaky Caldron11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, notable, yes. But I really dislike using ITN as an obituary for every notable person to die. If the death is not reported as the top story on all media, for several days, they do not belong on ITN. Tombo7791 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
obvious strong oppose shes not the first and its blatantly undue american-centirsm (when other editors are then accused of being "anti-american" with a "lack of american postings". Its patently obvious there is UNDUE weight here). And wha are the unusual circumsances in this death since shes hardly got individiaul note (and nowehere near Omar Suleiman or Yitzhak Shamir in global influence). Per the SUleiman nom below she was way past her dutines (he was only a year past)Lihaas (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite being a human who went into space, the notability issue is just resting too heavily on the wrong side for me. It's not enough that she's the first American woman, for that supposes the important factor is her nationality, not her gender. In any case, the burst of coverage for her death has quickly died down, suggesting that she didn't have the impact we would usually require for front page coverage doktorbwordsdeeds04:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To what end? Is she automatically more notable for hiding her sexuality? Nothing changes because of that, unless you believe being gay is so abnormal that it makes this nomination inherently 'special'. Despite going into space (which is, of course, pretty damn impressive), she was not the first woman, and it's not important that she was the "first woman who hid her sexuality". As has been said above by Kiril, once we have to add lots of other labels ("First NASA female astronaut....who hid her sexuality"), then we're just proving how un-notable she was. doktorbwordsdeeds05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrB. I'd feel differently if Sally Ride had been an LGBT icon in her lifetime, fighting discrimination and attracting national controversy to make the NASA program the way Tracy Thorne-Begland fought DADT in the Air Force and homophobic legislators in West Virginia to make the federal courts. But since that's not the case, it just appears to me an interesting piece of trivia. Khazar2 (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, you are all just proving the critics right when they say that Wikipedia is slanted towards males. I cannot believe that Jon Lord, a long-forgotten relic, was allowed to be on ITN, but Sally Ride, heroine to millions of girls (and boys) is treated this way by you people. Speciate (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am aware there is no present article for this, but seeing this story across Twitter and other places, I am surprised we don't. If someone doesn't do it first I may do it following the pattern of 13 June 2012 Iraq attacks. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why we didn't post the ones that happened on June 13, 2012 -- oh, wait, we did post about those (which had nearly the same death toll figure). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC. Also, the prior news story had an article of high quality when it was posted; to that end, there is still no article available for this nomination. Further still, it remains to be seen whether or not this is indicative of any sea change in Middle East conflicts.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Im afraid these increased number of attacks makes this situation less and less notable. Whilst this was mentioned on the news earlier it is not being given much coverage outside of Iraq. Also im afraid that the fact a previous one was posted recently (if i am following the comments above correctly), means there is less justification for this to be posted so soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it were part of a long running series of attacks by the same group with the same motive - sure. My read on this suggests that while its part of the insurgent attacks, its tied to a very different group than the previous set. And of course, the "too soon" arguments going to fail here when the Olympic coverage starts happening... --MASEM (t) 14:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's reasonsfor support/oppose that dont relate to the article quality/update are OR on ITN, thats not valid.
comment Reuters is linking this to the troubles in Syria, making it morenotable as more unstable for the region in a wider Sunni-Shia conflagaration. It wont be too long before you see proxy wars commencing in Saudi/BBahrain..Lihaas (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ive changed my vote to support, now the article is up and its clear this is the biggest deadly attack of the year in Iraq, along with taking into account other points made above and below, it is justified.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per prominence of international coverage. At the moment, the highest story on Al Jazeera, and second highest on the BBC and New York Times. Article now exists and is acceptably developed. Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not because of the death toll (irrelevant) but because of the number of attacks (30) in 13 cities. Suggest the blurb reflect the same. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wide international coverage. That in itself is relatively scarce in Iraq nowadays (at least, relative to a few years ago). The scale and geographical dispersion of this series of events is far outside that of the bombings or shootings which we sadly hear about fairly frequently. —WFC— 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: One of the most famous Cuban dissidents, major award winner for his activism, unexpected death, and global coverage. When was the last time we posted anything from Cuba? Clean up tag needs to be fixed however. Secretaccount03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending clean-up - he might not have been quite notable enough to note as an obituary, but the controversial circumstances of his death (his relatives say he was murdered [66]) put him over the top for me. This follow-up is currently the third highest story on the BBC, so it's getting some sustained attention. I'll attempt cleanup now. Khazar2 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not as lacking in notability as i first thought, with statements from Obama, Romney and the EU, along with some media coverage it may be justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 FWIW, he was considered Cuba's top dissident for a decade, he's won several major human rights prizes, and news sources around the world have carried two days of coverage on the reports that he may have been murdered by the Cuban government; it's even surfacing in the US presidential race. [67]Khazar2 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I realize you just changed your mind, but I thought I'd post the rationale here for others anyway. =) Cheers.[reply]
Neutral, leading support - Comment: The BBC are reporting that his family are claiming he was deliberately run off the road. This may be a developing story. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an opposition politician, not sufficiently notable. Would be worth considering if the family's allegations are corroborated, or if the story develops internationally, but not otherwise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on blurb Since several groups have now suggested that the car was rammed, "dies in a car crash" might be slightly more neutral than "accident". Catholic News Agency, for example, uses the phrasing "alleged accident" rather than straight up accident [68]. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 63 Cuban dissidents in that category, and nothing that makes him stand out above the crowd. Family claims of government involvement totally unsubstantiated. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're serious in your comment, but for me, some things that make him stand out above other members of that category are the ten years of profiles in international media of his life and death, the meetings with present and former heads of state, the 2002 Sakharov Prize, and the description by the New York Times and others that he was "Cuba's leading dissident" [69]. If you read through his article and then (to pick a random other from that category) that of Fidel Suárez Cruz, or type them both into Google, you'll probably see more of a distinction. Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious in my comment. Meeting an ex-president and a secretary of state is not all that big a deal. It's easy for Powell to spend an hour chatting with him to court the Cuban American vote. Nothing came of the meeting beyond the usual "America wants freedom in Cuba". The NYT might have called him "Cuba's Leading Dissident", but that was in 2003 (per your ref). The Varela Project got a few thousand votes. Meh to the Sakharov Prize, the EU Foreign Affairs committee is a pretty narrow cadre. Look I'm not saying he was a nobody, just that his death has little impact on the affairs of Cuba and isn't that big of a deal. Obama and the EU made some comments, but it's all boiler place. Now if his family's insane claims of government murder (there were two, politically neutral survivors) turn out to be true, then obviously I support. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I didn't mean to dispute you about notability generally, I was just surprised by the statement that you couldn't tell him from any other dissident. Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well truth be told, I'm not exactly an expert on the Cuban dissident movement, so all I had to go on was his article, which had a decent resume but didn't "pop". If pop is even a criteria... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was arguably one of the top two or three Cuban dissidents at the time of his death. Yes his importance diminished a bit because of the internet age and some reform in Cuban politics, but his awards, his reputation among Cuban and democracy activists (nothing but front page and top story news among Spanish newspapers), and the circumstances of his death (not from old age) made me feel like a good nomination from ITN. We aren't talking another celebrity death here. Secretaccount03:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for further comment - In raw tally of !votes, this one appears to have two supporting editors (counting the nom), two opposing, one neutral leaning support, and one oppose-shifted-to-neutral. Any other voices want to chime in to see if we can move from deadlock to consensus? Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R, one of the four golf majors. I was pulling for Tiger to win, but Ernie played well to hang in there. Article still lacks a prose update. I'll try to work on it. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Open Championship has been given a prose update and the orange tag issues have been resolved. The article isn't perfect, but it meets the qualifications to be posted. HiLo, I'm assuming you're referring to the first two sentences in the article, which I expanded. If this isn't what you meant, can you clarify? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 19:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this isn't directly an ITN issue, but affects what readers see here. The "Article to update" is called 2012 Open Championship. I find that a very problematic title for an article. It tells us neither what sport it describes, nor which country's championship it is. There's a few examples of titles like this in Wikipedia. The aficionados who have mostly contributed to the article see no problem with it, precisely because they are aficionados, and instantly know what it means. It's those with less knowledge of the subject, who won't be around to take part in any discussion, who will be confused. So discussion on the Talk page will rarely get anywhere on this matter. Not sure of the solution apart from asking editors to try to look at things from a less involved perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update per ITN/R. The fourth round summary is a date, third round summary is not much more. The entire field section would look better converted to a wikitable. All those manual breaks. *shudders* --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Story definitely important enough. "Weak" because while the amount of prose is sufficient to post, it's not to my tastes. Playing hardball pending updates to the third and fourth round sections might help improve the article. —WFC— 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont see much of a prose update (and not in the final round which is the winning one). And field section is overloaded with bold ext. Not sure wha you saw as an adequate update. That said the refs are goodLihaas (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I've given proper summaries to each round, to make the article more than sufficient. I don't see how the "field" section can be converted to a wikitable (plus, this is the common layout of those sections, see 2012 U.S. Open (golf), 2012 Masters Tournament. It may not be perfect, but I don't see a problem with it, or a better way to handle it). The official name of the tournament is the Open Championship; it is casually referred to as the British Open to avoid confusion with the US Open, but it is not its official name. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job with the prose. I admit I had to click it and find out what the 2012 Open actually was. Official name is fine. PS: this is how I would do the field section. I run an MW at work and force tables for descriptive lists. Maybe it's just a personal preference, I don't think the MOS requires it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it does look good, but I think the finished product would run into an issue where some of the cells would be much larger than the others, including some that would be empty, making it look a little funny. Especially with those who still have small screens, where everything would be way out of proportion. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R, Tour de France ends tomorrow, there is a great chance of a first British winner, so the blurb could be used (last year we used the blurb in first Australian), if one of the brits don't win the Tour, we can change it to: In cycling, the 2012 Tour de France concludes with XYZ wins the Tour de France. PS: The British ridders ride under British passport and flag, even tho both are not UK born. – HonorTheKing (talk)17:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wiggins is clearly British in every sense. Difficult what to say about Froome. Also, Support after the race has finished but the "first British" bit shouldn't really be a big factor - but rather the race in its own right. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His mother is English, father is Australian. Ethnicity does not automatically = Citizenship/identity. And his place of birth has no bearing on his nationality in this case. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not challenging the validity of describing him as British, just the "every sense": I probably should have left an emoticon. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrr, it's cool, I wasn't on the offensive just being... formalistic ^_^ if that's the right word to describe it. I mean, in the case of his nationality on Wikipedia it is British. I don't know about Froome. Lets hope he wont make it as confusing as Daniel-Day Lewis -.- haha XD I love emocations!!! --Τασουλα (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The frequency of first-time winning countries can be deduced from List of Tour de France winners - Australia (2011), Germany (1997), Denmark (1996), Ireland (1987).
Support as per ITN/R. Indifferent as to whether nationality should be mentioned. Wiggins' victory is a near-formality at this point, with that in mind we can prepare the article such that the ITN post can occur almost as soon as the Tour ends. LukeSurltc17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the result holds true, it might read less POV-ish saying "X wins the 2012 Tour de France, becomes the first British person to do so." Minor, but I think just a tad better. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the crux of the issue. Any mention of British should be supplimentary, which I think Masem's blurb achieves. —WFC— 21:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it being put on as soon as the race is over. I think its reasonable to say First British rider... but f that is not acceptable just the race winner being said is good enough and justified for the ITN. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The British bit should be included based on the precident set with Cadel Evans in the very same event, otherwise we are stepping decidedly into the realms of subjective selection. But I would recast it as Masem suggested:
The recasting would help make clearer that the claim to notability is the Tour de France win, and that the British bit is an interesting addendum which makes the prose less generic. —WFC— 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: didn't see Masem's suggestion! Giving credit. —WFC— 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Kings won the Stanley Cup for the first time and was the first 8th seeded team to win the cup. The blurb was "The Los Angeles Kings defeat the New Jersey Devils in six games to win the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals. Jonathan Quick is awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy.". I know hockey in America (or anything in America) isn't as important as European Cycling, or Football, (or anything in Europe), but just because it was done wrong for Cadel Evans doesn't mean it must be done wrong again. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, with Masem's wording, the nationality bit makes the blurb more interesting, at the justifiable "expense" of just a few words added to a short blurb. In 76.110.201.132's hockey example the blurb was already on the long side, already containing a piece of "secondary" information, so adding words to this would have been more of a concern. LukeSurltc21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the space so much as the all too dangerous precedent. Almost everything is a first for somewhere or someone. Dawoud Rajiha was the first Syrian Defense Minister killed by a bomb attack, for example. I concede that in this instance it's harmless, I just disagree with the practice as a whole. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of sympathy for this view, but it's a question of context. In this instance the Tour is a 110 year old annual event, and 90 of the 98 completed events have been won by riders from six countries. A reasonably good comparison would be space exploration. I'm not sure whether it would be particularly helpful to mention every instance of someone of a new nationality goes into space (others might disagree). But a country which has never had its own space exploration programme starting to send people into space would in my opinion be a different matter. —WFC— 22:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and of course we should mention that he's the first British rider to do so. I simply cannot see why not. It's been a major part of the coverage already. (At least we're not arguing about whether he's English.) (And I won't demand that we say he's a little bit Aussie as well ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions vary: I find those articles rather too journalistic and informal to be ideal encyclopaedic material. As regards an update, I have prepared a post-race version of the lead para that can be found remmed out in the article just under the existing lead, or on my sandbox. Kevin McE (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Went with the original proposed blurb ("In cycling, Bradley Wiggins becomes the first British rider to win the Tour de France"), even though it had much less support, because technically he is the first rider of any nationality to win the 2012 TdF. Also, we used the same blurb for Cadel last year and I can't recall it causing any problems. Jenks24 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know Wiggins was riding. But who in the world was pedaling? Please, please, please, are these blurbs written by a committee, for goshsakes? Bradley Wiggins (pictured) becomes the first British cyclist to win the Tour de France.μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "cyclist", but to be honest, I don't see the difference; would anyone at all be confused by the use of "rider"? Also, the reason I used rider originally was because I wanted to avoid "cycling ... cyclist". Jenks24 (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very unsporting of Wiggins to win the Tour de France on a motorcar if everyone else must use a bicycle.--WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Attention Needed] [Posted] Indian presidential election
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R,The counting of votes for the Presidential elections in India will be done tomorrow and there is a very great possibility that Mr. Mukherjee will get elected. Ayanosh (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reminder. While this is clearly important enough, posting should only take place after the article has been updated. —WFC— 21:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Like the President of Germany, the head of state position for India is largely symbolic. Though there is a good to be made that hereditary heads of state (i.e. monarchs) probably get an ITN posting upon their death, I am still battling with the fact that these appointments and elections of ceremonial heads of state is usually not "big news", and thus may not really be of "wide interest" even to people within the country they are supposed to represent. Upon revision it seems that this position perhaps has more vested powers than the same position in Germany and is not as ceremonial as I first imagined, but I stand behind my earlier statement that this is likely not going to be 'big news'. Colipon+(Talk) 05:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Colipon's argument has some merit. We should also discuss the question at ITN/R. I don't think that presidential elections in parliamentary systems should be ITN/R, as the president isn't actually a powerful position in these countries and a change of the head of state usually isn't very significant for the politics of these countries. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ahugely partisan election for a position thats supposed to be neutral. He just "resigned" from the party a month ago and only for the election. The role also empowers he president to nominae/appoint Governors and dismiss provincial governments enaling president's rule (which recently has been accused of eing partisan in places) . That could worsen now that the party of 50 years of corruption has monopolised this with their stooges (amongst others)Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see th enomination. it needs updating. thERE was nowhere near the prose required (As demanded in Death of Omar Suleiman). Im working on it now and getting the results posted. PULL ASAP Update DoneLihaas (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, Above you stated your view on how "This is ahugely partisan election" and now i see you have edited the article to add those views into it, disregarding any other opinions. Article now looks very biased and i suggest pull it for NPOV (till it becomes a little more neutral). -- Ashish-g5519:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV? the article is not, the election is (where the prez is supposed to be neutral (same applies to israel, btw, having somoene straight out of a party to the prez post).). We cant censor the views however, the views of the varying comments are cited to npov/rs sources and thats what it makes it a particularly notable elections, which is what my comment was aimed at.
