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.
Twenty people are killed in bombings in Iraq. (BBC)
A suicide bomber blows himself up in the Tunisian tourist resort of Sousse and police foil another attempted attack in Habib Bourguiba's tomb in Monastir. No casualties are reported. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: 45 death in a bus accident is a a major accident, moreover has broad coverage in media in India and abroad aswell. --
Support Well, It is a lot of deaths, today is.... nevermind not a time for a joke. Although, the recent terrorist attack in Russia a few weeks ago which killed 6 didn't even get nominated, while the boston bombing which killed 3 got posted along with a post for the capture of the assailants. Anyway, this is not a US issue, sorry late at night.. in the morning. Support for high death count I guess75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A terrorist attack at a major sporting event is apples and oranges compared to a bus accident- but that said, we did post this similar crash earlier this year. Article needs a lot of work, though. 331dot (talk)
Oppose I'm going to oppose for now unless this story develops further. The death toll is high, yes, but unfortunately such accidents are reletively common in that region, and it's getting pretty scant news coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are too many deadly bus accidents to post them on ITN. "Just" another bus accident have no real historical value. Thue (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hugely tragic for those involved and sympathizers, of which I am one, but unless there is some other notable factor such as sabotage or a notable death it is more fit for newspapers and police blotters than an encyclopedia's front page. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Road accident that are this deadly aren't that common in India - there's only been one more deadly one in the last four years. If this was a plane crash that killed 45 people it would almost certainly get posted (subject to update). If it was a train crash it probably would too. It's a mystery to me why people are so reluctant to post equally deadly road accidents. The form of transport involved seems to me to have little relevance to its significance. It's basically just a form of IDONTLIKEIT - people here are more interested in plane crashes. That, of course, is not a good reason. Neljack (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been some sort of glitch with your post, Neljack. The part where you tell us what is notable here beyond the death count apparently got mistakenly replaced with a blanket insult. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that's relevant. There are also a lot people travelling on the roads than on railways or aeroplanes. And, Medeis, IDONTLIKEIT is not an insult - people frequently refer to it in discussions. It's a criticism of the argument, not the person, so I don't know why you are taking it personally. Neljack (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking it personally because you posted immediately after me, and made the odd claim that people like plane crashes (I have opposed ones this size) and dislike bus crashes. That's just odd at best. Fact is, what I don't like is Andhra Pradesh; it reminds me too much of Oregon. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was certainly not intended in that way, μηδείς, and I apologise for giving that impression. In fact, to the extent that it was response to any comments, it was more a response to other comments that - unlike yours - did mention the form of transport involved. Neljack (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody post a few links showing that this story is widely reported as a top news story? From the evidence posted thus far, I am not seeing justification to post this item. JehochmanTalk16:02, 1 November 2013 (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.
The !vote here is to have editors validate that the article was updated and free of significant problems, as opposed to the worthiness of the news blurb itself. ITNR is not a guarantee of posting if the article doesn't get an update that is proper for that topic. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lead needed some fixing to summarize the series better, and probably still does, but it certainly seems in order overall, and is one of the most major sporting events in the United States. I would prefer the alternate blurb to read better for a worldwide audience (or maybe a slight variation to mention "2013" and also simplify further, but still mentioning "in baseball" or similar.) Odg2vcLR (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Howard on this one. I see about one line actual update besides scores. There is essentially not much in article about win except the fact they won. This update is worse than Emmy's to be honest... should have held it back till fixed. but now since its up just leave it be -- Ashish-g5519:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You guys. The World Series was won as a result of all the matches played, not just the final one. The article is in damned good shape, especially compared to most items nominated here. If you both want to bitch about the sixth game not being adequately effusive, you really do need to do something about it. Start being part of the solution for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pointing out lack of game 6 update is not bitching its stating a fact which seems to have been missed. i dont care for world series enough to want to update it but that doesnt mean it should go up without one. -- Ashish-g5505:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HTD and Ashishg55 are stating a long-standing rule that with sports updates we expect a prose summary of the final match of whatever competition it is (day four of the Masters, final game of the WS, the World Cup final, the final test of the Ashes, etc), and as long-time ITN contributors they are familiar with this rule. That said, there is no written guideline that specifically states that rule; WP:ITN#Updated_content simply requires an update, normally of 5 sentences, of relevant sourced information, or a three paragraph update for a newly created article. So I think TRM is correctly reflecting written ITN guidelines when he says the current article on the 2013 World Series is sufficient and was sufficient at the time of posting--certainly the prose on all 6 games is 'relevant information' and it's normal at ITN for prose updates to summarize events that happened over a period of several days. That said I certainly think as a matter of tidiness, and ITN's mission to link to 'quality content' it is better to have a decent prose update on the final match. I'm expanding it now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update wasn't all that bad. That said, sport as a whole (association football in particular) has a poor reputation of notable stories being posted before the prose is in place. People have every right to challenge this, regardless of the level of support for the story. Complaints won't always merit a delay in posting – the sixth game summary was noticeably shorter than the first five, but sufficient for update purposes – but they should not be dismissed out of hand, and certainly not by the posting admin. —WFC— FL wishlist15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose don't see any ramifications outside one country (the "int'l" source is domestic here). If that can be proven otherwise, ill changeLihaas (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Happily enough we have gone quite a while without a conflict posting (I believe), anyways, the end of a movement is usually notable enough. We posted the tigers dying in lanka.. --Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually the UN Special Envoy saying that, which makes it more newsworthy in my view - I wouldn't be inclined to trust the statements of the Congolese government since they are a party to the conflict and therefore have an interest in saying how well they are doing in crushing the rebels. I'm going to boldly edit the blurb to reflect this. Neljack (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current blurb seems messy. Is there a way to report what has actually occurred without having to quote an individual or organization? --LukeSurltc12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be changed to just refer to the offensive, but a lot of the news coverage seems to be focusing on the statement that they're finished. Neljack (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, can you write in English please? You've edit-conflicted at least twice today, that's not the "software", it's you overwriting other editor's discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conscientiously remove content. When the edit conflict page comes up in the editor box and dislays the WHOLE page I just added to the section itself, didn't paste over everything.Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a classic case of systemic bias in the media - a very important story that doesn't get sufficient coverage because of where it occurs. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it not be better to wait until the situation is resolved? I'm uncertain about posting news to ITN every time someone - be they the UN Special Envoy or not - provides a soundbite for the media. m.o.p00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The story that this group was "finished" might be okay, but this is just the story that, according to someone, they will probably be finished real soon for sure. Formerip (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the update' shows that their last stronghold has been evacuated...that's an indication, a la the tamil tigers, that theyre finished.Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Will be inaugurated today (Republic day in Turkey), though it will not be fully functional for a while, according to the BBC article. Still, a good opportunity to feature the story on ITN. --Tone09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per 331dot. Currently the article talks about the opening in the future tense. Could we have a couple of sentances on the actual ceremonies that happened today? --LukeSurltc12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's cause there aren't many such inkages abailable. Where it is Im sure you have rail network across the urals and then you have the suez and panama canalsLihaas (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-support I made a note to myself yesterday to nominate this today, but was too busy and forgot about it. More stuff like this, please! --hydrox (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the near unanimity on this one. As a purely technical challenge (the soil! the depth! the earthquake management!), this ranks as one of the most important engineering achievements of the 21st C to date. ... Not that the political ramifications of the physical connection for mass transit are unimportant, especially given the EU in the background. (A fixed Bosphorus link already exists for cars and trucks, if no longer for pedestrians.) - Tenebris 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Two people are killed in the northern city of Tripoli in fighting between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government and the Lebanese army. (Reuters)
A suspected U.S. drone strike kills at least two Islamist Al-Shabaab insurgents and commander driving in a car south of the Somali capital Mogadishu. (Reuters)(BBC)
Ennahda party leader Rashid al-Ghannushi announces in a televised interview that the party may be willing to give up the government but not power. (Al Arabiya)