My point was those expressing views (or opinions) here should not add them to articles... conflict of interest IMO. If you are going to do that then present multiple arguments in article to make it look less biased. I wasnt censoring the views merely saying that article was looking very one sided after your edit, atleast at the time i checked. -- Ashish-g5523:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what COI is. Ive added content there expressing reactions from BOTH sides equally, if i did have my opinion in there i would either not have the Sangma condemnation or the congress reaction. As you can see i added other. (and im quite used to adding this kind of stuff on all elections) And i also found a notable RS source saying the above while i was looking to fill the table.Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major General Hisham Ikhtiyar, the head of Syrian national security, dies of wounds he received from a bombing in the capital Damascus on July 18. (BBC)
David Burgess, already serving life imprisonment on two counts of murder, is given a fresh life sentence after being convicted of the 1966 murder of Yolande Waddington, a nanny from Berkshire, England. (BBC)
Strongest oppose possible Not significant, other mass shootings around the world are not featured here, no need for this to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.103.37 (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2012
Support - Many victims and seem significant, had it been less casulaties I would have agreed that a mention at ITN would not be suitable..--BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very notable mass shooting, large numbers of deaths/injuries and the fact it happened at a movie screening is making this one more newsworthy for some media. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Highly unusual shooting with multiple deaths (yeah believe what you want but shootings of this nature are NOT common in the US). Top story on the BBC right now. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an unusual shooting - mass shootings in America are the norm not the exception. Not many people killed, but the number is only an estimate (for one thing) and to be expected in a confined space (for another). Only high profile because of the movie, not the event itself. Also - this nomination and the article reeks of RECENTISM and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS doktorbwordsdeeds10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still many articles on Wikipedia is based on news entirely. So NOTNEWS should really be removed as a policy in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the entire ITN/C system needs to be updated and clarified more. Someone even wanted it abolished until not long ago. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I know, we dumb Americans have mass shootings all the damn time! In fact, I was killed in three mass shootings just this morning! Thank you, kind Brit, for being genetically superior. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update the article is the minimum now, would like to see it bulk up a little. This wasn't your "normal massacre in America", this was an assault with tear gas and body armour. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant enough (much more than some keyboardist dying...) Main news item in UK at the moment. Article needs expansion as reliable sources are published. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Martin didn't make that comment originally. And yeah, shootings of this type are very uncommon in the US. Exceptional circumstances. How can people complain about other shootings happening in the world and not getting reported here when they aren't even nominated? Calm down people. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the Yanks finally get their act together and some serious federal gun control finally gets enacted as a result of this. That would be newsworthy indeed.--72.196.97.7 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's in America. Mass shootings are not news. Posting this so rapidly is pure US centrism. There is no way on earth this would have been posted so rapidly if it had happened in another country. Being in America makes it less justified, not more. It's quite immoral what's happened here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't understand this (frankly) bullshit that the United States is chock-full of mass shootings. I would say an argument could be made that shootings on this level are regular and unreported in Sudan or Pakistan but certainly not in the United States. 12 to 14 deaths at present with ten more in critical or grave conditions is not anything close to the ordinary and is the worst attack since the Virginia Tech shooting five years ago. Obvious 'support. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Support. The problems with American gun law are not an excuse for not reporting on genuinely serious incidents. Let's have less of arguably-racist epithets like 'yanks', and more patience and sense. And frankly, if this had happened here in the UK, where gun laws are much tighter, it would be even more newsworthy, and I'd expect it to get posted just as fast, if not faster. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If mass shootings are not news because "It's America" and they happen hourly, then neither is someone dying, ever. Propose you vote to oppose every single death that comes up on ITN, no matter how much cricket they may have played. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is arguably the stupidest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia, full stop. The fact that people are actually trotting out an argument like "it's America therefore it doesn't matter" is shameful. - OldManNeptune⚓19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support Top story on Le Monde, 2nd highest story on Al Jazeera, etc. Media worldwide clearly sees this as a significant event; as usual, those Wikipedia editors who feel they know what's news better than the news should perhaps check the news. Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell this is the only U.S. item on the ITN section of the front page right now. Where's the US domination?--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, I can't understand the hysteria over this one. An event that's dominating headlines around the world, posted during the hours that most of the US is asleep, and we still have editors insisting that they know better than journalists what the "real news" is and that this piece is only up because of U.S. conspiracy--bizarre. Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction needed- Can someone please change at least 14 to at least 12, media sources have changed in the past hour to revise down figures. the article also now says 12 rather than 14. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there are also now conflicting reports about the injured... with some reports saying the police have said "Approximately 50 total persons were shot, including the deceased" which would make the 50 others inaccurate. Perhaps to avoid needing to make too many changes to the ITN section it might be simpler to say "and dozens injured" instead? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't want us to be patient. You wanted us not to post it at all. Why not be a little more patient yourself, and refrain from leaping in so frequently to this discussion? You accusations of US-centrism are poorly-founded. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree...these accusation of bias are getting boring now. It seems we can't have a nom here without them. Play nice HiLo. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this, or the bus attack a few days ago, where there are numbers of civilians injured/killed, the tolls will change as investigation continues, people are unable to recover and die in hospitals, and other factors like that. There's nothing wrong with ITN change those; the core story and its impact as an ITN story remain the same. What would be bad if we had rushed a news item where it turned out the news item was completely in the wrong due to a wild rumor or similar assertion. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest pulling and waiting the numbers of dead and wounded are being constantly revised, I suggest pulling this and waiting until we have an undeniable casualty report. The BBC article now says 38 wounded, (instead of the 50 in the blurb). Tombo7791 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Its the main news on all media. Should Wikipedia be above other major medias with reliabilitywhich covers this?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key is that we want ITN to point to topics that are in the media not to be news reporters but hopefully to draw readers to look over said articles and improve them with new content. As I pointed out above: the basic facts about this incident are unchanged: a guy opened fire in a crowded movie theater on the premiere of a highly anticipated movie, injuring/killing dozens. Whether its exactly 12 or 14 dead, or 50 or 60 injures, there's already some news-worthiness that has been met (ignoring the prevalence of US-centric type news here for the moment). I'm watching twitter and there's already worldwide fall out from the event (eg the main Paris red-carpet premiere cancelled, NYC enlisting officers to cover theaters tonight, the tie-in to video game violence being thrown around), all which are pieces that would help support the developing article which by now has already otherwise passed notability per NEVENT. Thus, even if a story is still breaking but we are sure it is an article-worthy news event, we should post to ITN as long as we're 100% assured that the core event did occur; the details may change over the next day or so, but you can't change that that event did happen. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the worthiness, I just don't like the use of specific numbers. With the constant revising they would require astute updating, I suggest using something less specific such as "killing at least 12 people, wounding dozens more."Tombo7791 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support that wording too. I agree that it was probably not a good idea to put the specific number of injured up on the ITN and it should have just been general like dozens more. In the case of the figures for the deaths, all media orgs were saying 14 for many hours, so it was valid to include that and correct once it was revised down,, but the numbers injured are too open to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article has now changed to say 53 injured compared to the 38 a little while ago. Highlights why is best not to be too specific. injuring or wounding dozens more works best and if they want more details they can go to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the story should stay up. I'm finding all these attempts to undermine it to be quite peculiar. This is obviously an event of such significance that it merits its own article; it's receiving worldwide media coverage; and good sources are easy to find. As the facts are updated, we can update too. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion on the merits of the story, but I do recognise that people may not be happy with such a speedy posting. Nomination to posting took two hours. It is difficult to assert that a valid consensus has been established in such a time period: this is not a shoe-in nomination by any stretch of the imagination - if this had happened in Afghanistan would we have posted it so quickly? On blance I suspect that this should be posted but indecent haste before people have a chance to air their views does not create goodwill. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I think it was posted in a reasonable time and not rushed. The change from 14, to 12 certainly was something all news organisations had to do too. But on such incidents it would always be best to avoid being too specific on the number of injuries which can change far more radically than deaths. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opposes and post-posting opposes here are unbelievable. I know that it's a common perception or stereotype, especially outside the U.S., that you can't walk anywhere in the U.S. without getting shot at, but that's just not true. A shooting of this magnitude in the United States is unusual, even if less so than in some other countries. The idea that this was posted too quickly is absurd. This item had far more support than most items receive in the 24-48 hours we let them languish before posting, and it was not posted at a time—as frequently claimed—when most Americans are awake, and everyone else is not. If a shooting in Afghanistan had received such high support so quickly and with an article of such length, it would have been posted just the same—and no one would have complained about it. -- tariqabjotu15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This got posted before I woke up, but I wanted to add on that I agree it's top news. Both Obama and Romney are commenting on it. Shootings at movie theaters (was the guy dressed as Bane) are rare and the damage is catastrophic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a stupid comment. How does the fact that Obama and Romney commented on it make it not US centrism and not rushed? The US allows people to carry guns far more than any other western democracy. It makes it more likely that these events will happen. Americans need to have the good manners to compare their gun incidents and culture with those in other countries. I've NEVER seen an incident elsewhere posted so quickly. That rapid posting has made calm discussion impossible. It put those supporting the decision instantly on the defensive. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Americans need to have the good manners to compare their gun incidents and culture with those in other countries.' Really? I'm a Brit, and I wholeheartedly endorse the punctual posting of this story. Please stop making this some kind of ridiculous pond war, HiLo. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, because my exact thought in reading your two dozen comments on American conspiracies, manners, gun laws, etc. was, "Wow, this sure makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; I'm glad this guy's not wasting his time updating an article somewhere". Khazar2 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't, or else you would have ended your anti-American crusade ages ago when people told you to. Consensus when this was posted disagrees with you. Consensus now disagrees with you. There are people from a variety of nationalities involved with this discussion, and most of those without an axe to grind have pointed out the unusual nature of this event. At the same time, the article was developed unusually quickly and support at ITN/C appeared unusually fast (despite being at a time most Americans were asleep). So, it gets posted. End of story. It wasn't because Americans are provincial. It's not because Americans don't think violence occurs in their country. It's because it got the support and update this section requires. I don't know what got you on this anti-American crusade, but your remarks here are annoying, insulting, and unhelpful. If you can't bear to see items that happen in the United States on the Main Page of Wikipedia, turn off your computer and go do something more productive -- i.e. anything else. -- tariqabjotu23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to HiLo) "Pond War" was slang on another multinational forum I used to be on, to describe pointless spats between Brits and Americans - in reference to the Atlantic as "The Pond". I'd have thought that was fairly obvious. But hey, feel free to insult me, ignore me, and question the good faith of users of all nationalities who endorsed this posting. I'm sure that'll make a better encyclopaedia. (That was sarcasm; it's a British custom you may be familiar with.) AlexTiefling (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Now it's an attack on me, rather than what I said. Who's being uncivil? Those of you interested in a more mature discussion on at least part of this issue may want to go here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given this has been posted, can we have a more informative blurb? The shooter apparently had a batman obsession. Can we say "A gunman injures 50 and kills at least 13 people at a showing of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises in the U.S. state of Colorado"? There is no reason to waste space with the redundant "opens fire" and the showing of the film is more specific than and implies the venue. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can go one better: At least 13 people are killed in a shooting at a film premiere in Colorado. The number of people injured seems to vary widely at the moment depending on where you get your news. The other details can be found in the article. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping it the way it is The timing of the posting was fine; as more information regarding number dead/injured changes, the blurb can be adjusted by an admin easily at any time. This should be expected with any current event where information is constantly changing. While it's true that the information needs to be factual, it makes ITN useless if the story that is on the front page of every news outlet isn't on ITN (unless of course there is no article, but that wasn't the case here). I also like the blurb the way it is, or as FormerIP mentioned, just mention that it was at a film premier. The fact that it happened to be the premier of The Dark Knight Rises doesn't matter; it could have been the premier of The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and it wouldn't have been any less significant. Also, to those complaining about this, why does the fact that this occurred in the US make it less notable? Is it really that common in the US to read the news, come across a major shooting and go "Oh look, another mass shooting like the one we had a few days ago, ho-hum." Would this have really been any more significant if this happened in Canada, or the UK? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support The quality of the article and the prevalence in news sources make this a clearly ITN-worthy event. --Jayron3219:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add the movie to blurb. Its fine as is. Dark knight playing behind the shooter is not the reason this got posted. -- Ashish-g5522:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who said the reason why this got posted is because of the Dark Knight? What is relevant here is relevancy. How does telling our readers this happened in the State of Colorado (as if there's something about the water there) tell them more than letting them know the Killer dyed his hair to resemble the Joker as portrayed in the series and announced himself as such to the audience? As it is, letting our readers know that the killer "opened fire" at a film, but not mentioning what film is a huge journalism 101 fail. "Opened fire" should be removed as redundant and the film should be mentioned as it has everything to do with the killer's motivation. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reason for posting this is should be that it was biggest shooting spree in US history. Killer's motivation means nothing... hes a nutbag and obviously chose dark knight to do this to get more publicity out of it. perhaps he was "trying" to be joker as media is stating but to be honest that should not matter at all for ITN. Joker as i remember always had green hair and this moron dyed his hair red, should we mention that too? -- Ashish-g5501:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Deadliest, no; largest, maybe. If you go by total number of victims (injuries + deaths), then it looks like it would be the largest, with 70 total victims according to the article as it stands. I♦A13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
China summons a Russian diplomat after the latter country opened fire on a fishing boat and detained the Chinese crew. (Xinhua)
Omar Suleiman, the former police and intelligence chief under ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, dies suddenly during medical tests in the United States. (BBC)
Burma's state television airs the first memorial ceremony in over 20 years for Aung San – the father of Aung San Suu Kyi – who led the country to its independence. (The Hindu)
Support as the nominator. The article has been nicely updated since, and, as some of the supporters below have noted, Suleiman was more than just a vice president. He was the chief of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS), directly involved in the CIA "rendition" program, a point man for Egypt's secret relations with Israel, survived an assassination attempt, and eventually became the de facto President of Egypt when Mubarak transferred his power to Suleiman (albeit just for one day). --BorgQueen (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no reason why some will appear and some won't, when Shamir, former PM of Israel died it wasn't mentioned, and so is dozen others who died. Suleiman did not hold any position at the time of his death. – HonorTheKing (talk)11:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "we didn't feature X, so why should we feature Y?" argument is mostly meaningless, not only on ITN, but on any Main Page section. To "mention" someone's death or any item for that matter on ITN, someone has to nominate it, and someone has to update it, and the article as a whole has to be in reasonable shape. There are a lot more than "dozen others" that didn't meet these requirements even though they were notable enough for us. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a sudden death. And he has been "in the news" in recent years concerning events in Egypt. BBC News says his death was "unexpected". And "For many years, Omar Suleiman was the key man behind the scenes of Hosni Mubarak's presidency. As domestic intelligence chief he helped enforce what amounted to a police state. He was also trusted by the president with vital missions, negotiating with the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.109.71 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From The Guardian obit: "Omar Suleiman, who has died in a US hospital aged 76, wielded immense power without a scrap of authority. A panjandrum, not a politician, he rose almost without trace to become, in effect, the president of Egypt at one of that unhappy country's most imperilled hours." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.109.71 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support he has been in the news lately and the dubious circumstances on the death add to th eintrigue. Would need a suitale update though.Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DC #1 might apply here, but on a literal reading it might apply to anyone who has held an office of state at national level. What's special in this case? Formerip (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reading of ITN/DC #1 is open to some interpretation due to tense. "was a high ranking"; Tony Blair was a high ranking official, but he's not dead. It doesn't specify "at time of death". I don't care either way, I think ITN/DC needs an overhaul, but in my reading of the criteria this is a pass. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It must be read 'was in a high-ranking office at the time of death', otherwise the criterion would be way to soft. Ex-officeholders die every other day, and ITN would feature a dead ex-president, ex-prime minister, ex-minister or ex-head of a government agency from any of the 200 countries around the world every other day. --RJFF (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The quote marks around "medical tests" make it sound like this was a ruse, and the death is clearly dodgy. If this is the case (and it seems unlikely that it could have been established so soon), the news headline should state it plainly. If not, implying this is highly unprofessional, and is basically POV pushing. I note that the story in The Guardian does not raise any doubts about the circumstances surrounding the death death. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So... are you objecting to the current blurb, or the nomination itself? The blurb can be reworded easily, if that's your only concern. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He was an ex-intelligence chief who was vice president for 23 days. We can't feature all deaths of ex-intelligence chiefs of some country. We should apply the criteria of ITN/DC strictly to avoid turning ITN into an obituary section. We already have two recent deaths in ITN currently. --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. He is very renowned author, dramatist, and film director in Bangladesh, owner of Ekushey Padak, highest civilian honor in Bangladesh. — T.05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all the references say he died in 64, although the simple mathematics says he died in 63. We can stick to the math, but at the same time we are standing against every references. — T.06:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of substantial international coverage and reputation. (Only 180 hits on Google News as of this posting; all appaer to be Bangladeshi sources). [73]Khazar2 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Unrelated to Nom) Can someone please put the correct nomination templates up for the top-two noms? Kinda makes it easier to navigate lol. Also, Support:If he meets the death criteria for inclusion. --Τασουλα (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: although an important figure for Bangladeshi literature and culture in general, I agree with Khazar that he lacks significant international fame, and there are few reports in important international media (yet(?)).
We should remember that ITN is to focus on actually reporting current events and not on lauding recently desceased persons (which would be the objective of an obituary and not of ITN). With currently four recent deaths on ITN/C, it might be time to re-discuss having a separate recent deaths section on the front page (as e.g. in German ("Kürzlich Verstorbene" on the left side, below ITN) and Spanish Wikipedia ("Fallecimentos" as a sub-section of "Actualidad"). In that case we could relax the strict criteria for featuring recent deaths on the front page. --RJFF (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
President of the United StatesBarack Obama condemns the bombing calling it "a barbaric terrorist attack and Israel has tragically once more been a target of terrorism." "The United States reaffirms our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, and our deep friendship and solidarity with the Israeli people." (Washington Post)
The US city of San Bernardino, California, declares that it has an "immediate and severe" fiscal emergency allowing it to declare bankruptcy without negotiating with creditors. (Bloomberg)
78 people are killed and 66 are reported missing after the MV Skagit, a ferry carrying 280 people sinks off the coast of Zanzibar on its way from Tanzania. (Al Jazeera)
Question is it known that Israelis were the target, or did they just happen to be on the bus. Total causalities by nationality? Is 7 "enough" deaths for ITN. I've seen more given a very sour face. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the blurb to ,reflect sources not synthesis and pov. All the political polemic aside over here without knowing the incident or seeing the [lack of] u[date is not grounds aenough forposting.Lihaas (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is significant since there are two bomb blasts or attacks, one in Syria and one against Israelis, on the same day.Egeymi (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say both against Israelis. One against Syrians, the other against Israelis. Israeli media have also reported that Israel expects attacks against Israelis after the bombing in Damascus.Egeymi (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't question this event's ITN worthy-ness, but I do question the need for an article on the event that presently fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. We perhaps need articles along the lines of "Terrorist attacks of YYYY", or "Natural disasters of YYYY" where initially these types of events can be written into, and if they then later surpass the notability requirements for NEVENT, get promoted to a full article. I've seen several of these events being pushed to articles too fast if only to make an ITN statement about them. ITN is important but it shouldn't be a means to drive article creation. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly and oif the article doesnt havemore than a couple of token instantenous state reactions it ought not to exist other than a mention in the list of incidents article.
I have to agree. I had a look at this article earlier and it was pretty thin then but held off to see if it was going to be developed further. It isn't too late yet but it hasn't shown concrete improvement yet. For the record this is a provisional oppose until such time as the article is expanded significantly - it seems update requirements are sometimes disregarded in the face of unanimous support. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Let me be clear: if this was a section in a larger "Terrorist attacks in 2012", with all (as I type this) 7 sentences that can probably be presently said about it, that, to me, would be sufficient to support it as an update for ITN requirements, just that we would be linking to the section in the larger article, not a separate article. ITN entries should not be rejected because they don't have their own article as long as the update is there. I'm just objecting as, this being an ITN event, someone felt the need that we immediately need to have an article on it, which is against the notion we're an encyclopedia and by necessity all events are not immediately notable. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the seven people killed was not an Israeli. Are we certain that this was an attack explicitly on Israelis? It may just have been someone who hated tourists in general. We need to be careful with our words on such sensitive matters. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is no proof about they were especially targeted. Furthermore, the casualties doesn't seem very significant --aad_Dira (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Do you read what you decide to post by vote count, (explciitly what Crispmuchner said). the articel was expanded to include overlink, redunancies/repetitious statements and laden with pov.Clearly viewable on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We post enterntainment deaths in the usa./western world, he was a ig star in india and the soruce is from the bbc too. --Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Eminent Indian movie idol; major international news reaction on his death; the four sentences are a sufficient and adequate update. --RJFF (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ernest Borgnine and Andy Griffith both got sour faces for not being known outside America, even though there were international news reactions to those deaths. We're still waiting on someone to post Jon Lord, same thing got the "waaa old people die" story. I hope this isn't speedily posted, I would like to give the usual "old people die" naysayers a chance to evaluate this nomination. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of America's media dominance of much of the world, there will always appear to be more coverage of Americans. That doesn't make them more important, especially to the billion plus Indians. HiLo48 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was referring to Jon Lord. Have you personally interviewed the billion plus Indians? Does each an every single one of them know and care about an actor who stopped being active in the early 90s? I rather doubt it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again I'm confused. Can you please try to make your point directly, rather than asking rhetorical questions. And do stick to the topic, and respond to the words I've actually used. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there will always appear to be more coverage of Americans. That doesn't make them more important, especially to the billion plus Indians. <-- Have you personally verified that? Can you cite a source which has? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are confusing me here. One thing, I think there is an systematic reason why an observer will think ITN is biased against his/her country: incidents happening in other countries that make the news are, by merit of your hearing it, international news. Incidents one hears about in one's own country may only be news of national significance. LukeSurltc20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm not voting on another death of a notable individual unless ITN/DC are addressed, because clearly there's a big disagreement about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. To the IP above, asking "who?", I will simply say, someone better-known than you. Seriously - this is Wikipedia, if you don't know who someone is, look them up. Parading your ignorance here is foolish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. He was definitely the first superstar of Hindi cinema, but if I were to go by precedent, did we post when Dev Anand died or Shammi Kapoor died? I'd like to see a clearer set of criteria for recent deaths. Lynch718:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Amitabh, he is still in the limelight, unlike Khanna or Shammi Kapoor or Dev Anand, who went out of the limelight a decade and a half ago, and even though arguably Khanna's cinematic achievements are more than Amitabh's, Amitabh is probably more famous in an "overall" sense. But I digress; Crispmuncher makes a valid point here, especially about the number of films B-town actors star in (to get a perspective, this fellow, whom not as many people admire in the least bit, has starred in over a hundred films). Lynch707:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose It seems to me these noms for less-well-covered countries our notability criteria sometimes get turned on their heads: Nobody recognises the name and so no one can evaluate notability properly, and no-one wants to oppose out of sheer ignorance. I share that concern, but equally obscurity should not be used as a perverse measure of notability. India's a billion people, we've got to acknowledge that, but Bollywood's output is prolific by western standards - starring in X films there does not have the same degree of note as the same number in the western world. The update is good, and the reactions do make me believe this is more notable than someone who stabbed away at a keyboard, but we post far too many celebrity deaths as it is, they need to be reserved for truly stand-out individuals rather than making up some imaginary quota for the sake of perceived balance. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Nora Ephron and others were nt known to cross controversial boundaries in Iran, North Korea, or Russia. Yet there are conplaitns that the US is overlooked (the gall!)Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As was said up thread, all the page views tell us is that people are finding the article just fine without it being promoted by ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your discovery that news sources do use AP and Reuters. Here's The Globe and Mail (Canada) running the same AP story on Rajesh Khanna's death, which goes on to highlight a well-done job of reporting and writing by the good people at AP. 117.199.220.44 (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Update is pretty good which is rare case for deaths. Obviously notable and 69 is still fairly young compared to some of the deaths we have posted recently. seems to have consensus as well. please post before its stale. -- Ashish-g5500:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I provided evidence that Khanna's death was 'in the news' around the world. There is no reason why Wikipedia should ignore this fact and not include such a widely reported event. Also urgency is required in this regard. 117.199.220.44 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a significant individual, even in the busy world of Bollywood. Extensive international coverage, including the front page of BBC News. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Per WP:ITN/DC "had a significant contribution/impact on the country".
Oppose mid-elderly man dies because he's ill and old. Not in the news. Sure, was perhaps notable but death isn't notable in any way, and I see no evidence of this being "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. It seems the consensus is clear (disregarding silly comments like "who?" - if you want to be taken seriously, try something else) and the article quality is quite good, which is always a plus. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated oppose. Honestly, I thought we were fairly clear on the "Michael Jackson rule" on deaths - that is, unless a death is truly monumental, we should not be posting it on ITN. With each new ITN death posting gives precedent for the next ITN death nominee to say "X got posted, so should this!". We will really stretch ourselves thin this way. Colipon+(Talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I am actually quite happy about the 'diversity' from these postings - i.e. it not being 'western' or American, but I am still worried about the precedent that each new recent death sets for future similar postings. Colipon+(Talk) 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the killing of the newly appointed defense minister mostly clears ITN/DC #1. Now that the uprising has been declared a civil war, we need to be a bit pickier about what goes up. It's a war zone: bombs will explode and people will die. It's a civil war, so the government will kill civilians. Iraq went on for 8 years, without an 8 year long sticky or a twice weekly post to ITN. IMO anyway. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Definitly something for ITN. An official being killed during an uprising against a totalitarian regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is regarded as the first assassination of high-ranking members of Syrian power elites in the uprising and it will be remembered as a milestone in the history of the country.Egeymi (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but suggest we alter the wording to make it clear that the suicide bombing explanation is coming exclusively from Syrian state media. The BBC is reporting a lot of uncertainty as to whether it's true or not. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FSA and Syrian state are not the only belligerents.Both iraq and the usa have suggested al qaeda are amassing and its perfectly logical if you see what they did with the power vaccum in Iraq and Yemen. )and Mali_)Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is actually important. One suspects that the entire battle in Damascus was staged to get these guys in a room together. Speciate (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highly notable when government ministers are killed violently. As before, replace the previous Syria story. Should also be mentioned in blurb, or at least a linked article, that the bombing killed two other ministers, and injured two more. We should be seriously considering a sticky at the moment. LukeSurltc20:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, as discussed above, details are too sketchy for me to be comfortable with "suicide attack" in the blurb, maybe we could just use "explosion". LukeSurltc20:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this as it's currently written, even though it's definitely notable. Rather than having the blurb as it is written, we should have it focus on the 2012 Damascus bombing, and therefore all the VIPs who were killed. In any event we shouldn't report it as a suicide attack when that's being disputed. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Assef Shawkat died? Yes, he is a very notable figure in the Syrian government. But the fact that so many major figures of the regime were killed in this attack is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Afghan soldier, Abdul Saboor, who killed five French soldiers in a remote part of Kapisa province in January 2012, is sentenced to death by an Afghan military court. (BBC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: There had already been consensus to post this as soon as the results are out, which is the case now. --RJFF (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment indicated: 1. its ntoa full a result, which we WAIT for , 2. no refernce to consensus, 3. the updateoin prose is hardl 2lines.Lihaas (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The article says "On 17 July, the High National Election Commission announced results.". If they announced it, then it is a full enough result that we can post it. 2) As he said, we already had the discussion whether to post it, so it just depended on the results being announced and the article being ready, both of which BorgQueen correctly assessed. 3) The whole article is stuffed full of text, and all of the article is written just for this event. That counts as way more than a 2-line update!
I can't help but understand your comment as a play for personal power, determined to find some procedural thing that BorgQueen did wrong, because you are more concerned with the personal power than an ITN vote gives you, and BorgQueen bypassed, than actually making ITN better. I much prefer giving admins who actually care about improving Wikipedia the freedom (under responsibility) they obviously deserve, without always forcing them to go through a slow and tedious "democratic" (ITN is not a vote) process when it is unnecessary. If BorgQueen had actually made a mistake (which people should know happens in the Encyclopedia that everybody can edit), then it would be easily reverted. Thue (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant news in the industry but nothing sets it apart from many other similar changes every day. It doesn't mean that Google will face troubles, or that this will enhance the competitiveness of Yahoo in the market. For comparison, we have many sports transfers with even greater amounts every year, but we usually refrain from posting them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand a bit more, as it would be never ending. All news happens all the time. Someone dies - it happens all the time. An uprising - happens all the time. A marriage - happens all the time. It looks like you reject all ITN candidates with that reasoning. Regards, SunCreator(talk)16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And ITN candidates have been rejected with that reasoning. Simply search through the ITN candidate archives with "happen all the time". Mining accidents, international talks, major website shutdowns, vehicular accidents, sport achievements, protests, heat waves, earthquakes -- all have been soundly declined on the principle that they occur "all the time".--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, I think we're saying "Company executives at companies of the significance here change at a sufficient rate that posting all of them would be detrimental to ITN. Disucssions here tend to be of a deontological bent, such that we discuss the merits of a posting in terms of general principles and how they would affect the project were they universally adopted." That's a bit of a mouthful however. LukeSurltc17:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayer was a "ground floor" employee at Google, rose through the ranks quickly and was there a long time (especially for such a young company). For her to leave, especially to go to the foundering Yahoo is significant, especially since Yahoo is in the same business. Hell, we posted Jobs stepping down from Apple CEO, and he didn't even go to Samsung, just stepped down. This seems like an obvious post. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only really notable thing about this is that she is a woman CEO for a tech company. How common is it to have a female CEO for a tech company? Nergaal (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High profile CEO move of interest to many readers worldwide. Tech slant regarding two of the biggest internet players is a plus. Agree with IP 76's reasoning, and that this seems an obvious post. Jusdafax22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. 473,966 people read the Marissa Mayer article on Wikipedia yesterday, more then any other article and 20 times more then the featured article. If it's not newsworthy then properly the bar is set so high or so specialised that news items would not hit general Encyclopedia target audience. Regards, SunCreator(talk)23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a decisive argument for posting. If the article was viewed by almost 500,000, it only implies that the people do not need to see it on the main page to access easily.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the best possible argument. I do not support the idea that ITN exists to tell readers what they should be interested in, but to guide them to what they are interested in. By the logic that they obviously don't need it on the main page to find it easily, ITN has no real purpose for existing. - OldManNeptune⚓06:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use that definition for ITN. Its existence is based on the importance of the current events and not on the articles that receive most views in a day. Even if those articles are related to something that has recently happened, we must realize what is the notability of that news and not what is the number of page views. Many local stories for USA, UK and Australia receive a great number of page views, but we omit them as bellow the line of sufficiency for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would suggest that our criteria are incorrect. If we're judging things to be insufficiently important and yet website visitors are deciding that this is their priority search for the day, we're not doing our job. I may be in the minority, but I believe Wikipedia is a service website. Frivolous topics (like what the Kardashians are wearing or similar gossip) are automatically filtered by the fact that they're not encyclopedic and thus don't have an article and probably not even a subsection of an article; if something is noteworthy enough that it has an article, or pertains in a meaningful way to something that has an article, and page views evidence that this is what users consider important, then it certainly merits strong consideration as front page material. And for the record, I take no issue with stories of national importance (not local, that implies something at the city level) making front page, whether it's the US, Germany, Russia, etc, if it's of great enough impact or interest that it's topping the article views. - OldManNeptune⚓05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have understood me wrongly. I don't say that we shouldn't automatically post something that receives a great number of page views, but it doesn't use to be the best argument for posting. We've always used much better arguments to prove the notability and relevance of something that is hardly described by a statistic that can be easily manipulated. You just press F5 to refresh the page and thereby increase the number of page views for thousands in less than a minute. A statistic that can be manipulated in this way should not use to be taken seriously when talking about ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event you could refresh the page as fast as each second you would only do 60 a minute, 3600 per hour, 86400 in 24 hours. Regards, SunCreator(talk)10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a minority topic (business and economics) and it's a good example of a posting useful for that purpose. However the article doesn't say anything about the move other than saying that it occurred. Would need at least a paragraph discussing the move (why it happened, consequences, reactions) before I could support. Also, in regards to the blurb, she's been at Google for 13 years, starting at "ground level", can't see anything that suggests she got an executive position in her first few months. LukeSurltc23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if the blurb is adjusted but the claim is made in the first line of the the AP source - "SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — As a top executive at Google for the past 13 years, Marissa Mayer played an instrumental role in developing many of the services that have tormented Yahoo as its appeal waned among Web surfers, advertisers and investors.". Regards, SunCreator(talk)23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Agree yes, just another CEO , but also this time a woman who happens to be 6 months pregnant and hired with the expectation that she will take some maternity leave. So that's rather rare certainly for a big company, so perhaps mildly significant. EdwardLane (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a rather unremarkable movement of a tech CEO. Her gender and family life are irrelevant, despite what the media would seem to be implying. So what if she's having a child? That's hardly an unusual thing for someone of her age. Modest Geniustalk22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As with every Olympic Games, the media and the naysayers are desperately seeking issues to beat up and make a fuss over. As I understand it, the company contracted to do security has failed to fully deliver, will suffer predefined commercial consequences, and the fall back plan of using military folk to fill the gaps has been activated. No big problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of huff and hoo-ha from a media desperate to whip up paranoia and the like before a big event. What G4S shortcomings might exist are of concern but it doesn't make a front page story doktorbwordsdeeds08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As Doktorbuk said, this is a whole load of tit-for-tat blaming and media crappiness. Throw in the LAMEbour opposition somehow finding the means to blame the government, and we basically have...a shit load of nothing. About nothing. ^__^ --Τασουλα (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'LAMEbour'? Please. ITN is not a Party Political Broadcast. There are good reasons to oppose this, but your ridiculous name-calling is not one of them. In the nicest possible way, can it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. Alex, if you're so offended by it don't bother commenting on it, I didn't break any rules. And you make it seem as if my oppose was only based on Labour's childish tit-for-tat, which it wasn't. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We are all filthy liberals, raging homosexuals and unborn baby murderers! According to some...but yeah, in all fairness wp is mostly dominated by people with more liberal ideas - But you hardly ever come across this on ITN. ITN is a different world altogether...--Τασουλα (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Unless there's a security incident during the games, this administrative fracas will likely be a forgotten part of history. Not hugely encyclopaedic. LukeSurltc10:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 'News reports...emerge" isn't a news story. I'm not convinced the G4S screw-up is ITN-worthy at present, and political chatter does not make a story by itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the current treatment. There may be a story worth posting about the G4S debacle but this is not it. The blurb is written in an excessively passive voice (it doesn't even mention G4S) which extends to the article in question: an appropriate level of coverage to be worth posting probably doesn't belong there but in the company's article or as a freestanding one.
This has been tailored to fit somewhere that is doesn't really belong: no-one has alleged that security is going to be compromised as a result of this episode. The furore is more focused on being let down by a private company and an apparent cover-up until this late in the day. There appears to be widespread confidence that the armed forces and the police who have been drafted in to cover are more than capable of undertaking this work to a satisfactory standard. If that is the case raising this as a security "concern" is misplaced. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - Had this just happened (rather than several days ago) and if it had attracted a lot more media coverage, i would have supported it being added. But cannot now sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pending demonstration of widespread & prominent media coverage. My understanding is that we don't automatically post the deaths of even every Nobel laureate in Chemistry; for a figure less decorated, the hill to climb is even steeper. Khazar2 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Jon Lord, most well known as the keyboardist for English heavy metal pioneers Deep Purple, is considered one of the most accomplished musicians on his instrument. This has made every major media publication the world over, and I think this qualifies as someone who was considered to be the best or a pioneer in his field. Article has a brief update, could always use more. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Who doesn't love Child in Time? But you have to be kidding, the keyboardist for Deep Purple dies of old age? μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
71 is not old age. The criteria in question are at WP:ITN#Deaths, specifically number 2: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. Aside from Rick Wakeman (who spoke up on this, calling him an inspiration to his own playing), Rick Wright (who died two years ago), and Stevie Wonder, you don't get much higher in terms of keyboard players. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢18:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that it's a different celebrity. Sudden or violent death can add a few "notability points", but the main factor is the magnitude of importance of the individual. LukeSurltc20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We really need to sharpen up our consideration of celebrity deaths, the standard seems to be nose-diving of late. Only criteria 2 of the death criteria - "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" could possibly apply here.
Is Lord one of the top English keyboardists of the early 70's who played in bands that happened to be called Deep Purple? Sure, but I'm not playing that over-classification game here, much as the fans of the latest celebrity death attempt to do so to claim some semblance of notability. The field here is popular music. Is he one of the top twenty or thirty most notable figures in the whole realm of popular music? No. In fact I doubt he would make the top fifty on any objectively constructed listing. Application of DC #2 therefore strikes me as tenuous at best which is why I oppose.