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, but only if the article is updated and in an acceptable shape to be showcased on the main page. A quick glance at Argentine legislative election, 2013 shows that this has not been done yet, because currently the lead reads "Legislative elections will be held in Argentina on October 27, 2013..." Also, there are lots of empty sections.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please not nominate things before the event is done, or before the article is written? It's actually reducing the chance of an item being posted when there is a premature nomination. JehochmanTalk14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does nominating an event prematurely reduce the chance of it being posted? If anything, it increases the chance of the item being posted as more people will see the article and be able to work on updating it and adding more information. Andise1 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because a tide of "not ready", "fails to meet "criteria""-style !votes overwhelm each nomination, and usually result in potentially good noms being overlooked. There's little to be served by being "first" to nominate something prematurely unless, I suppose, you're involved in some kind of contest like the WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A well-timed nomination with current news + an updated article will generate 5 quick supports, and it's posted. I'm sitting around all day long looking for something to post. When the conversation is long and convoluted, that discourages people from trying to understand it all; they just move along to the next thing, and the necessary supports don't materialize. JehochmanTalk03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what you decide to post is usually updated? Like the one below which consists of "Mazowiecki died in Warsaw on 28 October 2013"Lihaas (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may complete the empty sections in some hours, but even if I do, would it be worthy of "In the news"? Midterms elections (the heads of state of Argentina are still the same) and the FFV keeps the majority at both houses (meaning, everything basically stays as it was). Cambalachero (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is in the news somewhere, general elections of sovereign states (for heads of state/government and national legislatures) have already been deemed important enough for ITN due to being present on the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done All the sections have now been filled. However, the hook sounds like a FFV victory, but it fails to mention that the FFV has lost in most provinces of Argentina, and certainly lost in all the major and most populated ones. In other words, that the population has clearly rejected the party in the elections. As the linked news source says anyway, "Argentina opposition gains ground in vote". The FFV only retains the majority because the Congress is renewing the legislators from the 2009 election, which had also been a defeat for the FFV, and because it is the single party running in all the provinces (the others have local parties, or parties with limited national influence). So, I propose an alternative hook: ALT1: The Front for Victory lost in several provinces of Argentina but retains its majority in the Argentine legislative election, 2013Cambalachero (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing to work on this. Could you provide your source for the results, please? I suspect before posting some degree of analysis will also be required. The Alt1 you suggest is a bit clumsy; what about
Support There is a two-paragraph update and the article is very good - the sort of article we want to showcase on the Main Page. Neljack (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I watch CNN and BBC almost daily and frankly they often focus on English-speaking countries, terrorism in Pakistan or something like that, so the coverage in US or Australian news isn't always a reliable indicator. Brandmeistertalk10:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but the nominator DID say "his death was noted and reported by media all over the world". Stuff like that never helps if it's not true. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All over the world" is one of those phrases not to be taken too literally; there'll always be somewhere that the said event is not happening or, in this case, not being reported. I'd hate to have to forgo the phrase just because reports hadn't reached central Greenland or the middle of the Pacific Ocean. 88.110.90.148 (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability-wise, but some serious referencing will be needed. I've also removed or rewritten a bunch of material based of NPOV, and there may still be POV issues. Neljack (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support because he was the first non-communist prime minister in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. But first, any issues with the article (per Brandmeister and Neljack) must be ruled out.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — His name isn't a household word in the U.S., but Tadeusz Mazowiecki was an important figure in the transition of eastern Europe to Western democracy. Sca (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL: WTF?! the update consists of "Mazowiecki died in Warsaw on 28 October 2013". That from an admin who said above not to nominate TILL it is updated!Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me. He died. What else is needing to be updated for an RD listing? WP:BURO. Nobody has yet pointed out an incorrect fact in the article. Are we going to hold that every article must be featured quality before we post it? This discussion is just plain silly. If you don't want to see an article posted, don't vote "Support". The support was (correctly) unanimous before I posted this item. Shall we wait a week for it to become stale? JehochmanTalk20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I have to agree that this should be pulled, not because of some inflexible application of the update requirement, but because the article contains whole sections that are unreferenced. That is not acceptable given BLP. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct, Brandmeister: "The only exception [to BLP not applying to dead people] would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside."[5]Neljack (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull unless every editor gets to post whatever he likes, why even have rules governing nominations and admins worse than any fascist or eastern potentate? Regardless of the poor state of the article, the rules explicitly state an update that merely repeats the RD subject is dead is not an update. We need term limits on admins, and a lottery to choose them rather than elections by a self-perpetuating click. μηδείς (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NotePull is in the majority: "Support once the orange tag goes away"; "serious referencing will be needed"; "first, any issues with the article (per Brandmeister and Neljack) must be ruled out"; "when referenced" plus the nominator's caveat and three explicit pulls, versus two unqualified supports. μηδείς (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please Pull For all the reasons mentioned above. The articles should not be posted blindly. ITNR is very well documented and should be satisfied in word and spirit.Regards, theTigerKing15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any tags, and there are 14 references. The reason references are required is to avoid incorrect material being in the article. Can anybody point out anything wrong with the facts listed in the article? Abductive (reasoning)15:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I (and I suspect most of us here) are not sufficiently knowledgeable about recent Polish history to comment either way on the accuracy of the article. I removed some statements that seemed non-neutral and likely to be contentious. Neljack (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who posted the article removed the tag. I verified/fixed some facts and I added missing citations, although I'm not an expert in this matter. User:Neljack made a good and competent clean up. Most of editors here discuss the tag, the rules and guidelines, not the article. The article as it was before did not contain any specific [citation needed] tags. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is true that most of people who !voted here stated not to post till it is properly referenced (not updated), and their opinion should not be neglected. The media usually don't inform about circumstances of death of an elderly politician, they focus on his/her productive career and achievements. They usually don't write that s/he died in blue pajamas with white strips, so why should we do that? The fact that s/he died is crucially important for posting in the RD section of the ITN. After the death is confirmed and referenced in the article, why not to post it? ... Personally I think that posting of this article was a good service to our readers searching for information. But I respect that others may disagree and I have to agree with Neljack's objection about referencing. The main page serves as a Potemkin village showing to the audience how great articles we have ... it is not good to have orange tags or unreferenced sections in articles which are on the main page - it shows we are not prefect. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it posted I've spent at least five whole minutes improving it, there could be more work applied, but seriously, so many "pull now" hysterics from people here who could have fixed some of the issues they've bitched on about. Try getting on with improving Wikipedia rather than just quoting fake "rules" or "policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the pull tag. While there may have been legitimate issues before they appear to have been addressed--the update appears adequate and there doesn't seem to be a reason to pull.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Damage and disruption seems to be minimal - a few uprooted trees and transport cancelations, with few or no deaths, thankfully. European windstorms are reasonably common (4-5 per year), and not usually that serious. Smurrayinchester09:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support with a better blurb For a European windstorm, it still wasn't especially bad (to use deaths as one admittedly imperfect proxy, it was the sixth worst storm of the last 10 years, after Kyrill, Gudrun, Jeanett, Klaus and Xynthia), although this might be because it was predicted far enough in advance. Still, the effects were more or less the same across Europe, which at least gives this some international legs, and I can see a lot of people being interested in the article. The blurb doesn't really convey what happened (since it was written before the extent of the storm was known). Perhaps: "The St Jude storm causes 15 deaths and widespread damage and disruption across northwest Europe." Smurrayinchester08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. We are just entering the working day in the UK: over the next hour or two the evidence to back up or contradict the statement that this is the worse storm in two decades should emerge. I don't think the wind speed and pre-planned train cancellations alone are significant enough to support at this stage, but equally I don't think opposing without knowing the full picture would be constructive. —WFC— FL wishlist09:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support based on this article; multiple deaths, properties destroyed, nigh on a quarter of a million homes without power and transport in and out of the capital decimated. Disclosure: as someone living in the affected area I may be considered slightly biased, but I hope I have at least explained my reasoning. —WFC— FL wishlist09:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seasonal weather affecting a relatively small area of the country which the BBC has blown (no pun intended) out of all proportion because it happens to be in the south-east.Optimist on the run (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brushing aside the generally accepted southern-English bashing, and even putting aside whether or not this storm is ITN-worthy, I don't think this can be described as "[blowing] things out of all proportion". —WFC— FL wishlist10:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sitting here in my office in East England I was quite easily able to commute to, the storm simply isn't as bad as it's been "blown" up to be. The many hurricanes and storms which happen at more tropical latitudes have given us precedent for these sorts of weather events, and this is nowhere near making the grade. --LukeSurltc10:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' two deaths is tragic, but most places suffered minor damage, the disruption is more likely related to the British inability to handle such "emergencies" rather than the severity of the storm. (Which is now heading to Denmark, having cleared England an hour or so ago...) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most places suffered minor damage". The storm came right through where I live, a few branches fell off, lots of horizontal rain, that's it. It's now sunny and dry. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scale and consistency of damage are mutually exclusive though. My road fared even better than yours: I can't pick out any damage whatsoever, not even branches. Yet within a two mile radius of my current location there are hundreds of homes in the dark, A-roads and motorway entrances impassable due to fallen trees, the most used railway line on the island off limits, and a man dead after a tree crushed his moving car. At the other end of the spectrum, the other known deaths were the other side of London, and hundreds of miles west of here, and the destruction ranges from Devon, to Essex and Kent, and indeed the Cabinet Office in Central London. Far from a local impact. —WFC— FL wishlist11:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely not local (in an English sense), the storm path is a couple of hundred miles long, but power cuts, meh, a few crushed cars, meh, our railways stop working when the wrong leaves are on the track so no change there, and yes, as I said, a couple of deaths is a tragedy, but in the big scheme of things, it's nothing major. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said earlier, I probably am biased on this one. Although on the point of southern softness, I'd question how much difference Japanese engineers and bullet trains would make on the West Coast Mainline this morning, how much more the German traffic agencies would have done with the sheer number of road blockages, or how much quicker the New York emergency services would reopen roads entirely blocked by scaffolding, demolished housing, or a national government building in Manhattan being hit by a crane. We're bad at the best of times, but things were bound to be bad today. —WFC— FL wishlist11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The storm isn't just affecting the UK. France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are also affected. The storm is heading for Denmark. Assistance in expanding the article from editors who can read French, Dutch, German or Danish would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main storm hasn't reached Germany yet, but so far German news seems to be treating it as an almost exclusively British storm (though always with a scary postscript like "The storm that ravaged England IS NOW COMING FOR US"). 12 Spiegel reports 1 death in Cologne (a sailor washed overboard). North German news reports that ferries to the islands are cancelled and that there were some train delays (for all that we Brits love to complain that UK trains are uniquely bad at dealing with bad weather, the same is true across most of Europe - the only places where trains do run on time in bad weather are places where it is common enough for it to be economically worthwhile to build stormproof infrastructure and to put enough "slack" into the timetables to cope with small delays.) Smurrayinchester12:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to oppose, quite literally a storm in a teacup. Lots of bluster in a few countries, a handful of tragic deaths, but nothing compared to other weather systems we've experienced in the last couple of decades. Barely notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning oppose. This storm wasn't as bad as predicted (although I suspect there was significant hyping of worst-case scenarios). It was just a slightly earlier than normal winter storm of a circa once in 5 years magnitude (not the 20 or 30 years that was hyped). If it causes significant damage or disruption on the continent then I'll be prepared to reconsider, but the impact on the UK alone is not ITN-worthy imo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was quite some hype, but the actual outcome was not that unusual. The consequences (200 cancelled flights at Heathrow and Schipol, power outage for 65,000 French households, less than ten deaths) aren't special occurences that need to be showcased on the main page.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An overhyped storm indeed. Storms of this caliber really aren't all that uncommon in Western/Northern Europe. One tree blew over near me, and I'm pretty far south.--Somchai Sun (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a typical weather phenomenon for these parts of Europe for this time of year. A storm like this last occured only 5 years ago. At the levels of material and human loss reported so far, oppose for now at least. --hydrox (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This is being reported outside the UK (NBC said it's the worst storm in years to hit the UK) and has had widespread effects, even if they were not catastrophic. That said, if users from the UK aren't keen on posting this, that also says something and I could understand not posting it. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, 4 confirmed deaths in the UK, another 4 so far on the continent. 600,000 homes without power in the UK. Major transport disruption. Some reports suggest that the strongest wind on record has occurred at Denmark. I'd say this is notable enough now. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's "in the news", the context being that we seldom have a really windy day around these parts. Having said that, there's a reasonable argument to say "Storm passes over Western Europe causing some disruption and a handful of deaths", but that's a little lame in a population of hundreds of millions and with weather that we see pretty much all the time, just not quite so concentrated (in the UK, at least). First world problem, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose It does meet the criteria of being in the news, but I went looking for anything we might have considered before like this - we posted 2013_European_floods but so far that seems to be a bigger scale event. Overall I think there's probably more newsworthy storied right now. CaptRik (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Initially I was inclined against this, but as the coverage matures, it appears to be an unusual magnitude storm for N. Europe affecting a wide area. The confirmed death toll keeps rising but seems to be at least 13. Gusting wind speeds of 121 mph in Denmark, a record for that country. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support More coverage now in the US than yesterday, especially given the 100ft+ wave surfed off Portugal, not to mention death and damage. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A 37-year-old woman and four children are stabbed to death in Brooklyn, New York City, New York. A man is arrested in connection with the murders. (CNN)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AGF applies to unknowns. I have read the disclaimer on Count Iblis's User Page (please do if you haven't.) The look at FormerIP's, Masem's, and Jusdafax's comments here, and expalin why my comments are the only ones that stand out to you, Neljack. 05:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Medeis: "AGF applies to unknowns. I have read the disclaimer on Count Iblis's User Page (please do if you haven't.)" But you choose to misinterpret these disclaimers, so AGF also applies to the way you should interpret them. Disagree with them all you like, but it isn't what you claim it is. Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Absolutely the sort of person RD was intended for. There isn't anything known about his death other than that it has happened at the moment, but this is a high-importance B-class article for a very popular musician so it will be updated when details emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only concern I had for a blurb was that his death was not surprising (he was 71 at the time), and while I personally have the same belief that he was an important figure in music, I figured there would be some contest against that claim. That said, a blurb could be: Lou Reed, lead guitarist of the Velvet Underground and considered a major influence on rock music in the last half of the 20th century, dies at 71". (using some of the language in the RS article). --MASEM (t) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as he was definitely one of the most famous and remarkable musicians of the second half of the last century, mostly as solo artist but also as part of The Velvet Underground. Some of his hit songs such like "Perfect Day" and "Walk on the Wild Side" were covered and performed by many other artists through the years and gained wide popularity and commercial success.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be too hard for his fans to get a nice article update--since that's the only thing holding it back at this point. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull this was posted without an update. Per ITN: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." The sole update to this article is one sentence saying he has died. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence to support the fact that the 5/3 update "requirement" is pure nonsense. We've sufficient precedents now to completely extinguish this bogus criterion. By the way, I've doubled the update by adding a guffy "tribute" sentence with another ref. What more to add? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy there was no acceptable update. Not me. Policy. Classy that you choose to speak of maggots, HiLo. When's the last time you updated an RD nom? μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb this would have been posted as a full blurb without a doubt under the old rules, and while the bar has raised since, this guy is one of the greatest music legends who ever lived. All the obituaries are calling him a music or rock icon in the lead. He's one of the few exceptions for a full blurb here considering is legacy. Also it seems like one of those period of times in which a bunch of highly recognizable figures are passing away on a short period of time, he's the most newsworthy of the deaths so far. Secretaccount19:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer RD - Although I certainly understand the sentiment for a full listing and don't really oppose one, I don't think this is quite important enough (although it's very close). --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD, oppose pull I believe we should apply a very high threshold for obituary blurbs. An RD listing conveys that the person has died; a blurb adds very little. And otherwise we end up with endless arguments over whether this or that person who has just died should get a blurb. I don't think Reed quite meets my threshold. However, I oppose pulling the RD listing based on an overly rigid interpretation of the update requirement. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD at a minimum, and I would not be opposed to a full blurb either. Lou Reed's impact on contemporary musicians of every sort cannot be overestimated. Just as an aside, I was about to say "postmortem support", but then I remembered this discussion and thought better of it... Kurtis(talk)03:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the fact that you yourself know exactly which is his one identifiable hit to most people old enough to know him at all, I would take that seriously. No point arguing, although he's prematurely publicated, his article's a mess. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He had three UK top ten hits, all equally "identifiable" as far as I am personally concerned. One of them was quite recent. But not sure why "number of hits" (or any subjective reinterpretation of how widely this is appreciated) should be used as a yardstick for measuring influence or general impact. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis is being deliberately provocative. For all I know she's 18 or 70. I know Lou Reed for A Walk On The Wild Side, others may know him for something else. The BBC covered Perfect Day. Then there's the entire Velvet Underground back catalog (sic); Medeis is yanking our crank I suspect. Mind you, to use the word "publicate" is now beyond a joke.... I know the Queen's English is dead, but that's too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb I was dubious at first but after reading the article and sources I am ok with a blurb. This was an artist of significant influence and recognized as such, and he received very significant tributes after his death. The article is adequately updated. OK to post.--108.29.65.165 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per TRM; like him, looking around I couldn't find too many news stories on this, and those I did find were buried in the webpages. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the notability threshold is at least 20 deaths. No indication this has legacy (bobmingd are not infrequent here). And the article should just redirect to the list of terrorsit incidents pageLihaas (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-western bombings nominated wih less than about 30 or so deaths have not got consensus to post. That the empirical evidence. (there was an outlier of some bombing in india some time ago)Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India is not a place like the Iraq/Afghan/Syria to experience bomb blasts daily. The frequency of bomb blast incident is lower compared to its neighboring middle east. This can definitely be a news that can be in the Front page. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True there is no coherent policy of ITN/R/C but its been cited before that if ITNC passes such motions its basically an ITNR consensus. Anyways, I was just citing precendent as my opionon not claiming it as itnrLihaas (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The notability of this blasts cannot be determined easily because not much is known about it. It might be a terror attack, a political conspiracy, or a plan to assassinate prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. This is a major news in India, and I think that it is notable enough to get on ITN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
No sources listed establishing this is in the news per the instructions on this page: "Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source."331dot (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen many a case where the election isn't really decided or there is some other hitch. A source allows commentors here to understand what is really going on. Abductive (reasoning)18:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with this even if no one else cares about these elections we should per INT/R, besides just if they aren't in english speaking media that doesn't actually mean that they aren't in news at all. However I do agree that Abductive has a point, and Lihaas should try to find news article about these if at all possible. SeraV (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIff the article is made to reflect exactly how the amendments will change the power of the president. That is the most significant factor here. After reading the article, I have no more understanding of the amendments than I did from the blurb. The blurb makes it sound like the amendments were voted on this year, which is not the case, so that should be changed. RyanVesey20:07, 27 October 2013 (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 no-brainer. And oddly I'm not sure how much more of an update is needed, after all this is a series of races, his article reflects the fact he's won most of them and happens to have won the title today by virtue of the fact that no other driver can score as many points as he has already amassed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A gunfight between Afghan and foreign soldiers on the outskirts of the capital Kabul, kills at least one Afghan serviceman and injures a number of other soldiers. (Reuters)
Iran hangs 16 rebels in retaliation for 14 border guards being killed in clashes on its border with Pakistan. (BBC)
Results of the Czech legislative election are very fragmented, the big winner being the new centrist liberal ANO 2011 which gains 47 out of 200 seats. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yep, sorry. This is clearly not something important enough to post on the front page. Not that I don't respect this guys achievement or anything. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has race historically been an issue in NASCAR? There are plenty of irrelevant factors that could end up being a "first" (or in this case a second). NASCAR has been traditionally white, but I'm not sure that this is an extraordinary event as it relates to race relations. A Japanese-American won in April. RyanVesey17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Military officials report that 74 members of Boko Haram have been killed in a combined ground and aerial assault on militant camps in northeastern Borno State. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
Japan's emergency agencies declare a tsunami warning after an earthquake of magnitude 7.3 strikes off the east coast. (AP via News24)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Storied comedienne, currently active, emmy-winning voice actor, long career in stand-up, noted for Bob Newhart and voice of Edna Krabapple on 25 seasons of the Simpsons; Death reported internationally μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not meet the death criteria. A supporting part on The Bob Newhart Show and a supporting part on The Simpsons doesn't equate to "a very important figure in his or her field", in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bongwarrior. May be well known from her work, but does not meet ITN/DC. 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I can hardly expect everyone to read the article, but this is being internatinally reported, and Wallace was hardly limited to the two roles Bongwarrior points out. There are also her appearances and roles in Merv Griffin (which go her a role specifically designed for her on Newhart, Hollywood Squares, the $25,000 Pyramid, Match Game, Family Feud, Full House, Bewitched, Murphy Brown, The Brady Bunch, Charles in Charge, Murder, She Wrote, Magnum P.I., The Young and the Restless, and Taxi, where she appeared as herself as Reverend Jim Ignitowski's ideal woman.
She was on stage with leading and supporting roles in The Odd Couple (female cast), Same Time Next Year, Prisoner of 2nd Avenue, Plaza Suite, Gypsy, Born Yesterday, Steel Magnolias, and The Vagina Monologues.
She was a cancer activist since her 1985 diagnosis with breast cancer, for which she was awarded along with Gilda Radner.
She certainly counts as at the top of the field in character actors, although we haven't given too much credit to female comediennes at ITN. Readership interest alone will justify putting her in a now blank spot at RD. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect her role in The Simpsons should swing this, and, after all, if the article is updated adequately, why not. The Simpsons is a global phenomenon, characters from such (or voice actors) are often considered globally significant enough to post here. (NOTE to those opposing, this is a two word update to the main page, and might be of interest to a large number of our readers.... But then again, why is that important?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being "internationally reported" isn't one of the death criteria. This death is not likely to have a "major international impact that affects current events (DC#3). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let this be a reminder that the RD criteria is waaaaaay too strict. She isn't top of her field at all. However, readers are probably more interested in her then Anthony Caro. Check the latest 90 page views. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be a weak support, Taylor, rather than a flat oppose? Marcia Wallace has averaged three times the interest of Anthony Caro: Caro vs. Wallace. (Although I am sure Caro's sculpture has also made people laugh.) μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Somchai said this is honestly really annoying, we don't post anything based on how popular it happens to be, and we really shouldn't either. SeraV (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the stated reasons for having ITN is to provide links to items of reader interest on the front page. (And no one has said it should be the sole criterion.) But how reader popularity could be irrelevant to that is beyond me. 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. She's had a substantial career but I just can't see a person playing a recurring character on the Simpsons and a supporting character on the The Bob Newhart Show as significant enough. Guest appearances on TV shows should not count that much towards notability. I agree that the Simpson's is a global phenomenon and a 20+ year run in her role there is pretty significant. I've often wondered if one of the actors playing supporting characters on Star Trek TOS died, would they be posted (George Takai or Walter Koenig or Nichelle Nichols) I guess this is comparable, so it's close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly why not. Trying to determine who should be included in RD has yet again proven itself to be a murky affair. Wallace had a long and successful career, not to mention being a notable character in the one and only The Simpsons. Her death was also sudden and unexpected. She passes the RD grade for me. Maybe she won't for you, but that's your opinion and coi isn't handled at ITN/C. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The level of coverage this is getting would seem to indicate that she was important in her field, even if limited to mostly supporting roles. An actor playing one or a few supporting roles would not be noteworthy, but she did so throughout her career and was notable for some of them, and recognized for one (won an Emmy for her Simpsons work). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready five explicit supports (including the nominator) plus implicit support of TRM, well updated, large reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is in the news and page views indicate that people are interested. She might not meet the letter of the criteria, but firm rules are rarely appropriate on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of only three people in the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player and a coach. Won four titles as a player. Played in 8 all-star games. Still holds the record for consecutive free throws in the playoffs. Coached the LA Lakers to the (still) longest winning streak ever, 33 games. Credited with creating the morning shoot-around warmups. Seems to be notable in basketball. --331dot (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though helpful, there is no requirement of international coverage, only that a death be in the news and meet the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, does not appear to meet RD requirements at all. Not a very important figure in his field. A film director died, Hal Needham, and is showing up in the news, but no sign of the nominee. Abductive (reasoning)04:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, if you want to see a nominee here, then nominate them. That's not a reason to exclude other nominees. How exactly does a hall of famer(twice, only one of three people), championship winner, and person credited with creating a now-common aspect of the game "not meet RD requirments at all"? 