Finally, I note that according to the template the article has been updated. Lets look at the update: two sentences and 26 words. Is that really the kind of expanded coverage of a media story that we wish to highlight? It is likely that even a thirty second news item at the end of a news broadcast goes in to more depth. Where is that greater detail that ITN serves to provide? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I made the nomination, not the update, and I marked is as updated because it doesn't say he is still alive. However, I'm sure more could be dug up quite easily given the multitude of publications covering this. Lord is one of the top keyboardists in popular music, and certainly one of the most influential to players today. Deep Purple happens to be a notable example of his work, but not the only example. That the field is "popular music" is your generalist opinion, but certainly not the only one. I believe his field is being a keyboardist, of which he is one of the best to have ever graced the Earth. Rolling Stone can back that up more reliably than any wikipedian. That only one criteria applies here is moot; seldom if ever do any deaths we post meet two or three of the criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crispmuncher you apply too fine a filter. Is Lord a founding member of a major 70's rock band, one that was an influence on future acts like Metallica, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, and more? You bet. Has his article been updated with tributes and reactions from major players in the rock music field. Absolutely yes it has. This actually blares ITN/DC #2. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we do not post this story, then we have to consider whether the so-called ITN death criteria applies to these nominations at all. This is insane. As far as keyboardists go, you cannot easily get any more notable than Jon Lord.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^^Then, we wouldn't even be having a discussion on it, wouldn't we? O.o I mean, if the guidelines are set in stone and apply to this nomination then shouldn't it be automatically added after updates? The nomination could be used just to make sure it's updated and bought to attention. *If that makes sense*. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're being over-literal if we're saying that our ITN DC demand inclusion of a keyboardist on the basis that he was a 'leader in his field'. Some fields are too narrow to qualify here, I think common sense and precedent dictate (I'm not the first person to make that argument). We can't consider each and every musical instrument a 'field' for ITN's death criteria. If it were one of the world's leading pianists, maybe. For myself, oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of a reasonably lengthy oppose I made earlier was exclusively concerned with the application of the death criteria and explaining why I fogured they did not apply. Asserting "he fits the death criteria, therefore he must be posted" in the light of that and without presenting any evidence or arguments to the contrary is the kind of fancruft assertion of notability that makes me very dubious of celebrity death nominations these days. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support per ITN/DC #2. Influential and widely regarded in his field. The article is well updated and reflects the same. We posted the Monkees guy and that 90s rapper (I honestly cant remember the band just that I dont like them), so this seems an obvious pass. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. Revamp ITN/DC #2. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Borderline ITN/DC #2 candidate. What swings it for me is that the article is good, the opposes are spurious and ideological, and that Wimbledon finished about three weeks after Noah completed his ark. —WFC— 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — On balance, Lord is a highly notable musician. He founded Deep Purple, led the band for two years, and remained its keyboardist until 1976. That in itself is significant; one of the band's most important contributions to contemporary music has been their innovative implementation of jazz-inspired melodies into lengthy keyboard solos. And of course, Deep Purple has sold millions upon millions of records since their debut over four decades ago. This man has had a sizable impact. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Master&Expert sums my feelings here, a founding member of an one of the most influential bands in the history of popular music. Also a slow news week. Secretaccount00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the posting admin to decide. Seems strong consensus to post to me. Several well considered supports and a few "old people die" opposes. I don't see any comment either way from "24.103.114.115", you had 2 days to provide feedback, but you waited for a ready tag to go up before boldly tearing it down? I fail to understand how that happened... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly this was a late nomination - over a day after he died. Although it could also be seen as "without indiscrete haste". But it's disappointing that mere lethargy can discount certain events. By the time consensus is reached here, over exactly how the criteria are met or not met, the world of news will very likely have moved on. Yes, Jon will still be dead, but it will probably only be "the week that Jon Lord died". The world's press seemed to think it was quite newsworthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is inherent in the fact that we report the news, we don't make it. A day or two is not much considering most items remain up for the better part of a week. By the way it's currently 7 supports + 1 weak to 3 opposes + 1 weak, which is a good indicator. Hopefully an admin comes by soon and makes a call. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢13:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it as ready and got shouted down for it. I don't want to mark it again for fear of 3RR violations. Could some like-minded individual mark it as ready please. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - for the reasons outlined in my comment above. This received international coverage and thus there is no feasible reason why this should not be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready #2 trying again. Two more supports since the caps lock IP drove by and yelled there is no consensus. Seems very strong to me now. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is another minor celebrity death which feature far too prominently on ITN. Reporting on celebrity deaths should be reserved for those with near-universal recognition and this guy doesn't have that. I wouldn't have regarded this as ready for posting since the arguments in favor appear very weak - vague notions of how great the band was. I don't buy that that that extends to the individuals making up the band. Somebody died, somebody that a minority consider with great affection. That does make it automatically worthwhile posting on the front page. ﬥ (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, please remove. death of an old person who, to put it bluntly, was in the background of a (formative, granted) rock band from a long, long time ago. Low relevance today. Speciate (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The decision has been taken. The only reasons to remove now would be a lack of article quality, questions about whether the story is accurate, or consensus that the decision was taken hastily. —WFC— 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. There is precedent for items being pulled on the basis of a change in the balance of opinion after posting. It is not for you to disenfranchise those editors based on you personal view of a post, parituclarly when a simple count reveals straight 9:8. If that cryptogram editor above had been a little bolder and removed the ready tag that had been placed on this twice by the same anonymous editor we would not be having this conversation. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Side point: I've always considered [Ready] to be an indication that the article can be posted subject to consensus. The current instructions state:
"Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header."
which to me suggests that where consensus is the sticking point, only an admin should remove a [Ready] tag. I'll start a discussion of that at the ITN talk page, but wanted to put my thoughts on record in this discussion. —WFC— 03:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew how to do a picture of a facepalm I would. We're going to be posting when users' favourite teachers die before long. Formerip (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well right now all we've posted is political stuff, and a tanker explosion that really belongs in the Darwin Awards. A "celebrity" (I prefer virtuoso, pioneering, or professional musician, as opposed to lumping music and Hollywood together) here and there will not spoil the news ticker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢03:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia SOP: household name dies, not notable. Niche celebrity dies, adjust their "field" to be suitably narrow, post regardless, even if the arguments given amount to nothing more than "he's notable." - OldManNeptune⚓05:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our process seems to be stuck somewhere between consensus / voting based on editors’ subjective judgements and an attemp to reflect what the "real news media" see as notable. Ok, so Jon Lord wasn’t Elton John. But until recently he was still writing and performing. He wasn’t just "an old man" whose musical career was decades in the past. I think he was certainly a major influence in 1960s/70s heavy rock music. He certainly wasn’t "my favourite teacher". I have no big issue in trying to shoe-horn him into ITN and then propping him up once in there. Indeed, I don’t see why there can’t be more flexibility in nominations e.g. including proposed number of days. But obviously new news overtakes old news on a rolling basis. I’m not bothered if he is there for only a couple of days or for a week. The ITN template on his Talk Page doesn’t reflect how long he was there, just that he made it. But I suspect that, for many editors, the whole notion of an ITN section is incompatible with the aim of a "serious encyclopaedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable and interesting. But could we get one more source in the African Union section? There's a couple of statements there that aren't reported in the one source cited. LukeSurltc
Again, do you actually have an objection to thi—oh, you nominated the item, and you apparently didn't count yourself among the supports. Why exactly are you complaining? -- tariqabjotu19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theres not complaint, itsmy nom. In the interest of fairness the otherside of the world should get a say in it. Just cause its my nom doesnt means its automatically a given right.Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it was 6 hours between nomination and posting. Considering we aim, theoretically, for a new item every 12 hours this seems OK to me (if on the quick end). If we set too long a minimum time for the process we're going to get into newspaper levels of slow response *shudder*. I for one am personally happy to open up Wikipedia over my morning cup of tea and discover (through ITN) that there's a decent article on an event that hadn't even happened when I went to sleep. LukeSurltc20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Meh. There's a tradeoff. If we waited long enough for everyone to wake up and check it out, we'd sorta miss the whole "In the news" thing, since stuff posted would no longer be "In the news". The discussion here is supposed to be among people working in good faith to catch errors or to stop inappropriate stuff from hitting the page, either through poor article quality, lack of update, lack of coverage in reliable news sources, etc. etc. Its important to lighten up on the needlessly following procedures thing and instead focus on presenting a good product for the main page. The primacy should be given to quality and reliability and less so on making people who frequent this place feel they are treated "fairly". Not to be blunt, but the feelings of people who live at the antipodes aren't a major concern when compared to presenting quality material on the main page. The people who have supported so far have a reputation for fact checking and fair mindedness, I don't see the need to seek additional opinions just to not hurt anyone's feelings. --Jayron3220:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's rubbish. Important things don't stop being In The News in six hours. I just woke up. Why does my opinion not count? Cut out the arrogance and indecent haste, please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cease your antagonistic rhetoric. There is nothing to indicate the story should not have been posted. Don't fuss over policy for the sake of policy.--WaltCip (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 made a good point that ITN, and almost all of Wikipedia, relies on trusting other editors to maintain and update the encyclopaedia when one isn't online. ITN is an inherently faster-paced forum than pretty much any other domain on WP and allowing every time zone to have an equal chance of commenting on a nomination would require waiting ~24 hours, obviously infeasible. That said, I think commenting after the fact that one would have opposed a nomination had one seen it is valid, as it helps inform future admin decisions and can be part of the ongoing consensus evolution as to what is an ITN-worthy nomination. LukeSurltc21:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't need 24 hours. That's silly. Nobody sleeps for 23 hours. Twelve would be enough to catch most editors during their waking hours. Wikipedia is a GLOBAL encyclopaedia. We must respect that adjective. There are too many problems caused by geographical biases already. If you don't recognise that, it proves the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb this item is notable without the "first woman" bit. I would support anyone getting elected, we don't need trivia like first woman, first person from here, first x religion, etc. Please drop that part. I had intended to state this earlier, but the nom went up while I was at work and was posted by the time I got home. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A user starting a discussion on a matter of personal taste, when the notability of the story is not in doubt? We do that all the time (either here or at WP:ERRORS). It doesn't strike me as a reason to have waited. For the record I agree with the IP's point, that this was notable without the "first woman" bit. Unlike the IP, I think what is described as "trivia" is relevant enough, and makes the blurb less samey than it would otherwise have been. —WFC— 23:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. I understand the point you're trying to make, that any phrase such as "first XXX" is a subjective call. But first man/woman is a subjective call which is easily reversed if deemed inappropriate, whereas first nationality is a subjective call which will inevitably descend into borderline racist arguments about whether the country should be mentioned, or whether there is some sort of political/nationalist agenda. —WFC— 00:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If admins are doing their jobs, pure votes at ITN are always ignored, regardless of when they are made. And this thread is an excellent demonstration of why process sticklers for process' sake should also be unconditionally ignored. —WFC— 09:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are tens of thousands of people reading the main page, whilst there are a few dozen "regulars" here in ITN/C. Providing decent, timely content for the former takes priority over "fairness" for the latter. LukeSurltc10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been floating around here a couple of months or so, but I can't recall a story being pulled (blurbs revised yes after discussion and/or developments in the stories, but that's not such a big deal). Sure, some things have gone through that I opposed, but that's different from something having gone up in error. What exactly are you referring to? LukeSurltc12:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of scrutiny comes after an article is posted to the Main Page. If a series of respected users, and an admin, don't see blatantly obvious problems, then a few more rubber stamp supports and a couple of THIS ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD type opposes are unlikely to change anything. —WFC— 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I think if we post this, it should replace the current Syria item - such that we're pretty putting a notice "there's a conflict ongoing, here is our main article about it". Also we could cut the second sentence for brevity. LukeSurltc14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC) (P.S. consider this my support !vote)[reply]
Support - Yes, it should replace the current item and I am not sure Syria-related events are put on ITN very frequently, but if so, it is quite reasonable given the events in the country, so it cannot be seen as an excuse not to put this on ITN.Egeymi (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support With replacement per LukeSurl. I'm fine with keeping this story updated regularly so long as it doesn't flood ITN with multiple entries at once. -OldManNeptune⚓22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support stand alone blurb. IMO this is more significant than the "massacre". It changes the legal ramifications for the Assad government and countries dealing with it. The article is a gigantic lumbering mess. I had to search for "red cross" in it just to find the one paragraph update. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No-brainer in terms of importance, and the article is in much better shape than the one that was pulled. —WFC— 02:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Those more in touch with the situation may want to consider nominating a "sticky-link" as has been done in for a few items that were constantly in the news (the recent Earthquake in Japan, the Indonesian tsunami, and maybe the Egyptian Revolution).--Chaser (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main article was a sticky for most of February and March 2012, but was removed after Syrian dropped off the top news in media. If the sticky is to return, IMO it should redirect to the latest article or the latest timeline article, not the main article, because updates as pointed above are very small and are "lost" in the huge article. Mohamed CJ(talk)06:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About a quarter of a million people are asked to leave the southern Japanese island of Kyushu after flooding caused by days of heavy rain leaves 20 people dead. (Al Jazeera)
Delta Air Lines flight 126 en route to Madrid turns around and lands back at JFK following a security problem with some cut wires being discovered in the plane's bathroom. (NBC)
Bedouin men kidnap two tourists from the United States and their guide in Egypt's Sinai region and demand the release of a jailed tribesman for their return. (CBS)
52 people are injured following a collision between a car and a coach on the A11 in the English county of Suffolk. (BBC)
International relations
Canada announces it will establish an embassy in Myanmar after the country's widespread democratic reform, says Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. (CBC)
Support Rewrite the blurb (perhaps "During the Syrian uprising, 220 to 250 people were killed ...") but a massacre of that magnitude belongs on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely important and it deserves to be on ITN. I hope this time an significant event is not ignored or delayed.Egeymi (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Although I'm sure someone will oppose because of all the Syria postings, this definitely deserves to be posted or we need a sticky. Preferably we should just post this and move on. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I think the number needs to be lowered to "At least 50..", because that's what the Syrian government says. The sources for other numbers are opposition activists. Mohamed CJ(talk)16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust the Syrian government's figure, but then we can't necessarily trust the rebels either. Maybe a clarification of "between 50 and 250". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above (highly notable and a good article). Obviously we'll need a different blurb. For reference, the Al-Qubeir massacre had the blurb: "At least 78 people are killed in a massacre in a village near Hama, Syria.LukeSurltc19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removed. The talk page is going to-fro about the word "massacre" but from what I can gather, and see from the arguments there, massacre is the most common word being used. For the want of a pin the whole machine fails, and all that. doktorbwordsdeeds05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. This incident is becoming more and more dubious. More and more the initial claims seem to have been hyperbole, if not blatantly untrue. __meco (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. The article now has an orange tag, and while we often let orange tags go if they've been put in the article after it's been posted to ITN, the tag represents a very serious issue with the article -- i.e. that we're not sure at all what happened and that statements in the article may not even be true. -- tariqabjotu22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. It seems the essential problem here was the tag was removed in order to get the ITN listing, rather than solving the underlying issues thoroughly: the main page inclusion was explicitly referenced in the talk page discussion prior to tag removal. In that kind of situation its easy for one side or another to impose a particular view for the brief time it takes to get posted even if the "consensus" collapses again immediately. We need to be much more careful when posting articles that have had issues templates attached. That would mostly be a job for the posting admins. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose? Not seeing any updates on either page. Not sure of the significance of this. Can't support without knowing more about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the first human set foot in America in 10,000 AD and this evidence pushed that back 1,000 years, that would be news. Also, in this case, 1,000 years seems to be within reasonable error. --RA (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[81], [82]. Sorry, this is the first time I propose a ITN update. I assumed people here knew how to consult page history. BTW, I was not the one updating the articles. I don't understand RA's oppose. 10,000 AD is well in the future. It is not only that it pushes back the presence of the first humans in America, it is a distinct people from the Clovis culture that were thought of as the original migrants. This confirmation comes at the same time as another paper in Nature with genetics of modern native american populations points to there being three different initial migrations [83]. GoEThe (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to INT. It would have been much better if you posted this comment right after your nomination so that you help people understand the importance of the event and thus support it. Only now I (and probably others) understood the difference this confirmation has made. While I think this is probably worth INT for some, I still hold my position at weak oppose. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support According to Reuters today - "Final official results are not due until next week. But with a large majority of votes counted, Jibril's alliance had unbeatable leads" - I almost want to post something on this now and not wait until next week as this is what most newspapers will be doing. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb should probably replace the word tank truck with tanker as that is common to both US and UK. The explosions are not that uncommon, certainly pipeline fires with fuel spills and subsequent deaths seem all too common in the region. However 100+ deaths is a large number, but the article is still very short and needs a chunk of work. So weak support once the article is fleshed out. EdwardLane (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff the article becomes great. For borderline incidents like these, I'll support if the article becomes particularly informative and useful. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on WP:ENGVAR: suggest use of the term "tanker" as that appears to be multinational. Reading this blurb and indeed the linked article my initial thoughts were "What the hell is a 'tank truck'?". It sounds like some kind of military vehicle to a British ear. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Am I right in saying this would be out third posting about the Tonga royal family in a few months? That kind of thing makes us look like the idiots we are. Formerip (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ridiculous! Totally agree with first comment. Sometimes one wonders who on Earth writes and promotes this stuff? Our beds are burning and we keep beating around the bush! If we had 10.000 MAJOR news items to choose from this wouldn't even make it in the list. It's sad, really. 09:30 , 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.80.252 (talk)
Support This is admittedly marginal in terms of notability: not all royal families are equal, even if we do have a tendency to regard them as such. Tongan royalty are not huge players on the world stage. OTOH the article is fleshed out and reasonably well referenced. It is thus the quality of the update that leads me to support. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Even though I agree with Formerip's self-evaluation, maybe we should do it to see if it gets more than views than the illustrated DYK's on its run. It's not like the front page is about reader interest, after all. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tonga's royal family are certainly regionally highly significant, and globally known. And the marriage of a crown prince is generally big news. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per some people above it's pretty borderline on the notability scale but the article is very good. ITN isn't necessarily a ticker of the most important things going on right now, but rather a catalogue of good examples of Wikipedia updating in relation to recent events. This article is good for that. I'd cut "in Nukuʻalofa" from the blurb however to avoid having too much linked text. LukeSurltc14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's just an anniversary. Anniversaries are for 'On this day' and not for ITN. There isn't (and shouldn't be) a substantial update of the article, either. --RJFF (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not as a rule. The Queen's recent jubilee celebrations were huge and made news all over; I don't see all jubilees making that sort of a news; not this one at least. Lynch720:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Amazing, they're still around after five decades worth of performing. But it's not really big enough news in its own right to warrant inclusion on the main page. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only because we'd also have to do this for the Archies, eventually, but because I always agree with the majority. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A significant discovery involving the solar system's most well-known, longest-known and now largest-known dwarf planet. ~AH1(discuss!)15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment Do we have article about the object? It seems a moderately important astronomic discovery and the bolded text in the blurb should direct to a separate article (see about P4 discover last year).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2)Newswise, and plenty of astronomy and science websites. This was first announced on twitter 5 hours ago, first added to Wikipedia 2 hours ago and the Hubble press release is 42 minutes old. ~AH1(discuss!)16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant astronomical discovery (even though Pluto is no longer a planet, :/ ). The report seems to be quite a recent announcement so you should probably expect news sites to report it soon. Tombo7791 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is little information to update the article with at the moment as it is too recent of a discovery for any in depth observation to be done. Tombo7791 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even with Pluto having been stripped of planethood, it is still a well-known celestial body. Definitely newsworthy. Oakley77 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is more that could be added to the article. The orbit diameter and the speed of the moon are given in the article. I am generally towards any astro news, but 10 to 25 km across is not really that much. What makes this notable enough for something this small to be posted. I think objects in the SS much larger than this are discovered on a regular basis but we don't post those. Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very high EV. Disagree with Nergaal - size isn't everything :) Embarrassed to admit I din't know about P4 let alone P5! Pedro : Chat 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do share Nergaal's concern in part. Stories like this capture the popular imagination but it isn't commonly understood just how routine discoveries of this nature are. This list[87] documents how many numbered minor planets are discovered each year - we're talking tens of thousands (it typically takes a few years for the orbit of a body to be nailed down to the point where it gets a number, which is why the last few years seem thinner). On the other hand moons are a bit rarer, and following so soon after P4's discovery is beginning to build a picture of a "messy" region of space. Therefore I'll support with a decent update. "Not much is known yet" isn't a reason to dispense with the regular criteria - ITN should build on what people may have come across in the mainstream media. IF we can't do that we don't post no matter how notable the event. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Oppose It's a satellite about the size of Diemos orbiting a dwarf planet that already had four known satellites. I don't believe it demonstrates anything new. And for comparison, I don't recall ITN posting every extrasolar planet discovered, which in many cases are far more informative. At this point, I don't even know that a dwarf planet itself would truly be noteworthy unless it were exceptionally large, or close, or otherwise extraordinary. -OldManNeptune⚓20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point of significance here, that this discovery may well indicate that the area near the moons of Pluto may be cluttered with many small moon-like objects that could potentially pose a threat to the New Horizons mission. As well, we are learning about how the Pluto-Charon system may have formed, and this is a major breakthrough for space telescope technology. Smaller moons may be announced in coming years. ~AH1(discuss!)00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask: what makes this 'a major breakthrough for space telescope technology'? WF3 has been operating on the HST for years, and itself was an incremental improvement over ACS, not a major breakthrough. Modest Geniustalk11:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to agree with Nergaal, this moon is not much larger than Ernest Borgnine, and as of now only the Americans have a claim on it. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I am delighted by the news. This is big science news and Pluto is very well-known despite not being a planet, so I am sure many will not have known this and find it interesting when they see it on the front page.
Ready- Strong opposition arguments have been put forth, but consensus is definitely in favor of posting. Although the article is not great, it looks like enough, but an admin should check that first. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands now consists of three sentences: that nowhere near minimum standard and is hardly showcasing quality content. I'll have a look around and try fleshing it out a little now, but I've only got around 40 minutes and as was noted above there isn't that much known about it yet, but I'll see what can be done. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for now: in that little time I was able to treble the amount of prose in the article, although it is still on the thin side, and there's still plenty of stuff that could be added - we don't touch upon is orbital parameters in the text at all for example. There's plenty of material that can be added, it just needs someone to do it rather than fudging the update criteria complaining that it can't meet them. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I can't believe I missed that it was only three sentences. Thank you very much to Crispmuncher for putting effort into this article. Now it really looks ready, and I'm sure it will improve further once on the front page. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be too hard on this, because I am almost always in favor of astronomy news, but what good argument has been put forth to post this? Most of the supports are merely "it's significant" with no rationale. We've put nearly everything lately through the wringer, passing on quite a few - what makes this special? And to reiterate, this satellite is significantly smaller than many asteroids, and virtually no information about it exists other than that it orbits Pluto and is pretty small. As I said, I only oppose this rather weakly, but it feels like it's getting a free pass because it's science and not pop culture. -OldManNeptune⚓23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any evidence that the moon is provisionally designated S/2012 P 1, or is that just an inference based on the naming of P4 / S/2011 (134340) 1? ~AH1(discuss!)00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I'd have gone Neutral leaning oppose on this one; as Crispmuncher said, it isn't something extremely rare or extremely notable. It totally missed the papers where I'm from. Oh well, it isn't a very busy week on ITN, so it would have probably gone up anyway. Lynch720:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A gunman holds a parent hostage at a school in Vitry-sur-Seine, France, on the outskirts of Paris. (BBC)
Arts and culture
The Episcopal Church is poised to become the first major religious denomination in the United States to approve a rite for blessing gay marriages this December, just after its bishops approved such a liturgy. (The Guardian)
A New Zealand court delays hearings on the extradition of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom to the United States until 2013 due to concerns about the search and seizure of documents. (Reuters)
Israel releases hunger-striking Palestinian footballer and Islamic Jihad member, Mahmoud Sarsak, who was detained without formal charges since 2009 for alleged involvement in a bomb attack. (Bloomberg)(CBC)
The Russian Wikipedia goes blank for 24 hours in a protest over legislation before the State Duma that would allow the creation of a unified digital blacklist of all websites containing banned content. (RIA Novosti)(Russian Wikipedia)
Article:Wikipedia (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The RussianWikipedia goes blank for 24 hours in a protest over legislation before the State Duma that would allow the creation of a unified digital blacklist of all websites containing banned content. (Post) News source(s):[88], [89] Credits:
Oppose while certainly important news for Wikipedia, I don't think that it qualifies as important international news. If it had the same scope as the SOPA blackout, where more than one major website was involved, I would be more willing to support.Tombo7791 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support if ru.wikipedia has taken this action in concert with other major Russian websites, but if it is Wikipedia alone, then this would be a little too much like navel gazing to place on ITN. Resolute00:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I share the same concerns about self-referencing as the above editors, however, I also oppose on the basis of relevance. The people that this affects (and therefore the people looking for information) are by their very nature Russian Wikipedia users. It is natural to assume that they will consult the Russian wiki in the first instance. In the case of prior blackouts (the SOPA and Italian blackouts) there has always been a clear explanation presented as to why what has been done has been done. We do not need to report that second hand. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose for now If widespread and significant new media coverage can be shown then OK. But without it, it looks like self promotion. --RA (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ten decapitated bodies are discovered inside an abandoned vehicle along a roadside in the Mexican city of Torreón, Coahuila. Reportedly, a written message was left behind by the perpetrators. (BBC)
A gunbattle breaks out near Choix, Sinaloa, after alleged drug traffickers ambushed and killed seven police officers; upon the aggression, the officers gunned down four cartel members. The area is a stronghold of the Sinaloa Cartel, a powerful drug trafficking organization. (BBC)
More than $200 million in customer funds is reportedly missing from the accounts of U.S. futures broker PFGBest, after the firm's founder Russell Wasendorf attempted suicide outside the company's Iowa headquarters. (The Guardian)
Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi's order to reopen parliament is rejected by the highest court, stating that its ruling dissolving the assembly is binding. (BBC)
In an interview for German TV, Syrian President Bashar Assad states that the US is trying to destabilise Syria by providing political protection for "gangs", and that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming "terrorists" in Syria. (BBC)
Kofi Annan says peace proposals have failed as the Syrian army allegedly kills 60 civilians across Syria. (Dawn)
In two separate incidents in the current U.S. heat wave involving two different vehicles, both in the Greater Indianapolis area, a baby girl dies in Greenfield, Indiana (in the east of the area), and a toddler from Fishers, Indiana (in the northeast of the area) is left in critical condition after being left in overheated vehicles by their parent caretakers (the internal temperature in one was at 124° F (51° C); both have been charged with felony child neglect resulting in death. (MSNBC)
You linked to a list of 50 actors. There should not be 50 American actors that we are posting on ITN when they die. That's giving one field far too much weight. I maintain my oppose. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That list is 50 actors and actresses who won the SAG lifetime award over the last 50 years. Either you don't understand that from want of close examination, or your argument is, in my view at least, deeply flawed to the point of being irrational. Add on that your original dismissive reasoning was merely your pov, and I have to wonder, sir. Jusdafax04:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Jusdafax here. The vast majority of those listed are dead, so no fears for overwhelming ITN, and more than half of them are household names in the anglosphere even today. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an actor for each of the last 50 years, that's the equivalent of saying that approximately one actor born in each year should be posted when they die. That seems a little extreme. I don't think that's what the list refers to, but it works as an analogy. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oscar winner, huge career, recently active, one of the funniest Simpson's episodes ever, and most of all, let me be the first to note, AMERICAN! μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We really need to work on this death criteria. I feel like the number of death nominations has gone up drastically over the last six months and we've got no solid idea of who should and should not be posted in ITN. -- tariqabjotu23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But where in the world did this notion come from that the death itself has to be special? The ITN guideline says it has to be an encyclopedic article related to an item in the news. There is no doubt this is an encyclopedic article--the death, which attracts readers, is simply the occasion of featuring it, not the sole reason why it should be featured. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was thinking about weak support, but then someone cited participation in The Simpsons as part of their rationale and that swayed me. Formerip (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There going to be even more hurt when I call you a douche, you douche :P. And tut-tut, you know just as well as I that his only notable appearance in anything was in the Simpson's, screw everything else in your rational! :P --Τασουλα (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing I have my trusty pocket knife or things really WOULD of gotten shirty in here. And of course he wasn't in Family Guy, how dare you. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update per ITN/DC#2. #1 Google news, front of bbc.co.uk, etc. Still active late in life unlike many other DC posts. Orange tags need to go and the death section needs details, reactions, etc. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as nominator. As pointed out, ITN/DC #2 is clear: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." So you either think the Best Actor Oscar and the SAG lifetime awards mean something, or you don't, as I see this. Jusdafax23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article is very poorly referenced. Most of the section "naval service", and the central and long section "acting career" is unsourced. An article that does not comply with WP:V should not be featured on WP's front page. Moreover an old (although great and admirable) man dying unsurprisingly of very old age isn't actually news. We shouldn't turn ITN into an obituary. --RJFF (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of thorough WP:V compliance should not be a hinderance to ITN, whose goal is to bring readers / potential editors to a page of interest, and where such problems can be fixed. We need to assure that such articles aren't outright hoaxes, but there's no requirement that an ITN article needs to be well sourced, save for the news tidbit that ITN is being called out to highlight. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose articles issues and update apart, nothing notable about him for ITN deahs. Shoud we go about posting "great directors" whove won lifetime awards in their own country? Their are such people from all ofver the world.Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's right, and it's not an IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's not one of the death criteria, so it shouldn't matter here. The death criteria are all about the notability of his/her life, not death, so that shouldn't be taken into account. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oppose. Appreciating the enormous influx of contributors and volume of edits since the news of his death, and also being somewhat familiar with his acting achievements, I find him not belonging to that top-tier of performers which would automatically warrant ITN mention upon their natural death. __meco (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the death criteria not including that as a factor. The death isn't newsworthy, hence it isn't ITN worthy IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain from voting on this but short of the assassination of a head of state, the only way a death is noteworthy is if the person is famous, so I would presume sufficient fame and importance to their field is pretty much the only criteria that can be measured. -OldManNeptune⚓21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a frenzy of editing going on with the article today, and even Jimbo is involved. I had expanded the 'Death' section last night, in hopes someone would pick up the ball and run with it. Instead the section was deleted! It is now as you see it. I have seen frenzied editor activity before, and this is up there with the craziest. I still think it's a good ITN candidate, but we seem to be sinking here. Jusdafax22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another article with well over 700,000 hits and opposition because it is not an important death. Meanwhile, the Russian Floods article has barely broken 16,000, one fortieth the interest. I think we should be ashamed of the anti-American and especially the anti-readership bias here. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you must remember that Wikipedia is an international project. The numbers are meaningless. If a story is of greater international interest, it is more likely to be posted than an "American" story of similar caliber. The reason is due to efforts to combat systemic bias. That is exactly why, for instance, the heatwave story was not posted. It should be everyone's goal to ensure that all countries are as equally represented as possible, otherwise we would just have a constant influx of American ITN items.--WaltCip (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the real question is, is the purpose of ITN to tell readers what's important for them, or to provide access to articles they are very likely looking for? And if there exists a goal similar to what you describe, then does that not rather call the entire selection process into question, given that articles are chosen based on a non-voting opinion of an extreme minority of editors (among those using wikipedia), with final decision resting in the hands of whichever admin decides it's ready to go? I actually think ITN could stand to move much faster and be far more inclusive, and it still would not even come close to resembling a news ticker. -OldManNeptune⚓04:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence on this one. Ernest Borgnine is more notable than the average actor, that's for damn sure, but is his career significant enough to merit being listed on the front page? Tough call if ever there was one. I'll revisit my opinion later after it's been discussed further. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Clearly meets death criteria #2 with a SAG Lifetime Achievement award and an Academy Award for Best Actor. Teemu08 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Andy Griffith had a much bigger impact than Borgnine and had much more significant news media covering the impact that Griffith had in the 1960s, and it wasn't posted. Borgnine was a famous actor, but probably the only claim to deserve a main page posting is that his role in Marty is considered one of the most famous romantic roles in cinema history. Other than that we can't post every entertainment figure that passed away as we are not an obituary. We should only post subjects that really made a significant impact on their industry like Nora Ephron, Dick Clark and Griffith who I didn't fully comment on because the article was in poor shape. Secretaccount03:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am surprised that an award winning actor of some repute and range is being dismissed like this. I am usually the first to shout OPPOSE for nominations like this, especially with actors and even more so with nominations from our Colonial cousins. However when there's a man of such a fine reputation and back catalogue, I've no hesitation but to support his place on the front page doktorbwordsdeeds17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support, of course. It would be nice, if room allows after Federer and Williams, to mention Marray becoming the first Brit to win any Wimbeldon title (men's doubles) in three-quarters of a century. Resolute18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we didn't mention first Canadian/Austrian/Serbian males in recent years, and you have not proposed that we mention the first Dane, so I would suggest that this would be unacceptably biased as an observation. Kevin McE (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to notability, support (as per ITN/R). People will be coming to Wikipedia to look up information about the tournament & players, so we should post as soon as possible. LukeSurltc18:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Widely reported and seen worldwide. ComputerJA (talk)
Support - especially with the historic achievements of Roger Federer to win a record-equalling seventh Wimbledon title and to go back to world number one. But shouldn't the women's result, with Serena Williams winning the women's title also be mentioned? Aren't they normally put up together? Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the relevant articles have the tables updated, and seem to have as much prose about 2012 as exists for the equivalent 2011 Championship articles. Does this not count as updated? LukeSurltc23:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I second that simply men's and women's champions be the blurb. How this isn't up there already boggles the mind. Non-registered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.8.121 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that these probably would have been posted a bit faster if someone had pointed out that the Federer and Williams articles were updated. I checked the articles on the singles and 2012 Wimbledon Championships a few hours ago and saw nothing close to a decent update. Honestly, the admins are just the last step in the process. Anyone can mark nominations as [Ready] (not done here) or link to the appropriate updated article(s) in the nomination (not done here). This can make things easier and clearer for posting admins, and prevent unnecessary delays such as this one. It's much more effective than pointing to a thinly updated article and insisting that ought to be enough. -- tariqabjotu17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's Jonathan Marray and Denmark's Frederik Nielsen win Wimbledon's men's doubles final by three sets to two. Marray becomes the first Briton to win such a match since 1936. (BBC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: General election in a sovereign country. Widely covered in international news media. --RJFF (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poll is meant in the sense of "election", not "opinion poll", therefore your objection "This is just a poll." doesn't make much sense. --RJFF (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a provisional result from all thirteen districts officially published by the electoral committee.[92] Gusmao's CNRT has clearly won. The news is out now. Waiting for the final result would be sheer formalism. --RJFF (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prose whatsoever on this. At any rate, per Bzweebl this doesnt affirm anything. And with the history of the country until all is said and done/the fat lady sings this is just a guideline.
You might want to though. I'm not sure everyone will feel the same was as you do about the overt newsworthiness of this item. -- tariqabjotu23:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to. When has ITN ever posted the end of a writer's career due to dementia or some other notable event (other than death)? Honestly it's such a rare occurrence that I can't remember, although I haven't been on ITNC for a long time. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Probably better to wait, howvere callous it is to say it, till he passes. But the announcement is probably reliable. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Announcing that he has dementia isn't an indication that he's about to die. That's not why it's news. But he's a big literary figure, comes under the "culture" heading (so minority) and its a story from a country that we rarely post on and, when we do, usually not in a positive light. Formerip (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to tell me on either account, I have had a relative linger in dementia for a decade, and have read García Márquez, of whom I am a fan, in the original Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a "country that we rarely post" is a valid argument. Remember the Antarctic fire? We frowned all over a retired footballer and a retired cricketer. We frowned at some south american president (was it Brazil?) having cancer. He wrote some books, won the nobel prize 30 years ago, and is now sick and old. It's sad, but not news. When he dies people will heap on the support and it will go up under ITN/DC#2. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. He could easily live for another five, ten years or more in which case it wouldn't be too much for this to feature as well. It's one of the world's most influential writers, it's career-ending dementia, not an indication that he is about to die. The cancer probably didn't end the career of the president or change his political circumstances? In which case how can there be any comparison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.118 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The man is demonstratively ill and nearing the end of a long life; I doubt his eventual passing would gain support to be posted as it's "to be expected" (a reason I oppose for myself, so I can't exactly complain). As such it's best to get this one on the main page as it's of greater unexpectedness and avoids the fuss over the merits of an obit for an octogenarian. GRAPPLEX02:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose- This news saddens me to read, but I'm not quite convinced it's front page material; it's not front-page New York Times or BBC News, for example, the way his death surely will be. Khazar2 (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was front-page BBC News yesterday. Which is saying something considering how little Latin American news makes the front page of the Beeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.118 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He is 85 years old: he has not published a book for 8 years, despite vague rumours of a work in progress a couple of years ago that would only have been known about by dedicated followers. Most people would be surprised if he were still writing: his retirement has been announced at least twice before. If deaths are opposed because the deceased is elderly, then retirement and ill health in octogenarians is even less unexpected (I certainly would support the posting of news of his death: that will be widely reported). If it is to be posted, then the Recent works section would have to be updated: it is left hanging in expectation of an update two years ago, and no info about the autobiography to which his brother refers. Proposed blurb is not supported by his brother's comments, which refer to the effects of chemotherapy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed. Please read up on Gabriel García Márquez. The autobiography is the long-projected, much anticipated continuation of Living to Tell the Tale which is referred to on his wikipedia page. And I don't think most people who knew of this would be surprised if he was continuing to write. He has said so himself. A couple of years ago he said "The only thing I do is write". Now it is known that he has dementia and cannot. The chemotherapy is one possible theory but remember, dementia runs in his family anyway. He is a writer, not a publisher, he is not obliged to publish at a rate to satisfy anyone's demands. He has always only published a novel/novella or two every decade as can be seen on his wikipedia page. This is the way he has always worked so why should he suddenly increase his writing output?
Oppose because I believe the coverage will be more significant and widespread when he passes away. While I'm opposed until then regardless of an update, I agree with Kevin than an update to Recent works would be a prerequisite to posting while he is still alive. —WFC— 11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the recent works section has since been updated.
Oppose following the above: his death should certainly be more ITN appropriate than this statement. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is dementia. Nothing whatsoever to do with death. He may not die for years. Does nobody here understand what dementia is? Why are so many trying to kill him off? He's still alive.