331dot (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets RD requirements for being significantly important in his field, which is basketball, as noted by his accomplishments and bestowed awards/honors. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as he doesn't appear to meet any of the RD requirements. Most of the arguments given by the nominator are not even records in basketball and those who really are do not show any extraordinary significance in the sport. Who cares if he holds the record for most consecutive free throws in the playoffs or if he is credited for creating the morning shoot-around warmups? I'd have been inclined to support this if he were the player with most titles won either as player or coach, or the one who was voted the greatest player in the NBA history. Being one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History only waters down his relative significance. Please also note that he's not West, Jabbar or Jordan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." How does he not meet that criteria? Who says he has to be considered the best basketball player ever, or have X, Y, and Z records? Funny that you do then disregard whatever records he does have. Being one of the 50 greatest should be sufficient, considering how many that list was chosen from. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very subjective to say that one person qualifies for any of the DC and that other does not. As for the note of being one of the 50 greatest in NBA history, this category is too broad to refer to it as a convincing argument. If we agree upon it that the 50 greatest players in NBA history should be sufficient, then this broadens the list for basketball to about, say, 100 players. Provided that basketball is only one of many other sports, this number can be easily inflated to over 1,000 for sportspeople only. By introducing the same logic for all other occupations, wherein some of them such as politicians, diplomats, actors, writers, singers, musicians, different kind of scientists are considered more popular than the sportspeople and generally enjoy lower criteria for inclusion, the same figure could easily reach 15,000 or 20,000 people whose death at the same time should qualify for inclusion in RD. That's why I usually disagree with such broad category of people considered 'greatest in something'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Howard, also per Kiril, he may have been a half-decent player/coach, but if we start posting all such "record holders", we'll be here until Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd never heard of the guy, but someone who was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame twice clearly isn't just some random nobody, and was probably a bit more than just "a half-decent player/coach". --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Inducted into the hall of fame twice is evidence enough that he was important in his field, and basketball is a big field. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So being named twice to the Hall of Fame means he isn't important in basketball? I guess we have different definitions of importance. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the greatest basketball players of all-time, his impact to the sport is quite great, him along with Bob Cousy redeveloped how the guard position is played. Secretaccount19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The NSA spying has already been posted once, and we don't need to keep bringing this up every time there's a new leak of information. And yes, I think a lot of this is shameful, but we don't do causes here. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Maybe it has. But long before such revelations as these were even dreamt of. Less "a cause" I'd say than probable wholesale re-negotiation of mutual security agreements between both France and Germany with USA. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You may not have dreamt of them, but I assume they happen all the time. Spying has been part of international dealings for as long as we have had nations. The loud responses now are all part of the perpetual game. No real news here. I strongly Oppose this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I can guarantee you that Angela knew (or at least assumed) they were spying. It's just that some of it's become very public, so she has be seen to be loudly protesting. It's all part of the script. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we keep bringing it up every time there is a notable revelation? We haven't stopped posting science items because we posted too many science items already, so why should there be a quota on spying items? Btw, by my count we have posted 3 Snowden-related stories now, which is not a lot. Thue (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a general blurb like this one, it's old news and we are not an Edward Snowden or anti-NSA ticker; I would support posting news stories about specific changes in relations between the US and other countries resulting from this, such as the cancellation of a summit or other ramifications. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I will second HiLo's comment about spying being a standard part of international relations; the problem here is simply that the US got caught out in the open, not that it merely occurred, as it has occurred in the past and will even after this revelation. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is needs adjustment, true. And we are not an Edward Snowden or anti-NSA ticker, but we are considering posting this story because it is notable in itself, not because it is anti-NSA or related to Snowden. An embarrassing episode where a country is caught spying on another country is notable, and this is 35 of those rolled into one. Thue (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Snowden and his allies are going to trot out the information he possesses a little at a time (and he has been) to stretch out the newsworthiness. This isn't a one off story; in a week or two he or others will reveal some "new" embarrassing information. As I said, we are not a Snowden ticker. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't actually posted anything from Snowden's revelations for quite a while, so I don't see that we're in any danger of turning into a Snowden ticker. And the way he reveals his information is not relevant to whether to post. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. If Snowden is drip-drip releasing the information over time to stretch out the newsworthiness, that makes it less newsworthy. Only if something new and specific comes out of this(such as a UN complaint or other problem) should result in something being posted here. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden had handed over all he had when he was in Hong Kong. The information is coming out slowly because it's contained in enormously large files, Snowden did not write a report about it, it's all raw data. Also whatever is published by newspapers will first have to be vetted to make sure it doesn't do harm to national security. But whether or not something that comes out is news worthy is determined by the current media attention. And that in turn is determined by the World's reaction to what comes out. That many people already knew that World leaders were spied on, isn't relevant if the reaction tothis story is not compatible with that attitude. It's similar to saying that "everyone knew that all Tour the France cyclists, including Lance Armstrong used doping". Whether that's true or not (or that everyone could have known this), doesn't change the fact that when the news about this broke it was a big news story. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this has been coming out every few days. We just had Snowden's claim every call in the US is recorded. A week back it was that 70 million French calls had been recorded in a one-month period. It's obvious this is being reinvigorated every new news cycle to keep it on the front pages. That being said, I would immediately support posting if we had some sort of actual action, like a formal UN complaint or a NATO summit being called or something. Until then, a mere complaint is simply the latest drip. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that I too would support posting a story about a specific action resulting from this information, such as the ideas Medeis suggested. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the United States, Germany and France (for instance) enter into an agreement to stop spying on each other, we can post that as news. For the moment it is not very surprising or exciting to learn that countries spy on each other. The United States routinely spies on, and is spied on by, every country except England, Canada, and Australia (our special friends). JehochmanTalk02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain why NZ is omitted. Perhaps that's one of the countries we don't bother spying on because the only have hobbits and sheep. JehochmanTalk04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it is my turn to ask if you are being silly. :) I did read in the last day or two that there was a mutual agreement after the war between five nations, including UK, US, CA, AU, and somebody not to spy on each other. Are you implying NZ was not one of them, or pulling my leg? μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time Australia, New Zealand and the US had a happy little treaty called ANZUS. In 1984 New Zealand took a strong stand against American nuclear powered or armed warships. The US didn't like that. ANZUS effectively became just AUS. The antagonism lasted well into this century. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that silliness--protect us, just don't expect us to fuel you in return. But is that actually relevant? The non-spying pact seems to have been five-way, not three. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the non-spying is a little white lie. Call me cynical, but I suspect each player is doing as much spying as it can against everybody it can. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is relevant is that this has caused a significant diplomatic incident. It is being treated as important by political leaders and the international media, and I don't think it's our role to second-guess this based on our personal political judgments of whether it's a major scandal. Neljack (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big and relevant story that is reported and relevant worldwide and a serious hindrance to US-EU relationships. Yes, this is a "recurring event"; and in 15 years or so I am sure we will have an incident again (as we had 15 years ago); but that doesn't make this less news worthy. I suggest to use the term US also in the blurp for those less familiar with local security agencies. L.tak (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that a big scandal will pop up every now and then; I can imagine this will expand with info from snowden, the US, EU, DE or FR; and agree we can't keep posting it. But this is front page news (literally) in a lot of countries; that's what ITN seems to be created for... L.tak (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing otherwise, but there should be specific effects in order to post this somewhat old story; it is known and not news that embarrassing information about the NSA and US spying is out there. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite lot has happened in this particular story since last time something about this was posted. And it is quite clearly new news that nsa has been caught spying on dozens of world leaders. You could make the argument that world leaders expect to be spied, but it is entirely different when someone is caught doing it for real like in this case. SeraV (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support major news across a number of European countries, someone once said "spying isn't the issue, getting caught is", and damned straight the NSA have been caught with their pants down here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were caught with their pants down from the moment Snowden started releasing the information he took. Nothing new to see here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Countries spying on each other is not news, it has been done for centuries. Many of these same countries critical of the US do it too. Now, if one of these world leaders does something about it, like canceling a summit, expelling diplomatic staff, breaking off diplomatic relations, complains to the UN, etc., then we have something to hang our hat on. In a week or so Snowden and his allies will release more "information" about some embarrassing activity the NSA did. We are not a ticker for his information. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's news, whether you and the NSA etc like it or not. Being caught spying on your "special friends" is highly embarrassing. We are ticker for news, remember? And please 331dot, stop badgering each and every supporter here. It's most unbecoming.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "badgering" anyone; like you, I am free to reply to any comment that I wish. You are free to not respond to my comments if you don't want to. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as others have pointed out to me, merely being in the news has never been sufficient on its own to get something posted. When it is, I'll line up in support of this. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's convenient. Hopefully you remember that next time you are trying to use that line to get support for something you want. And anyway this story has enough support to be posted without your input as soon as it is ready. SeraV (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready I don't disagree this has support, but it has an entire one sentence toward an update: "The NSA has been monitoring telephone conversations of 35 world leaders" which isn't even in paragraph form, but is a bullet point. One sentence that repeats the blurb is an explicit fail according to the update criteria. This needs an extended prose treatment, not a listing. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fuss and bother from European leaders is all part of a big game. They would have assumed they were being spied upon. What's news is that someone has made it public. Now that that's happened those leaders have to profess dismay and offense, even though they expected the spying. The news coverage of that seeming dismay and offense is all part of it. If we post this we become part of the game too. Those wanting to know more about this kind of thing should read The Great Game. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your interpretation based on your OR. It's possible to have an alternative interpretation. The intelligence services collaborate with each other, so Merkel would have had an idea about what the US were interested in. But the latest revelations could have pointed to something that she did not know about which would be incompatible with agreements with the US. You can e.g. imagine that in 2002 the US wanted to manipulate the EU into believing in the threat posed by Saddam's WMD and that they continued with such tactics to get EU support for sanctions against Iran. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update? This BBC report, citing Spiegel, seems to broaden the extent of the issue and lengthen its duration. [13] However, current Spiegel online interview with Westerwelle doesn't seem to add much. [14]
The BBC source looks to be a good one. I was trying to determine how much of an update was required and whether or not the small addition I made already was enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Guardian story looks to be broadly similar to BBC. [15] I'd support posting now with these two sources (and a mug of Merkel). You could also cite opinion piece in The New Yorker. [16]
This is still not updated--it has one sentence on the 35 countries being spied on. The update criteria explicitly say that an update that says no more than the ITN blurb is insufficient. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, a separate, much shorter article is needed dealing mainly with the October reports of surveillance of heads of state, esp. Merkel — who at least according to some reports is really, truly, genuinely upset & not just engaged in "outrage theater" — or now, "indignation theater" — as some NSA apologists have smugly asserted. Sca (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This should already be posted. Huge international story in the news with multiple repercussions. Not having this story on ITN makes the feature look dysfunctional. Jusdafax02:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "five sentences" are not enough. (Indeed, why should they be). A hew article is required? I see Spain has now officially joined the growing throng of discontent. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in less than a week we have this revelation from Snowden's information: [18][19] Are we going to post that too? If we're going to be Snowden's news ticker let's just admit it. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears updated, now including a paragraph on the FBI spying on Marilyn Monroe and a section on world spying from 1940-2000! This article is, simply, an unloadable, unreadable disaster. In the meantime, the new cycle has begun, with Spain today summoning the American ambassador over 60 million intercepted calls in a one-month period. Shall that be part of this blurb? or a separate one? I think it's time for a sticky
But wait, there's more! — Reuters says "Germany's parliament will hold a special session on reports the United States tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone" and "left-wing parties demanded a public inquiry calling in witnesses, including former U.S. intelligence operative Edward Snowden." (Reuters was so breathless over this it ran it all into one sentence with no punctuation. Ha.) [21]
When last I looked at our article, it weighed in at a bloated 19,000 words — roughly 10 times the length of a long newspaper story. That's why a new, separate article is essential before Wiki can (belatedly) post this topic on ITN. Sca (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, and in doing so, it'll fall foul of the timeliness required to post it here. Oh well, what a shame, heads of European governments being spied and being exposed has suddenly become unimportant. I guess those embarrassed by such indiscretions live to spy another day (sounds very Bond-esque). We don't need a new article for ITN, where has that ever been required for ongoing stories? No systemic bias here then. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, what is the point in the ITN section if not to demonstrate "news"? Oh well, let's not publish global news which might embarrass "the management".... who said "systemic bias"? Who said it? Hands up!!!! (I'm Spartacus.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alack and alas, I agree — I just don't feel like tackling the writing job myself. It's not my topic. Sorry!
Detail — This German Reuters story says special session of Bundestag is set for Nov. 18. [22] English Reuters conveniently left this 'W' out of their story. Sca (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden flying in to Berlin to give evidence in person would make a much better ITN entry candidate, I'm sure. And surely we could all use those extra weeks to get three-articles-for-the-price-of-one! (... funny I'd always seen Rambler as more of a lion-tamer than a blood-thirsty rebel). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Algorithm: check the news to see what's "in the news" now; find the relevant article; make sure it is updated; post a new nomination. This nomination has become a hopeless mess because the target article is unfocused, and the news stories no longer match the proposed blurb. The nomination is already moldy. Please try again. I would support the right story and the right article. JehochmanTalk03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You took part of this discussion and you're biased against this nomination. You should stay well away. That said this should be posted as soon as possible, this should have been posted days ago really. I really have to start wondering soon if all our admins are biased. SeraV (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly fair to Jehochman. When the target article covers a period from 1940-2013, and mentions FBI spying on Marilyn Monroe (In The News?!?!?), and you have an SSD on a fiber-optic internet connect, and loading the traget article still makes you crash, it's time to break the article into ten pieces. Then an update is easy. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps User:Martinevans123 and I could renominate with a more "appropriate" article since the conclusion to this has now lead to the precedent that certain editors can demand a new article be written rather than an existing article be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just chop out the relevant section to make a focused article that aligns with the news. That's only one problem. The other problem is that the news has proceeded since the nomination. Please consider a fresh nomination with better focus. JehochmanTalk20:52, 29 October 2013 (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. Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. It would be nice to see evidence this was in the news per the instructions on this page: " Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source."331dot (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CALL FOR ATTENTION This is the kind of item that's been unnecessarily waiting for days to be posted, or falling off the bottom of the page unposted, simply because our posting Admins seemingly don't care about things in these funny foreign places. It's in ITN/R, for fucks sake. We have the result. POST IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admins hate posting elections. Fifth time this happened this year.
Oppose, simply because the article has not been updated. A "results table" has been added, but this is not enough. Some prose text is needed to describe the outcome and its political consequences.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've looked at this three times now with a view to posting, but it has not been properly updated. There is a results table but no discussion of what the results mean (by no means obvious), and the result has not made it to the lead. Also, posting essentially that the Social Democratic Party has 'won', when they are not as far as I can see in any position to form a government, might be premature. A more nuanced blurb might be appropriate. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a summary for the lead, but knowing no Czech is a hindrance towards reporting the ongoing discussions about forming a government. Could someone propose an alternative blurb? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary India playback-singer. Recipient of highest Indian cinematic award in 2007.Making headlines in India. Respected figure in music. Padma Vibhushan awardee.