We're not trying to kill him off, but his prognosis is irrelevant to this decision. He unquestionably meets the threshold of notability for deaths, but the standards we set for an illness are a lot higher. However significant to the field he is, he is an old man whose career has been winding down for many years. This news is tragic, but to post on the basis that his career has suddenly ended is tenuous at best. —WFC— 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. His death would definitely be ITN material, but not this. ComputerJA (talk)
Oppose Even deaths seem to not be particularly supported as front page material. I don't think I've ever seen an illness or retirement on the front page. -OldManNeptune⚓22:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support If this happened anywhere in Western Europe or North America we'd post it. Seems pretty weak in media attention, though. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, 99 deaths due to flash floods over the summer is to be expected and compares as nothing with that China flood a few years back. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am flattered my argument below seemed so eloquent as to deserve imitation. But this is hardly mundane for Europe and a once great power. As with Katrina it bespeaks a total local political breakdown, with the responsible authorities simply abandoning the bedridden to their fates. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing like Katrina, not even slightly or remotely. Katrina killed 1800 people when crumbling infrastructure failed under an intense storm. Their streets were choked with the dead. 100 people dead from flash floods is a lot like, say, an unusual heat wave killing people who would otherwise have had no reason to prepare for it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choked with the dead? Maybe, surrounding the nursing homes where the bedridden died. You seem rather emotionally invested in this, and your point is contradictory. Is your point that those in Russia died of the extreme...humidity? μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me or anything about me. I've not commented on your motivations, I would ask that you not comment on mine. My point was and remains that 99 dead in a summer flash flood isn't exactly special, especially when compared to the massive months' long floods in china a few years ago. You invoked the EU, long dead empires, and Hurricane Katrina, a comparison which I derided as inaccurate. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crudely speaking, it is a disaster of sufficient magnitude for posting. However the disaster itself should have an article. LukeSurltc20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per μηδείς. I don't think an article needs to be created, but wouldn't object to one if more is going to be written. —WFC— 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question "the equivalent of 5 months" is a bit qualitative. Has the Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia published an actual measurement? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because what 5 months are they referring to? And 5 months average? Over what period then? Compared to the last 5 months? 5 months last year? It's actually an utterly worthless observation when attempting to determine the actual amount of rainfall. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that "utterly worthless" is not the same as qualitative. Quantitative statements, arguably as in this case, can be utterly worthless too. --RA (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 76.110.201.132, I'm guessing you're fairly new to ITN/C. One thing we try and avoid is declaring a bold text support or oppose !vote more than once in a discussion, as it can distort what the overall distribution of opinions actually is. LukeSurltc23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Though I stand by my conviction that posting admins aren't mindless robots counting votes and running in terror at the sight of "not ITN/R". Why do you put a ! in front of vote anyway? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh ok I get it. It's a way of pretending like it's not a vote when it's conducted like a vote. In that case, I'm right, the admins aren't robots,, and are looking for consensus, so I could bold up oppose as many times as I want. I won't because I have no desire to be disruptive, but it is a funny contradiction. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that: 1) There is some threshold of disaster for which, even if the impacts are geographically limited to a small region, is of sufficient notability just due to its impact in that area - an extreme example would be a disaster that eliminated whole town. The disaster here borders on that level. 2) As per μηδείς, if there is a Katrina-like political fallout here, that will be an issue of national importance as well as local. At a certain level of disaster, there can't not be an impact on the rest of the country. LukeSurltc00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of that may be true, but the article doesn't reflect any of it. All it says right now is that "5 months of rain" fell in 1 night in a region of 76,000 square kilometers and killed 100 of the 5 million residents. If it was an entire town, great, what's the town called? If it was scattered cabins along a hillside, it's probably no more significant than houses destroyed by forest fire, or summer heat wave deaths. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1) Article tagged for quality issues. 2) You people are ridiculous. You frown at a heat wave in America as "yawn just weather", "yawn regional only", "yawn hard to link deaths" and then fawn over a flash flood in Russia which was just freak weather in a region of a giant country with an article that doesn't provide details on where in that region the deaths occurred or where the rain fell. I'm stunned. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to point out again that we need to be carefully of having something that might be ITN-worthy of trumping that we're not a newspaper and specific notability guidelines (WP:NEVENT), racing for people to create articles on news items. An ITN-worthy event does not need a separate article, particularly when we are talking about weather disasters (compared to earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) --MASEM (t) 13:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support posting women's now then updating with men's - we did this for the French a few weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to harm anything. LukeSurltc16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd also suggest we could mention it is Serena's fifth Wimbledon singles title. Sorry I didn't add this commentary originally. Mark Hurd (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Could we do a blurb rotation for Wimbledon? The doubles are not ITNR, but the men's has been won by wildcards for (I *think*) the first time ever. The women's has been won by the Williams sisters for a record fourth time. Leander Paes would equal Martina Navratilova's record if he wins in the mixed doubles. Formerip (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been a rationale to have a significant prose for posting a conclusion of a Grand Slam (unlike many other nominations). Please check the previous finals before introducing your own criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis has the same update requirements as any other category. It's more helpful to go about fixing any deficiency than claiming it doesn't apply. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Tennis stories as many other sports stories are more helpful to go out on time rather than to wait for a prose and lose the freshness of the news. Nobody cares now about the women's final after two days of its conclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "Nobody cares now about the women's final" a wholetwo days after the event then that itself speaks volumes about its real notability. I suggest you start a discussion on WT:ITNR about its deletion. Our job is not to report the news - there are any number of news providers out there that do that far better than we ever could, even if we had no policies of OR and RS. ITN exists to expand and elaborate on the news story in question. We can't do that if we have no content that does that. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I plan to make a proposal for some changes that should be made in ITN to fasten the time needed for updates and the waiting time for a nomination to be posted, but I feel afraid that my efforts will be futile. You're entering completely a different story by saying it's not that important if it loses interest in several days, which could be true for nominations about disasters or events that last in the following days. For this one and similar news it's clear what is the best time when everyone wishes to read it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Serena Williams article is sufficiently updated, so I bolded it instead and posted. And Kiril, it will be a lot more helpful and productive if you update rather than complain here. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the update, but the time of posting. I have done quick updates many times before and waited for posting more than one day with a clear consensus towards posting. If we post 'news', let's post them as they really should be posted (see for example how it works on the German Wikipedia). This matter becomes even more tougher if we consider that this is not the first time to complain on the time lag; however, this is not where we should discuss and I therefore plan to open up a discussion about it on a more prominent place. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that these probably would have been posted a bit faster if someone had pointed out that the Federer and Williams articles were updated. I checked the articles on the singles and 2012 Wimbledon Championships a few hours ago and saw nothing close to a decent update. Honestly, the admins are just the last step in the process. Anyone can mark nominations as [Ready] (not done here) or link to the appropriate updated article(s) in the nomination (not done here). This can make things easier and clearer for posting admins, and prevent unnecessary delays such as this one. It's much more effective than pointing to a thinly updated article and insisting that ought to be enough. -- tariqabjotu17:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About 10 aid workers, some working for the United Nations, are arrested by authorities in western Myanmar where sectarian clashes killed dozens of people last month. (CNN)
Gunmen fire at a helicopter carrying voting material for tomorrow's election, killing one person in Libya. (BBC)
Major League Soccer star David Beckham, the former English soccer team captain, is banned for one match after committing an act of violence on the pitch. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: I started updating this article this morning when the death toll was 13. It has already exploded to 43 and is just getting to the East Coast. --Teemu08 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Typically I would oppose heat-wave related deaths due to it being hard to pin-point deaths exactly as a result of said heatwave. People can die in even relatively modest heat, in fact many people (mostly elderly persons) do every year, but as this is part of some truly unusual weather patterns across the US I support.--Τασουλα (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole bunch of extreme weather occurring in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes at the moment, for example, the flooding in Russia [97]. These are connected, global meteorological systems tend to mean a positive anomaly somewhere is matched by a negative anomaly elsewhere on the same latitude. Combined they may constitute a notable story, but any individual event will be local in scope. LukeSurltc14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really very unnatural or out of the ordinary? Heat waves happen all the time in India and many more people die (not trying to turn this into an unfortunate competition of sorts). If this is truly unnatural, the story has my support to be posted. Lynch714:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on similar grounds to LukeSurl. This doesn't strike me as exceptional at all. It is the kind of thing that it is easy to pull together a few facts, run a thread through them and tie them together to suggest something more notable than it really is. 43 deaths because of climatic conditions isn't particularly exceptional. Consider this report form the UK's Office for National Statistics[98]: 25,000 deaths every winter because of the weather. That isn't news, it's a fact of life. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. This is a noteworthy heatwave (the region's longest in more than two decades, according to a local news report), but I don't see much potential for an appropriate ITN item. As noted above, it's difficult (and potentially misleading) to attribute deaths to a heatwave, so we're essentially left with a weather report. —David Levy15:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, 43 deaths due to heat over the summer is to be expected and compares as nothing with that French heat wave of a few years back. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The derecho last weekend was at least somewhat unusual, and it was posted. While this heat wave may be longer or more widespread than normal, deadly heat waves are not uncommon during the summer and this isn't substantially different for what happens every summer all summer long. -- tariqabjotu19:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But only for now. If it keeps on and a case can be made that this is a significantly more deadly heatwave than most, and a sufficiently rare occurence, I could support in the future. I'm a bad judge of this, the "heatwave" is "normal weather" where I'm from. -OldManNeptune⚓20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Partial vote recount has confirmed Nieto as winner. Not sure if this is an official government confirmation but still needed to be re-nominated so it was not lost to the archives! --Tombo7791 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and still waiting. The problem is that the official result may be given until September, as explained before, López Obrador will challenge the results and the TRIFE, by law, can take three months to decide unappealably the winner. So, why we don't archive this and re-re-take it until the IFE or TRIFE decide if Peña won? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.17:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"But until the country's electoral tribunal ratifies the results -- and challenges are virtually assured -- Peña Nieto remains the presumptive president-elect." Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the recount section but am reluctant to update anywhere else, per Tbhotch. While the votes are official, the government still has to ratify the results. Tombo7791 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- The official results have not yet been announced, so the blurb, if posted, would be false. It would look silly to post this than later find that it's wrong. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously a notable election (though which declaration is the "official" one I don't know), but considering the controversy around the election, the article needs a lot more prose. LukeSurltc22:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Mexican government still has to make the official announcement. And with the alleged vote-buyings, I think we have to wait till it is cleared up (if that even happens, of course). ComputerJA (talk)
I don't agree. According to the article, "the Federal Electoral Institute... officially has until 6 September to announce a winner." We usually wait for news to become official on ITN, like the case of the LA Dodgers sale. The recount does seem conclusive, but it is not an "official total." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - It deserves to be in spotlight since the act is highly inhumane showing that people of that period in Argentina experienced what.Egeymi (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the blurb should also mention Reynaldo Bignone who was also among those convicted and was also President. BTW, even though our article has it, don't think we need "de facto". Formerip (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Videla is involved in several trials, we can't be pointing the results of each one. He has already been in the main page the last december, as found guilty of something else and sentenced to life inprisonment. This time, it's not a sentence for life, and it's a sentence on a man who is already in prison. So, basically, it's routine. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you but, where I live, having two former heads of state convicted of stealing babies is not routine. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar vein with FormerIP, I would like to state my "strong support" once again, the notable point here is not penalty, but the acts that were carried out and are evidenced by a legal institution very recently.Egeymi (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idont think he meant routine in that sense. He meant he has several charges/
"""Ofcourse in the western world of west europe and america is not touine, but in other places for leaders to be chared with such crimes is not so out of the ordinary.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Formerip. But I suggest replacing the lengthy "de facto President" in the blurb by "dictator" or "ruler", if plain "President" is not considered appropriate. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is worth being on the front page of Wikipedia. The theft of 400 babies under the hands of the authority is batshit crazy. ComputerJA (talk)
Support — I made a list of the 100 worst dictators of contemporary times (post-WWI to present) because I was bored; Videla was ranked 37th. This man caused the deaths of over 20,000 innocent people in his time. A conviction for this individual is major news for sure. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Could someone with knowledge about this subject please update the article, so that it can be posted? It would be a pity if the nomination failed despite broad support among the discussing users. --RJFF (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support My vote is supportive if the impeachment is successful. Else, there is no need to post only an attempt to expel somebody from his office with no success on it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is the procedure for impeachment in Romania? The BBC article seems to suggest a national referendum, though I'm guessing he'd be essentially forced to resign before it got that far? Anyway, as I seem to say in every discussion, I strongly dislike these "future nominations". It's impossible to determine notability, blurb and article readiness until events have actually occurred. LukeSurltc13:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support if removed from office The vote on impeachment seems to be the first step to being removed from office, with a national referendum being the final step. This should only be posted if the situation gets that far. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff removed from office, using the Walker recall as precedence, which was not posted partially because the recall did not succeed. If this is the second impeachment proceeding, then this does not appear to be an uncommon occurrence in the country.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? yu dint support Tal Law becuase it was only domestic? granted this is also a big govt falling issue, but still...thats fgot longer term repercussionsLihaas (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I didn't support the Plesnar Committee report because I think the court ruling is more notable than it. I happen to be greatly invested in the issue, having lived in Israel and having friends and relatives affected by it. I would not oppose "because it was only domestic." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Now that the suspension has been enacted, we could do a nomination (with the template) which we could argue about. However precedent would suggest only a story of him being "fully" kicked out (or resigning) would pass. The premature nomination of this story, prior to the vote, has not been helpful. LukeSurltc22:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before getting all giddy about this, any reference to this should also include concerns expressed by the EU and US about the the proprietary of the impeachment and the degradation of the rule of law in Romania. (e.g. news report). This is all the more significant since Romania is a member of the EU. --RA (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Shard, the tallest building in Europe and the tallest habitable free-standing structure in the UK at 309.6 metres (1,016 ft), is officially opened. (LondonSEI)(Gulf Times)
MPs vote for a government proposal to establish a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the scandal, but an opposition motion for a judge-led inquiry is rejected. (BBC)
A high-ranking drug boss in the Mexican criminal group known as Gulf Cartel is apprehended in the country of Costa Rica. (Fox News)
Politics and elections
WikiLeaks begins publishing the Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012, which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims are embarrassing to Syria, but also to Syria’s opponents. (BBC News)(CNN)
Nominator's comments: This was the worst airline disaster in French history; also because human error was predominant cause, likely to require changes in practice and training for all airlines -- PopularMax (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've no strong view on the merits of this one, I could be persuaded to go either way. In cases like that I tend to look at the update and at the time of consideration I find it is lacking. Aside from changes to the infobox and references to the report it amounts to essentially one long and rather breathless sentence that simply lists a number of causes that each contributed to the accident, but does little to put anything into context. I'll be happy to reconsider my position if that changes, but at the moment that isn't enough to tip me into the support camp. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose- The report should only be posted if it was uniquely notable beyond the crash. In this case, determining that it was merely a pilot mishandling some issues is insignificant. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could have sworn I read about this months ago. I distinctly remember reading through the transcript of the black box with accompanying commentary about how the pilots weren't communicating. Did I just imagine that, or is there actually something novel here? Confirmation? -- tariqabjotu22:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fairly big new feature on the London skyline. Article seems pretty nice, though needs some detail on the opening ceremony. LukeSurltc19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I copied this, manually, from ITN/FE. Isn't that process meant to be automatic at the start of the day? LukeSurltc
Support- The article is now updated, but it will probably be moved to The Shard soon. And ITN/FE does not have an associated bot to bring nominations to ITN/C, nor does not need one. Personally, I don't think we need ITN/FE, but I don't think that an MfD nomination would garner much support. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. WP:ITN/FE seems useless, there's basically no-one there, and it may even act as a "trap" such that nominations end up being lost. I'd support an MfD. LukeSurltc21:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This happened to a space launch nomination recently, and the nominator was understandably frustrated that he'd wasted his time posting at ITN/FE when no one thought to move it over. I'd support an MfD as well. Khazar2 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm slightly uncomfortable with this. My initial thoughts were of Belmont transmitting station and Winter Hill, both or which are taller, but I see that they don't count as buildings, nor are they freestanding. The situation with Emley Moor is more problematic though, which is another transmitter but with a rigid, freestanding concrete structure and occupiable internal space. I've no real opinion on the issue, but I see it's already under discussion on the Shard talk page, and I'd rather not post until some resolution is reached on the matter. I'd probably be happy enough to post this in its own right but the blurb needs to be careful of the claims made in that event. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment stricken on further investigation (see article talk page for rationale). I'll leave it in here in case someone else raises it. Firming up to support in consequence. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point. Our opinions matter (I'm still thinking about it), but so do those of all the editors who haven't even seen this nomination at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point? Sounds like if you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, and have no objection to the item, there is no point. -- tariqabjotu03:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Posted while half the world is asleep" has to be one of the more asinine criticisms of a posting I've seen in some time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb was changed to say Europe even prior to Acoma Magic's comment. A structure is not considered a building at least until it's completed. -- tariqabjotu12:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A gunman, who was facing eviction from his apartment, is believed to have seized and killed four hostages in the German city of Karlsruhe before turning the gun on himself. (BBC)
Eleven people are killed in further unrest in Iraq, including eight people in a bombing of a Baghdad marketplace. (The Times of India)
Spain's national court opens a criminal investigation into last year's listing of Bankia SA on the stock market, with former chairman Rodrigo Rato and 32 others listed as suspects. (Wall Street Journal)
Politics and elections
Hundreds of protesters clash with police in the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the parliament speaker offers to resign over moves to boost the status of the Russian language in the country. (Al Jazeera)
The Chinese city of Shifang cancels the planned development of a copper plant after thousands of people demonstrated. (CBC)
Ditto per Bzweebl. ive been highly involed in the article (more than 50% increase) and its not the most noteworthy stuff. the constitutional crisis and delays and blames are more noteworthy. Aus hocus-pocus too ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC) \[reply]
When the results are announced, that's probably a notable story (as per ITN/R). The blurb should however report the result, rather than this background event (though widespread complications/problems with the electoral process may warrant extra info in the blurb). Re-nominate when the results are declared.LukeSurltc22:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I know its domestic, but it is far more important to the country than a health insurance court case we recently posted. Its a hugely controversial issue and, for a change, doesnt involve outside parties either. It could lead to a fall of government, as well make or break future domestic relations within the country's society. (which the court case wasnt going to do). See source above, that mentions criticism of the legislature itself ("skeptical Knesset cohort"). And this is hthe major national paper. Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is to go up we need a much better blurb for it since that does little to put the story into context for those that do not follow Israeli politics. A possible early election is coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation too. I'm trusting that the ITNR marker on this was an oversight, since I can't see how anyone could argue for it here. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict)x2. Feel free to suggest one. Also the ITNR bit must have been missed when i copy+pasted the previous one for the format
Comment This may be a reasonable choice, but the speculation is unencyclopedic and you seem to have titled it three different ways ("Tal Law", "Tal committee" and "Plesnar committee"), including an Easter Egg wikilink. Furthermore, we shouldn't be saying something is controversial. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not my titling, its the article that already existed. The committee wasnt always headed by Plesnar either, but it was at the time of release (a search for "Plesnar Commitee" will yield the update).
Also not sure whats wrong with controversy being mentioned. ts part of the context and its neutral per the controversy following debate, which is sourced everwhere, local media and internationalLihaas (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tal committee" article already existed. You've listed it here under two other names. We can't say anything at all is controversial, even if it quite evidently is the case, as Wikipedia has no opinion. We can however quote reliable sources that say that something is controversial. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The law is called the Tal Law, the committee into studying it was the Plesnar Committee that issued the report. Tal Committee is a little nonsensical to be honest, but i dint wnat to muddy the waters witha move just yet.
The aspect that drafts Haredim will attract the attention of Jews everywhere, not just Israelis. But I tend to agree it's not really prominent enough. --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of international coverage. The Obamacare ruling was quite heavily featured on UK, Canadian, etc..., sources and I am yet to find information on this story from non-Israeli or Jewish media. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No doubt this is significant within Israeli politics, but it is just a report at the moment. If the law changes, or if the coalition fractures, that might be worthy of posting. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Despite the fact that I'm a football fan. This is a premature nom, for one thing. More importantly, I can't accept in good faith that there will be a reasonable update, because the article contains a negligible amount of prose on what happened in the first leg a week ago. —WFC— 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment going by faith in whichever Cabal put ITN/R together, it's sufficiently notable - however the article would still need to reach standards in order to be posted. impossible to judge this prior to the event, this is why I dislike these "future nominations". LukeSurltc15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: (After result+Update) And I don't give a crap about Soccer/Football usually. This is a major tournament, watched by many in many different counties. If the UAFA champions league gets posted, so should this be. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have got to be kidding. This yet another football article normally gets just over a third the number of hits of Andy Griffith. An entire league that can't pull the same weight as a mere TV star 20 years out of circulation? Shame! μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but I'm getting less and less surprised by this pattern. I have never hear of this Copacabana bunch (most of them I've at least herad of in one way or another). For some reason every American cultural icon (most of whom have high export histories) have to endure an incredible amount of pissing and moaning to break onto ITN. Good thing we didn't invent Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.146.151 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about not being able to treat each case individually. Your revenge opposing based on your own personal bias. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose isn't serious. And talk about bias, you've got that and rudeness in spades. In any case, Griffith does outpoll the Copa, and you have no good reason for your opposition below other than the fact that the topic is, in fact, popular. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you commenting on my past actions with other, unrelated users? Shall I bring up yours? Lets see...blocked twice...once more than me! I can be just as petty as you then? You were being totally serious or you would of withdrawn your opposition. I wasn't being rude, I was being truthful, and my opposition wasn't based on his popularity at all! and I acknowledged his popularity & how his death had been well reported in my own country! And I admit I can be rude, but most of the time I am perfectly civil, which I wont be to you - you're a douche :P --Τασουλα (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Because it is ITN/R, it gets an automatic pass on notability and must be posted if it has a sufficient update and the article is up to par. ITN/R is a guideline. Although Medeis' point is valid, it belongs in an ITN/R removal discussion, not an ITN/C nomination. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though we often treat it as such, ITN/R is a guideline rather than policy. It's a shorthand for "consensus on this event has been previously achieved", and a way to prevent repetitive discussions, however consensus can change. I don't think we should treat it as a free pass as to notability for every occurrence. In fact, we should consider every nom of an ITN/R item to be an implicit discussion on the item's place on the ITN/R list. Should the occurrence of the event be widely considered non-notable it's listing should be under serious review. LukeSurltc07:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but consensus can only be changed for ITN/R if you have a discussion on the talk page and it is closed as such. Complaining that you don't like the current consensus doesn't change it. You must show that consensus has changed with discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[My points above are] all, however, a general point, and not specific to this nomination, upon which (knowing nothing about S. American football) I am neutral. LukeSurltc22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending appropriate update. This is arguably the most important footballing tournament for the whole of Latin America (and I mean that literally!) and football is, well, football, the most popular sport in the world, being particularly important in that region. Finally, this is on par with a Champions League final, the Libertadores being the Latin American equivalent, and there wasn't any such discussion there, so it seems like an very strong case for a support. Pending the update.User:Vertigo200—Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was an international competition from the most popular sport on the planet and the most popular cup in Latin America. In addition, this is the first time Corinthians wins a Libertadores championship, so that may be mentioned too. ComputerJA (talk)
I don't want to oppose, but there were a grand total of ~550 characters about the 2 matches. In the much-maligned DYK, they require 5,000. –HTD02:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but we don't. Perhaps because DYK can be on virtually any topic, and its rotation can be made more or less frequent based on availability (should they should). -- tariqabjotu03:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major scientific discovery. Could do with a check with someone with more expertise in particle physics (I'm a mathematician with a keen interest, but not expertise, in this field) before posting and updating the article, but assuming I've got this right, this should definitely be ITNable. --Sceptre(talk)07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about phrasing it as "a new particle with properties consistent with the Higgs boson"? It's a more accurate hedge, but it might be too wordy. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 08:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more succinctly covered in "Higgs-like", but yeah, the wording is totally up for refinement. As I said, not an expert, but keenly interested. :). Sceptre(talk)08:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it seems like they are cautious about calling this new particle the Higgs. Would be correct to refer to it as a "boson" rather than simply a "particle" if we wanted to be more more specific. LukeSurltc08:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "CERN announce the discovery of a new boson with properties consistent with the Higgs boson of the Standard Model after experiments at the LHC."? Trade using the full name of the Large Hadron Collider for mentioning the consistency with the Standard Model. (I'm also not a physicist, but for what it's worth, obvious support for any version.) « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 08:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wording is good, IMO. Ready to post when there is slightly more update to the Higgs boson article (in the timeline section and intro, I suppose). --Tone09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need two "boson"s in the blurb? Obvious support for posting provided we are careful not to over-egg the claims made. Crispmuncher (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"...a new boson..." is actually slightly more specific, because it sounds like the fact that it's a boson is just about the only piece of information they have about it other than its mass. But "particle" might be better because it avoids saying "boson" twice and because it's a bit clearer for a general audience. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to notability: Support (obviously) - a pretty huge deal for science, and very relevant to encyclopaedic content. LukeSurltc10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I think the formulation in the article now makes it clear what the discovery is about. As suggested, I'll use the word particle to avoid double use of boson - if the particle was not a boson, it would not be consistent with the Higgs. --Tone10:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's quite a long blurb. Is "of the Standard Model after experiments at the Large Hadron Collider" really necessary? There's no other Higgs Boson, after all. Formerip (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It's a decisive action: "The European Parliament overwhelmingly defeated an international anti-piracy trade agreement Wednesday" ... "[meaning the 22 European member states that signed ACTA] cannot ratify it into their local sovereign law." ... "The vote is the first time that the parliament has used its powers under the Lisbon Treaty to reject an international trade agreement."— C M B J11:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latter could make it more notable, you should state that.But on its own its not notable adn we dont post failed treaties.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As neutral an opinion that is "because i was personally affected". Thats not what WP is about, and thats why we dont vote count.Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We put up the US Centric SOPA one, no reason this can't go up as well (and if it did pass, that would certainly give drive for other countries to consider similar). --MASEM (t) 13:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOPA didn't pass either. Mind you, there was a large-scale demonstration (that included WP) that revolved around it. Here, while I do believe there was some protest against it, it wasn't at the same scale. But that said, it has been marked by many leading Internet experts as problematic if it had past. The defeat of ACTA is important in the larger scale of things. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose as per Lihaas - the non-passing of the bill means this is the absence of an event, rather than a significant event in itself. LukeSurltc15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it won't be in the news; sometimes the fact it didn't happen is what makes it groundbreaking. A question to ask in cases like this is to ask "if the event did happen, would it have the same type of coverage/impact and be appropriate for ITN?". If that is "yes", then the absence of occurrence is just the same and shouldn't be dismissed just because its an absence. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Martians landing in Time Square would have been a pretty strong candidate, but that didn't happen today either. OK, OK, I know there is a defined event (the voting down of the act), but as, by definition, nothing has changed in the European statue books, this is a very weak candidate. LukeSurltc20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that there's a slippery slope line here, fully aware of that. But let's take another example: SCOTUS ruling the health care law constitutional. Nothing changed on the US books, so for all matters it was a non-event per the statements above. Yet, it was reasonably clear (not 100% but more than enough) it should be posted as ITN. We have to recognize the implications that press coverages of "non-events" from highly anticipated/reported/watched scheduled towards ITN. In this case, many recognized that ACTA would quench much of the Internet free speech ideals similar to what SOPA threatened, and the fact that it was so soundly rejected was important. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been very active talk that martians could land in times square today and it did not happen I would support the lack of aliens at newsworthy. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 25 people are killed and 40 wounded in a truck bombing in the market place of the Iraqi city of Diwaniyah. (AP via Google News)
Business and economy
Bob Diamond resigns as the Chief Executive of British bank Barclays following a scandal in which the bank tried to manipulate the Libor and Euribor interest rates systems. (BBC)
Police search the home and offices of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy as part of a judicial investigation into financial relations between his political camp and L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt. (Reuters)
Hundreds of activists demonstrate in Ramallah to protest against the violent dispersal of two similar rallies at the weekend in a rare expression of public discontent with the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmud Abbas. (AFP)
Evidence for Discovery of a meteorite crater 3 bn years old, caused by a ~30 km meteorite, substantially larger than the Chixculub crater, twice the size of the previously largest Vredefort meteorite. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Maniitsoq crater is supposed to have been 500-600 km wide upon creation according to the linked article, but only the part originally >25 km deep remains, the rest has already eroded. So it's no longer the biggest asteroid crater today, but it was caused by the biggest impacting asteroid ever. (Reworded blurb for clarity.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Recognized television actor with an exceptionally long career, whom I feel is significantly well-known across the globe. I am looking for national sources to back this up, however. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - seems fairly big character in US TV, but unclear if any of his shows have had much traction outside the US. Also a natural death at age 86. LukeSurltc14:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he's been out of the public eye for nearly 20 years (since Matlock) and its been more than 40 since his eponymous show aired. Hot Stop16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acting roles for the elderly are rather rare. At least those with any substance worth lending your name to. Given that he probably had enough money from his series in syndication, why would he work more?
Nevertheless, he reprised the role of Matlock in 1997 on Diagnosis Murder, reprised the role of Andy Taylor in a political video by Ron Howard, and had eight roles between 2001 and 2009? Within the last decade, he appeared in the television specials CBS at 75 (2003), The Andy Griffith Show Reunion: Back to Mayberry (2003), CMT's American Revolutions: Country Comedy (2005), and two episodes of PBS series Pioneers of Television (2008). That in addition to appearing on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, etc. Were you aware that his Grammy Award was in 1997, two years after Matlock ended?
Support One of the true giants of American television. The old age argument is trotted out every time but we've run countless items for elderly celebrities who were of roughly equal stature. Besides his own distinguished career, his eponymous show launched the careers of Don Knotts and Ron Howard, both quite noteworthy themselves. -OldManNeptune⚓16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re: notability internationally. Of the 10 highest circulation newspapers in Canada, only French-language La Presse and Le Journal de Montreal didn't cover it. All others did, most on their front pages. (* means it appeared on the front page of the website for the newspaper, ** means his image appeared on the front page with the link.) The other 8 newspapers are: Globe and Mail* | The Province** |
Oh yes, that US colony is international as far as the US is concerned. Im sure something with the popultion of 2x NYC influenes worldopinionLihaas (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support He also starred in film, on broadway, had a platinum album and was the biggest living name in TV at the time of his passing, and, especially, we will probably get a lot of readership interest, which convinces me to support the nom. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I tend to do with deaths that make the Toronto talk radio news circuit. That to me is a good sign of the person's significance outside of the United States. Everyone recognizes the whistle-opening to his show, and he is a household name (at least in North America). On the United States gawking that many editors seem to bring to the table when it comes to deaths, what makes recognition by Britain, or Germany, or Australia or Japan so special that it suddenly overcomes the detriment that making national headlines in the US seems to bring to nominations. Pitiful anti-Americanism without any basis, except the false claim that we run more American-centric news. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢18:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FFS (and Oppose) Can we ever clarify 100% if someone dying of old age, no matter how famous but having done nothing of note for a very long time, belongs in In The News? Griffth's TV show was used as TV pap in Australia in the 1960s. It means that lots of older folk like me remember the name. Dunno if this makes him great outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "nothing of note for a very long time" argument doesn't hold water with me. e=mc2 was first published in 1905. Einstein died 50 years later. Matlock ended only 17 years ago. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot equate Einstein's accomplishments in the field of physics to Griffith's accomplishments in popular culture.--WaltCip (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not. But I'm just saying that the time frame between accomplishment and death shouldn't be a relevant measure for this sort of thing. The only measure should be the enduring nature of his creative works, the ripple effect of starting careers, his Tony nominations, his Emmy nomination, his Grammy Award, his 1960 Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (before the honour had been watered down), his Presidential Honour of Freedom, etc... -- Zanimum (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not a response to my basic point that the ONLY reason he's getting any coverage now is because he died OF OLD AGE. That is NOT a newsworthy achievement. And since a nomination I made here some time ago of the very premature death of an extremely meritorious Australian, very well known in at least one other country half a world away, was rejected, I reject an American with very little impact outside his own country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that death from suicide or mishap is somehow a newsworthy "achievement?" And by your own admission, it would appear that your rejection of this entry has less to do with whether or not it's ITN worthy and more to do with bitter retaliation. It's disappointing that so many have adopted ITN as a platform for a political agenda when the states purpose is to help visitors easily find articles they are most likely to be searching for. -OldManNeptune⚓21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political? What? And while I didn't mention suicide or mishap (please stop guessing), yes, the death of someone in the 30s or 40s is obviously far more newsworthy than death of old age. But not for a pensioned off American TV "star" apparently. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the death that is the notable aspect, it is the resulting coverage in terms of obits, memorials, tributes, and the like that is notable. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the "suddenness" of a death, and its unexpectedness, make a death more newsworthy. I would contend that the death of George Harrison, only 58 but known to have cancer, was less newsworthy than the death of Kurt Cobain, who was 27 and committed suicide. Sadly Wikipedia doesn't go back to 1994 to show us page views for comparison. (I'm neutral but leaning towards oppose on Griffith, FTW.) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fame and celebrity does not automatically equate to notability: it is an inevitable part of success in certain industries such as film, TV or popular music. Posting simply because of celebrity in those instances is setting the bar very low indeed. In this case the individual accomplishments most notable roles were decades ago and has been of comparatively little note of late. Notwithstanding the links posted above, this doesn't appear to be gaining significant coverage internationally - sure, he's being covered somewhere but well down the running order. The fact that someone appears in the obituary sections internationally does not raise the individual to the breakout notability needed for an ITN listing. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
His death did not appear in the "obituary sections", of the eight largest Canadian newspapers, all published his death in the Entertainment news section. And most included an image on their front page, as of my checking earlier today. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just browsing the article here, it would appear that he certainly had not dropped off the radar as some commenters are suggesting. In 2007 he was inducted into the Christian Music Hall of Fame, for example. Indeed, it would appear that from 2000-2010 he received quite a few awards and recognitions, released seven albums, was in five movies, and a music video. Just because he didn't do much television worked doesn't mean he didn't do anything. For that matter, I am not convinced that notability, even per ITN, hinges on recent activity. A significant body of work and major contributions to both television and music is no small thing. -OldManNeptune⚓19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An 86 yr old who dies not out of the ordinary and is FAR less GLOBALLY noteworthy than Yitzakh Shamir. STRONG oppose in the itnerestsof consistency...we really need a policyLihaas (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, albeit weakly: Yeah well known, and this was a fairly big story over here in the UK as he was fairly well known here as well. However, treating ITN as an obituary for every "famous in their day" old-age death needs to stop. Also enough of the "big in America, Oh what nowhere else? LOL screw you guys this is Americapedia! USA USA USA!"... No I kid ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concerning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Though a rare and prestigious honor, it seems that his receiving of the award is amplified by his field. If you look at the list of other recipients, it does not seem like a majority of them (save heads of state) would have a chance of even being proposed for ITN. Actors and other popular culture figures will always be the most well known, but not necessarily the most important deaths. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-known, and good article. Considering some of the deaths added to ITN this year, I think this one is more than noteworthy enough. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orange tagged I disagree with the above editor about the status of the article. I noticed numerous successive unreferenced paragraphs, so I went ahead and added {{ref improve}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that this argument that someone's living into old age makes his accomplishments less notable is, frankly, bizarre. An unexpected death does not itself make someone notable who isn't. An unsurprising death itself does not make a notable person unnoteworthy. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but as I suggested up the thread, a surprising death is more newsworthy than an unsurprising death, regardless of how notable the person is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally no fan of Andy Griffith's. But that is taste. And to argue that his death's not being surprising is relevant here is still quite odd. One might as well argue in response that given he was a redhead he was more notable than 99.9% of the people on earth. Both statements are non sequiturs. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Comment:CTV News Channel interviewed the co-founder of the The Andy Griffith Rerun Watchers Club. They have 1375 chapters worldwide. I notice Austria, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Ireland, Thailand, Grenada, Mexico, Canada, Crete, UAE, Italy, England, Germany, France, and Israel. That, and the USS Simon Lake, before it was decommissioned. (Now note, the list is out of date... there's one in West Germany, but that speaks to this organization being around before the internet, and thus more than just hitting "Like".) -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After much deliberation, I suprise myself by supporting this, mainly due to the first listed purpose of ITN, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" be so relevant to this item, I mean over 600k people more than normal viewed his entry today. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think an entry here will help readers find an article? I suspect they will search for Andy Griffith. Helping people to find an article is an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, that is one of the main purposes of ITN, I'll quote again for you, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Perhaps you should read up at Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose if you are unaware of ITN's purpose. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm aware of that purpose for ITN. Please read what I post, and think before you post next time. Don't treat me like an idiot. It may make me think you are. It's an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be any surprise that you suspect people treat you like an idiot, as you tend to be borderline incivil to anyone who opposes your arguments. Good heavens.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that thinking more clearly than a lot of others here sometimes leads to a little impatience with other on my part, but that's surely a sign of the opposite of idiocy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say that he's more than noteworthy enough. Also, as pointed out by Unique Ubiquitous, a lot of people are going to be looking for the article. Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think an entry here will help them? I suspect they will search for Andy Griffith. Helping people to find an article is an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But won't people search Google for the Higgs boson particle, instead of going to our front page to see if we have a link? Won't they search Live for the UEFA Euro 2012 Final, and find us? -- Zanimum (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the basis of the arguments in this nomination, there's not a convincing enough argument to prove he was notable enough for front page inclusion. Important to a generation of Americans, I have no doubt, but not enough outside that doktorbwordsdeeds10:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can we stop posting the deaths of so little known Hollywood celebrities??? Somebody said that this guys is more relevant to the word than 99.9% of the people in the world, but being one among the millions that have some celebrity should not make them ITNR worthy. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"So little known?" I've seen some hyperbole in arguments before, but this has to take the cake for ITN. Please, if you're going to oppose this, at least attempt an argument that isn't so obviously knee-jerk. -OldManNeptune⚓21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note the irony in calling Andy a Hollywood celebrity. He wasn't an indie filmmaker or anything, but he shunned the Hollywood scene, and was representative of Middle America, not either of the coastal lifestyles. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize that even though we have a very good and comprehensive encyclopedic article on the subject and that there is huge reader interest, Obama is only an American. Not Kenyan or Indonesian. Especially not Indonesian. He may not even be an editor. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better question is, did Julia Gillard say anything about any foreigner's death? Unlikely. On the White House Blog, Obama has only commented about the deaths of a Polish president, Griffith, and Osama bin Laden. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I'm not sure where the nominator is from, but I'm Canadian. Andy Griffith is a foreign comedian. As for Sykes, I've examined his television credits. British shows air with some regularity in Canada. Teletubbies is the only one that I can remember being on Canadian airwaves. (I'm not counting Agatha Christie's Poirot, which does air on PBS, which can be seen in Canada, as he only appeared once on it.) While I'm not an uber-Potter fan, I don't remember his character in the fourth movie. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The comparison to Sykes is a good one. Griffith was well-known and notable in the US, but very little-known outside it. Sykes was well-known and notable in the UK but very little-known outside it. ITN shouldn't include death notices of people whose notability is restricted to one country. 188.28.107.107 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In my view, more than notable enough, and not just in the US since culture extends beyond national boundaries. Jusdafax19:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four foreign aid workers held hostage inside Somalia are rescued by Somali forces after they were kidnapped from a Kenyan refugee camp on June 29. (BBC)(Reuters via Yahoo! News)