I've added a {{ref improve}} because the biography is very under-referenced. It is also overlong. This would be a good opportunity to see what obituary writers consider to be the most significant events of his career, and to trim and organize the article accordingly. --LukeSurltc15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman has removed the {{ref improve}} tag (I disagree, and have opened a discussion at Talk:Manna Dey). Regardless of tags presence or not, this should not be posted until the biography is substantially improved with references. --LukeSurltc15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support. Looking at his accolades and awards, as well as his extensive body of work, it would seem he is very important in his field(Indian music). Good chance to post something from India. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Jehochman said, we are looking for stories from any country. I often see complaints about systemic or geographical bias here; this is a chance to briefly counter some of that. I'm sure some of the 1 billion plus people in India come here and might want to read about this man. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, a kind of affirmative action for India-related articles? I'm not against posting news stories from anywhere, but to give them special consideration or promotion because they are from somewhere rarely reported on, doesn't seem right to me. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving it special consideration or saying that we should favor this at the expense of articles from other areas; I'm simply saying that this is a good chance to post an Indian story. I am not suggesting weakening the criteria or otherwise favoring this story; I believe it meets the criteria. I have stated several times that I am staunchly opposed to any sort of affirmative action program for posting articles to ITN. That's not what I've suggested doing here. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing the issue of whether this nomination meets the criteria. And since ITN is not a zero sum game you obviously can't be favouring this nomination "at the expense of articles from other areas". What I'm questioning is the tactic of promoting this nomination, in part, because it "is a good chance to post an Indian story". Is posting an "Indian" story (or stories from any country) a goal of ITN? Why not sell it as the death of a popular, highly-awarded playback artist and let editors weigh in on the newsworthiness of that? Genuine ITN "news" stories should be universal and not in need of special consideration and promotion based on geography. Or so it seems to me. There; peace said; I'm out of here. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what the objection would be to 331. We do both want to give the readers what they want and have a variety of listings--something that was once indicated in part by the minority top field. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD subject to article being improved sufficiently. Several highly reputable news sources (the Times of India, the BBC, Reuters) describe his as "legendary". That's enough for me. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post it now. Citations? You think somebody just made up all that info about the guy? You're not going to get any more citations. Post it now. GroveGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support when updated. Widely known and innovative sculptor whose death is being reported internationally. The date of death appears to be 23rd in sources I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be important in the field of sculpture. Article seems good to me as well. Getting coverage outside the UK as well. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded. Article at a minimum needs a suitable update and an expanded lead section, and perhaps a bit more detail on his career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. A very important sculptor whose work is known worldwide. I heard news of his death on NPR in the U.S. The article has been edited, and I believe it is ready for posting. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
inquiry What was the last holder of this record, and whne was it announced. There have been several such announcements over the last few years, haven't there? μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that's as helpful a non-answer as saying "it's in the stars"? When was this discovery made? The article doesn't say. What was the previous record holder? The article doesn't say. How much further back is this? 500 million years? 5 million years?
Oppose until those facts are in the article. At this point we have filler and a picture of an unrelated galaxy, but no basis upon which to jusdge the claim of this being a record. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Not an area I know anything about but this appears possibly significant, and we're not exactly overrun with suggestions atm. The article could do with expansion to explain the significance more clearly. My (utterly uninformed) reading of the Nature abstract is that the star formation rate is the most interesting feature. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed the image, though, as it did not depict the galaxy mentioned. Also, as always, more meat to the article would be nice - though I imagine it'll be hard to get anything to add due to the limited sources available. m.o.p05:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the third paragraph is mere filler that is a general tutorial in astronomy--we need three paragraphs on the news itself. The question of when this was first observed and announced, and what was the previous furthest object have neither been answered here or in the article. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see this was finally posted with a whole two paragraphs of relevant text (one of them the lead) and no mention of the date of actual discovery or what the prior record holder was. Real top-notch, informative work. Almost as good as just posting a direct link to the BBC article. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read, the astronomers have estimated that it is now 30 billion light years away, but it was observed when it was 13 billion light years away.[32] So the blurb is in fact correct. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Comoving distance. The galaxy is estimated to be 30 billion light years away now (plus or minus a small amount for its proper motion), but the light has only traveled through 13 billion light years of space to reach us, because space has been expanding over the life of the universe. Over really large distances the expansion of the universe is the dominant factor to determine red shift. That's why we can use red shift to measure cosmological distances. JehochmanTalk02:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide bomber kills two Chadiantroops and injures six other MINUSMA peacekeepers in an attack on a checkpoint at the entry to the northern town of Tessalit, Mali. (Reuters)
A teenager in Bahrain dies following an explosion in the village of Bani Jamra, east of the capital Manama. (BBC)
Thousands of Tunisian protesters take to the streets calling for the Islamist government led by the Ennahda Movement to step down hours before crisis talks between the government and opposition leaders. (Reuters)
A Chinese newspaper publishes a rare appeal for the release of one of its journalists held by police. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: According to Sci-News, "The discovery of two new species, named Gyronotus perissinottoi and Gyronotus schuelei, brings the number of beetles in this genus to 8." and "Gyronotus beetles are regarded among the most endangered of the African scarab beetles because of their sensitivity to disturbance." Andise1 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a really beautiful free picture of one? New insect species come a dime a dozen, new suborders are what's needed to be really newsworthy. Gyronotus fails as not even a new genus. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support About time we had another new species discovery listed! Scarab beetles eat people, so this is vitally important news. I think the nom cmt sums it up nicely. Somchai Sun (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talking about new species, there's also the world's first venomous crustacean. BBC Regarding the beetles, they need expansion beyond one-sentence stub. --Tone11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Fram, I'm not seeing what makes these two very special from the other numerous insect species discovered each year; am willing to revise my opinion should that be better pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sources provided are all (or nearly all) actually press releases. True independent secondary sources are lacking, as is any sign of analysis by the "secondary" sources. If it were not for the consensus that all species deserve a Wikipedia article, these articles could be deleted on grounds of lacking notability. Abductive (reasoning)15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And (to use an old saying) if your aunt was a man, she'd be your uncle. Consensus is that species are notable for being species, so I don't understand the point of that comment. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are not debating whether there should be an article, we are debating whether these species are important enough for ITN. So, the lack of interest from science publications shows that these species aren't groundbreaking or special in any way. Abductive (reasoning)18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update Needed the target article is a stub, at least three prose paragraphs are needed per the guidelines. Without that it's not demonstrating the encyclopedic notability expected for ITN noms. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whole city paralyzed by pollution is certainly huge news. However medeis and 331dot are correct in that article is not sufficient currently. SeraV (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strognest possible oppose to the degradation of this encyclopaedia How is this encyclopaedi in the least bit? Just because there are news sources doesnt mean its for an encycloapedic. It will be an orphan when off ITN. Smacks of RECENTISM, NOTNEWS.Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism? Are you sure you are in a correct place of wikipedia? And how are you arguing exactly that this smog that affects 11 million people, halts a whole city and closes international airport is notnews? I would appreciate some reasoning here. SeraV (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not being nice? Its not against the nom, its against the geernal rtrend of articles via ITN.
Well there are other rainstorms/tornadoes that close airports. It is an immeidate creation because it was in news articles. Wha tis th elasting notability of this event? I dont see anything other than the fact that this was in the news and hence created as an encyclopaedic a rticle. BUt Ill gladly change if you show me the lasting notability.
An air quality reading over 300 is considered hazardous. The Guardian article states that "In Harbin, the worst-hit city, measurements of PM2.5 - the smallest particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres - reached 1,000 micrograms per cubic metre in places, according to the official China News Service, surpassing the peak of 900 that shocked Beijing residents in January's "airpocalypse".