Children in Jaʿār, Yemen, accidentally set off a shell, killing one and wounding seven others. (AP)
Finland says it will block the euro zone's permanent bailout fund (ESM) from buying government bonds in the open market, while The Netherlands also indicates opposition to the bond-buying idea. (Reuters)
The British government announces a parliamentary investigation into the BarclaysLibor scandal, with reports hoped to be filed by the end of the year. (Reuters)
Some, but not all, of Chicago's taxi drivers go on strike during the morning rush hour to protest a new set of city regulations that took effect. (NBC Chicago)
Disasters
At least 79 people are killed and 2.2 million rendered homeless as torrential monsoon rains trigger floods in Northeast India. (Sky News)
Four officials from the International Criminal Court, including Melinda Taylor, are released after they were held in the Libyan city of Zintan for four weeks on suspicion of spying. (BBC)
A year ago, CERN also reported that they had discovered faster-than-light neutrinos. Hold off on making any postings until the evidence is corroborated by other sources.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the sources tells me two things: One, there is more coming Weds (July 4), so I would definitely say any posting of this needs to wait to then (This is sorta a prelim announcement they have found something, the full details probably are out July 4). Secondly, reading the articles that reporting on this, it suggests this is an affirmation after third-party review of the data, putting the confidence level of something being there at 99.99+% (4 nines) that it wasn't an instrument glitch or the like. So technically they got corroboration. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we will just wait until they build another accelerator of LHC's size, at a cost of 7.5 billion euros, to get independent confirmation. On a more serious note, the Higgs experiment was split in two independent teams for exactly this independent confirmation. Thue (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for some definite announcement. CERN have released a number of "teaser" announcements in the last few years on this issue but have always stopped short of announcing definite conclusions. Until that point this is simply another evolution in a long-running story. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wait until Wednesday and post then. It seems pretty clear that they will announce their results in a couple of days so wait until then. The peer-reviewed papers will probably come later, but I think this is a sufficiently big of a deal to not wait until then. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per above - let's see if it's five-sigma. Also, cut mention of "god particle", it's an unnecessary piece of journo-speak. LukeSurltc19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it as a nice meaty media sound bite but at the same time, I would bet that our average reader is going to understand the importance of "god particle" over "higgs boson". I'm not married to the idea of keeping the "god particle" in there, but I think it feels bare and lacking "why does this mean anything" without it. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "a key theoretical sub-atomic particle of the Standard Model of particle physics" bit should suffice for that. I really dislike "god particle" as it does nothing to explain what the particle is, and sorta invokes irrelevant theological connotations. LukeSurltc23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree completely, the "god particle" term is hugely non-scientific, non-explanatory, and unnecessary. Thue (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: At $3billion, it's the largest health fraud fine in US history, I think that is reason enough. I do notice the company has a very long criminal record and that several other fines have been posted recently on ITN, but I think it is still notable. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to nominate it based on this article in the independent and I was going to suggest having "for illegally marketing the depression drug Paxil" in the suggested blurb.
Support That's a HUGE fine - it's almost half of their net income (per the article). It's also a British company fined by the US government, so there's a definite international impact. I wouldn't add the Paxil blurb though, since Avandia and Wellbutrin are also included. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support size of fine makes this obviously notable. We have had one or two other stories of late, most notably the Barclays one which is still one the template. However, assessed on an individual basis this is surely notable enough and if posted this would naturally bump the Barclays story from the template in any case. Update is currently a little on the thin side, for story as multi-faceted and widely reported as this there isn't really any excuse for a thin update. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Syrian opposition groups reject a UN-brokered peace plan accepted yesterday in Geneva for a political transition in Syria, arguing that it is ambiguous and a waste of time, and vowing not to negotiate with President Bashar Assad or members of his regime. (AP)
Turkey scrambles a total of six F-16 fighters jets near its border with Syria in response to three cases of Syrian military helicopters approaching the Turkish border, although there is no border violation. (BBC)
At least 17 people are killed and 45 injured in an attack on two churches in the eastern Kenyan town of Garissa. (BBC)(MSNBC)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Obvious support once updated and results are official, both as a presidential election in a large country, and because the PRI is returning to power. Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not confirmed yet, but only likely + remove Nieto page as not updates and by pre cedence wont be adequately upated.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I think something like "returning the PRI to power" is important, but not sure how to word it.Wait till it's official. It's not crystal clear yet, and it's not our place to pretend that it is.Xavexgoem (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Xavexgoem (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Noteworthy, and especially because the old PRI party (which ruled for 71 years) returns after a 12-year struggle. I'd recommend to check for neutrality, however. I haven't checked the veracity of some citations either. ComputerJA (talk)
Wait. Let's be patience and wait for more info to come. ComputerJA (talk)
Comment: Still not official, also it appears as if the "runner-up" candidate is going to challenge the result, so we should keep an eye on the developments. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read that Obrador is demanding a recount, this story could be a while yet. Shall we move it up the page to 3 July? LukeSurltc20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending final conclusion; significant change in political balance in Mexico and in light of the ongoing anti-drug war. -PopularMax (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has the Mexican press mention anything about this picture? I've seen similar videos on YouTube about alleged "vote-buyings," but I've never seen any formal or legal action against them. ComputerJA (talk)
No, they haven't, in neither public or private TV, and the error still there (Mexico / 5614), and this is one of multiple errors. López Obrador said that he has 3,000 incidents registered-only at polling stations, there will be also added incidents recorded by political parties and observations registered at the PREP (What is the PREP?) In Spanish. About buying votes, there are excessive evidences that some political parties (if not all) were buying votes for months, but the IFE and the FEPADE "don't see, don't talk, don't hear", and in fact the FEPADE said that these investigations will take them "weeks or months" to check them. There were presented legal protests, but to date nothing has been done. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember in this discussion that the PRI essentially bought Televisa and TV Azteca. I don't believe that this is disputed, and it's been covered extensively by The Guardian. How this affects source reliability I don't know, but given their influence and the gray area this creates, I think we should give some more weight to the international outlets.
I can tell you that my FB feed and my left-leaning news sources are full to the brim of Mexican discontent at the results, and not just one or two or three photos show fraud or suspicions of fraud, but rather what I'd call a "bevy" (documenting this stuff is part of the objective of YoSoy132). Point in my saying this is that it seems likely that there may be more to come (beyond the already large demonstrations at the Zócalo and other places). I could be wrong, but Mexico gets more and more interesting each day.Xavexgoem (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I apologize for slightly soap-boxing there, but context, context, context. Also, Tbhotch: the idiom is "see you no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" ;-)[reply]
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: (Nomination From ITN/FE) ITN/R, major international football tournament with significant media and social attention. UEFA European Football Championship has been getting fast and furious updates: I watched the article get updated within seconds of each of the Mario Balotelli goals last Thursday, so more than likely the article/blurb should be ready not long after the match is over. I figure lets gets the consensus out of the way now, so the focus can be on updating the articles and posting it when the match is over(pending the consensus is to post). I will work on prose updates as the game goes on. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 07:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*NOTE This nomination has been posted under June 30th because as of this posting, AnomieBOT has yet to add the section for July 1st (I'm assuming due to server lag [103]). For fear of screwing up this page when AnomieBOT gets going again, I've posted it here, under July 30th. I will move it, along with the entire discussion, to July 1st when the section has been added. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to avoid any differences in the style, but the use of the British English is much more familiar for those living in the European countries rather than the use of American English. If we really have to opt for what to use, then "... X defeat Y ..." would surely better fit within the preferences of most of our readers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (obviously) as per ITN/R, but can we not choose the blurb after the match has finished? Depending on what happens we might want to mention things such the score, or whether the match went to extra time or penalties. LukeSurltc10:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to mention something about the best player on the championship or even about the top scorer instead of revealing information from the final. We still need to focus on the whole championship that ends with this final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a conclusion of a major sports event. Predictions for the final estimate a number of more than 250 million spectators to watch the game live, while the attendance on the stadia has already reached record 1.3 million spectators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. To add on Simeonovski's comment, the championships have been the most-watched programme in several countries this year, including England, Germany and Spain (even surpassing the figure set in the 2010 World Cup final). Lemonade51 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agree more work is still needed. Right now the coverage of the background is out of all proportion to the coverage of the match itself: 12 paragraphs (admitted a couple of them quite short), but only one covering the match itself. There are a few edits needed elsewhere in the article too - "If Spain were to win the final" in the lede for example. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Since this has now been posted I'd say pull: the update is still insufficient in the wider context of the article. This is the version approved by Tone. A rough word count gives me 1822 words of prose of other information and a 246 word match report. How can an article be considered balanced when less than 12% of it deals with the nominal subject? That's not ITN worthy, in fact it's eligible for an issues template. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added enough prose to UEFA Euro 2012. I'm working on both articles heavily as we speak. The articles will be 100% ready soon. I believe that they are ITN-ready as of now, however. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I think this was a bit rushed. For one thing, I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice the numerous complaints about the American English in the original suggested blurb. I also have to agree that the content of the article is excessively lopsided toward the background. I mean, the article is okay, and it probably meets our minimum standard, but there was no pressing need to get this up so quickly in the passable shape the article was in. -- tariqabjotu21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the complaints about the American English, and commented on it early this morning prior to the match. The admin who posted it originally posted it with my wording, then another changed it afterwards, so I have no idea what happened there. I thought my way was fine, and no one else made any other suggestions at that time. Whoever edited the blurb the second time actually made the blurb better, so I have no issues with it. The edits to both articles have been given more than a sufficient update regarding the final match. Anything more than this would be a straight play-by-play analysis, which is a lot more than needed. The article is on par, if not exceeding with UEFA Euro 2008 Final, in terms of information. Another point: take a look at the last ITN/R sports event, the 2012 NBA Finals. The update regarding the final game is the same size and contains similar summaries. This was posted without much issue (except for someone forgetting to post the final score on the article). I don't see the update given to UEFA Euro 2012 Final being of any less quality than that one. I'm still working on improving both articles. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was in response to Tone, not you. And I'm the one who reworded the blurb. This new formulation isn't particularly novel; it's our standard approach to avoiding English-variant issues. That being said, I've been trying to think of a way to work into the blurb that it's Spain's second consecutive victory, as that seems to be a big part of the story. -- tariqabjotu21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about posted blurb I think that the fact that Spain has one three major international titles (Euro 2008, 2010 World Cup, Euro 2012) is a bigger deal than them winning two straight Euros. Any thoughts on changing it? (Yes, I know the blurb has been changed several times already).-- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think European Football Championship needs to be spelled out somewhere, and so mentioning their third consecutive international win would require us to expand "UEFA Euro 2012", in additional to adding the lengthy "third consecutive major international title". -- tariqabjotu22:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was too fast. When there's an obviously item that will happen at (nearly) fixed time, such as a sporting event, it's common but counter-productive for the nomination to occur before the event actually occurs. While this may be OK for confirming the notability of the event, it's not useful for the other criteria, i.e. the blurb and article readiness. We've got the obviously notable ITN/R of Wimbledon next weekend - for that it would be good to be less hasty, more thorough. No-one expects ITN to be an up-to-the-minute news ticker. LukeSurltc23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would think that nominating a sporting event prior to it's completion would be counter-productive, especially for ITN/R events of extreme popularity (I.E. Euro 2012, World Cup, Super Bowl, etc.). If it's nominated prior to the start of the event, we can get the necessary consensus needed ahead of time to post, so everyone gets their votes out of the way, and the focus can be on getting the article(s) updated once the match is over. Otherwise, as soon as the match ends, we have people focusing on putting their simple Support/Opposes here, rather than actually contributing to the articles. With this nomination, only 1 vote was added after the game was over, the rest of the comments were about fixing the article, which is exactly what I hoped for, and why I nominated it when I did. The only time this way won't work is for events like the NBA finals, the World Series, etc., where there is no set date as to the end of the series (unless it reaches Game 7). I do agree that it got posted too early, because it was posted prior to me even adding sources to the prose updates I typed up. The articles were in more than adequate shape about 30-45 minutes after the initial posting, but it could have waited until then. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not ready 45 minutes after posting, it still isn't. The sheer quantity of pre-match analysis added before the match requires correspondingly well developed match report and reaction sections to balance it. It is still the case that the vast majority of the article is not about the subject. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict)That's a poor example, the article we led on did not cover a single match but a series. An article covering a single match needs to cover that match. As it is most of the coverage is preamble: how the teams arrived at the final, the football used, the broadcasting rights - these are issues affecting the competition as a whole, not this match. It is all background that informs the article but it is out of all proportion to the coverage of the match itself to reach proper balance. To get that either the article on the final needs a savage pruning or the actual match coverage and reaction to it expanding significantly. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Euro 2012, 2010 World Cup, 2012 Super Bowl, 2011 World Series, 2012 NBA Finals are all major championships in sport, and they all include extensive background information, and said information often rivals that of the match and post-match information, like what you've described. This information is interesting for a championship match, which is why you see it in almost every major sport championship article. Alternatively, you wouldn't want to see that info for an article about an exhibition match. Since every update must contain sources, it's hard to expand something beyond what you can find a source for. Word-for-word summaries from other sources have to be avoided at the same time. If you break down the "Road to the Finals" sections in UEFA Euro 2012 Final, each section about a game played by each team is about the same length, and has the same content, as the final match summary. Naturally, these sections will be larger because they span 5 games (plus qualifying), not just one final game.What I would consider to be a good match summary for an association football championship match would include final score, championship facts (IE Spain successfully defending their Euro 2008 title), goals, and key moments (including plays or fouls and cards). The final match article covers my expectations. I don't know what else is missing that would improve the article(s) any from here, that wouldn't result in the summary sounding stretched, like adding in sentences like "The Italians looked very tired as the match when on, while playing a man down". I always put forth my best effort in any article that I spend an extensive amount of time in updating, and I would assume the other editors that worked on those articles feel the same way. Thoughts? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 05:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes ITN can't do anything right. A major source of complaint is that ITN is slow to post news particularly of events that are scheduled in advance. IMO, well done to ITN for a timely post. ITN is not necessarily for FAs or GAs; if the update met ITN criteria that should be fine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles do have to meet minimum standards: being about their nominal subject and not something else is one of them. I notice the article on the final has been re-linked to today's featured list but if it isn't improved soon I'll be nominating it for deletion. The central aspect of the defence of the article is that all that can be said has been said. If that is the case it doesn't warrant its own article. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb wasn't linked to TFL because there was something wrong with the article but as an attempt to promote TFL (not my decision, David Levy's). It'll automatically be relinked back to the article at 00:00 (UTC). The bigger problem with the article isn't that it doesn't have enough information about the match itself (although it would be nice if it had more); it's that it has way too much background information (considering we do have a UEFA Euro 2012 article for that kind of information). That should be easy and quick to fix. Deleting the article is obviously not necessary; it's clearly notable on its own (regardless of how good the current article is). Doing so would just be to prove a point or force action, which, without linking the you-know-what guideline, is inappropriate and disruptive. -- tariqabjotu19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about TFL. After you called me "a jerk" and reverted my good faith attempt to explain how TFL (and the blurbs etc) work, I realised there was no way back with you. What a shame. Hopefully discussions with David will be more fruitful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Your argument confuses me. Anyhow, I've listed Wimbledon as a future event, experimenting to see if that might be a better way to construct an ITC/C for an ITN/R sporting event. LukeSurltc21:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the slightest idea what your comment means or why you inserted yourself into this conversation. You seemed to make it very clear that you weren't interested in hearing from me, and I likewise have made it clear I have no interest in engaging with you. That you have decided to bring this here, even after I reaffirmed my disinterest in talking to you, while providing nothing useful to the issue actually presented here is a new low. I don't know what you want from me, but, whatever it is, you're not going to get it, no matter where you decide to bring this fight. So go away. -- tariqabjotu22:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Ayanosh (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