It is not clear if equipment is able to register levels over 1,000. The World Health Organisation's recommended level for daily exposure is just 25." [italics mine]
It's hard to say. The death toll won't be apparent until statistics are collected. This could take months or even years. If somebody does an analysis, they will have to look at usual death rates from respiratory and circulatory causes and see how many additional death occur in the aftermath of the smog. If somebody gets pneumonia, for instance, they may be sick for a while before expiring. The deaths are not necessarily going to be recorded instantly. JehochmanTalk14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply that's gazing into a crystal ball. The Great Smog lasted 4 days and reduced visibility to yards. This smog has reduced visibility to tens of meters and so far hasn't killed anyone. So far, with the exception of the word "smog" this event has absolutely nothing in common with the London event and any comparison is not accurate. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per "almost all monitoring stations in Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces reported readings above 200 for PM2.5" on 23 October.[33] The three provinces have a total population of roughly 100 million people. —rybec05:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though I'm watching the sun rise red through a thick haze of smoke as I type from my Sydney office, I think this nomination is a little premature. Any direct threat to Sydney's outer suburbs is only conjectural and still a day or two in the future. It's not quite as dramatic as the BBC report makes it sound - Sydney remains perfectly safe for now. With respect to those who have suffered the losses, so far there have only been a few hundred properties lost in small rural communities and one death - testament to the good work by firefighters in keeping this to much less of a disaster than it would be otherwise. I'd say if there is significantly increased loss of life, or a major evacuation, such as Katoomba, then this story should be considered for ITN. But not quite yet. --dmmaus (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Dmmaus. This has (most unfortunately) a decent chance of developing into something that could be posted, but it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what scale is normal for bushfires in Australia. But I do know that in the US, when a tiny brushfire 1/1000 the size of which would make news in California happens 50 miles from NYC, the end of the world is often predicted in the next few days. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless you live in NYC there's a good reason. There are occasional summer brush fires on Long Island (Long Island Central Pine Barrens) of 500-1000 acres. These are reported as if they compared to brush fires in the west of tens and hundreds of thousands of acres. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 people are killed and 30 wounded by a suicide bomber in an attack in a crowded restaurant in the central Somali town of Beledweyne. (Reuters)
Tunisian security forces have killed 10 people (claimed by authorities to be Islamist militants) near the border with Algeria in a three-day operation against gunmen who attacked police patrols in the remote northern region. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. I am interested just from a curiosity standpoint if leading a murderous drug cartel gets someone onto ITN but not being Speaker of the House. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one leader of one cartel who was arrested in the 1990's. Unless he's won some awards or was on the run for years with a whole genre of books written about him? μηδείς (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's a requirement for RD nominations but I understand your point. I nominated the article b/c I was thinking that someone from a once-powerful crime family would suffice inclusion. I'll nominate it for DYK either way. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but unless some news sources are posted that indicate this is somehow receiving wide news coverage(which I must say I find unlikely) I don't see the notability of this. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any evidence yet that this is "in the news". It is a very interesting topic, and the article is new (obviously), so I suggest that you nominated this for DYK. RyanVesey17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is written in broken English, and needs major work regardless of its merits. But I am not sure why a claim that there's 50 trillion dollars worth of gold buried under a minor executed nobleman's mansion would be the subject of doubt, especially if a priest dreamt of it. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake of a factor of 1,000 in my swift estimate of $1,500 x 16 x 1,000 x 2,000, or $48 billion. How disappointing. Will cancel my flight. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you were exaggerating intentionally, or made a wild guess. In other news, the priest prophesized 2500 tonnes gold under a different palace bringing the total to $150 billion of gold. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First off, no news sources are provided to show that this event is being covered in the news. Secondly, the nomination seems poorly made as no nominator name or signature are given. Also, there is no indication in the nomination about whether the article is updated or not. Lastly, there is no comment by the nominator to explain the importance of this event. For those reasons, I am going to oppose this nomination. I also suggest that there be stricter rules on making nominations so people do not poorly create nominations like the nominator did above with this nomination. Andise1 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of nominations like this are made by newbies who aren't yet fluent in the process. Just as with refs, we don't disqualify the attempt just because the format isn't perfect. This article is updated, but it has other issues (namely, grammar). At least this nomination does have a template, which is easy to expand, unlike that of the Belgian PM of a few days back. μηδείς (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment far more interesting than the Glee kid, but ultimately unpostable right now. If a kiloton of gold is discovered, we have a major story. Otherwise, meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thirty-five members of the US owned MV Seaman Guard Ohio are arrested in the Indian port of Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu for alleged illegal possession of arms and ammunition. (Zee News)
In London, the High Court dismisses a lawsuit against former directors of the London branch of Bernard Madoff's operations, including his one living and one deceased son. The judge, Mr. Justice Popplewell, spoke rather harshly of the plaintiffs, praising the "commendable dignity and restraint" of certain of the defendants.(Financial Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former US House of Representatives Speaker meets DC#2(reaching the speakership is rare, indicating importance) and possibly DC#1(first speaker in over 130 years to be defeated for reelection to their House seat). Article has been only updated with date of death so far. --331dot (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull that this has already been posted is insane. Foley was a minor character as speaker, certainly not the top of his field. He's not a sitting politician. We certainly would post ex-heads of lower houses who died of old age. This is not only wrong, it's an abuse by the posting admin. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being the head of one of the three branches of US government is a "minor" office? I think the recent crisis demonstrates that the Speaker is not a "minor" figure; had Boehner not held a vote, we would be in default right now. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was a minor speaker. There are great speakers and there are poor speakers, and he is at the bottom of the list. You have either missed that point or chosen to change the topic, but you haven't come close to even addressing my argument. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. There are about a half dozen speakers whose names people would recognize except for recency; Clay, Polk, Blaine, Garner, Rayburn; with Polk being recognized because he was president. Tip O'Neal and Gingrich would rank up there for influence. But we are surely not going to post Dennis Hastert when he dies, and Foley is no better. Basically a caretaker who lost the house to Gingrich. Have we ever posted a former head of the lower house of any nation's parliament who died of old age or otherwise? μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand you correctly that Foley's being the speaker who lost to Gingrich makes him one of the top of his field? A serious reply would also explain why of 61 speakers just a handful have names even highly educated Americans would recognize, and would name chairmen of lower houses from other nations who have been listed before when dying out of office. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a novelist up there right now. Have some perspective! Surely any speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a more influential person that all but a small handful of living novelists! -- Ynot?21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of it, but my larger point is that anyone who attains the leadership of one of the branches of US federal government is important enough to be posted here. It's not something you fall into. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Have we ever posted a US speaker before? What about another country's? Claims like "the biggest political sea change in the last 20 years" are one country-centric, and extremely arguable even within one country. You don't think electing a black president meant anything? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Obama was first elected in 2008, the Democrats already had Congress (they got it back in 2006) so that was less of a political change(more of a social change). I can't speak to what was done or not done in the past, I only suggested this because in my opinion he meets the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this should stay. The speaker is third in line for the presidency of the United States. He is much more notable than others routinely listed. There is some illogical opposition that has no real basis. JehochmanTalk21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Foley's been out of office since 1994, and no speaker has ever ascended by that route to president. To talk about illogical, please name one speaker you know by name who hasn't been mentioned in this thread. Please also name one head of the lower house sitting or not from another nation who's ever been posted on his death. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is relevant here. Other stuff exists. Tony Blair was technically the head of the UK's lower house of parliament. Further, the lower house of San Marino and other countries is very different than the lower house of the US Congress. If you want to argue that Speaker Foley doesn't meet the death criteria, then do so(as you did above). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may not have read "other stuff". I was responding to the supposed point that he should be listed because he was in the line of succession, not pointing to another article, which would be relevant for the essay you invoke. Your Tony Blair analogy also fails, as Foley was never Prime Minister at the same time he was head of the majority party in the lower house. You might as well say Foley wasn't only speaker, he was a congressman from Washinton at the same time. I suspect we'd be hearing about all of Foley's brilliant legislative accomplishments if he had any (he did manage to be the first Speaker since the Civil War to fail to be re-ellected to his seat) rather than negative arguments that he shouldn't not be posted based on flawed analogies. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to have 'brilliant legislative accomplishments' to be posted to ITN. If you feel that running the lower House of the US Congress does not make one important, there's not really much I can do to convince you otherwise. I feel that's enough to meet the criteria I cite above; if you don't, well, there isn't much more to say. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was third in line for the presidency, which is almost meaningless. Not to mention this was for just six years over 20 years ago. Think about it: the only thing this guy had going for him was the fact that, if by some fluke the president and the vice-president would die within either of the two four-year presidential terms he served in, he could have been president for a little while. Highly improbable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)03:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He also, oh, I don't know, ran the lower House of the US Congress and decided what went on there. If that doesn't make one important, what does? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would have been different if he had died in office, but now it is "just" a former speaker of 1 of two main parliaments in a single country. Massively important for the US, but not enough worldwide... L.tak (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From above... "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have said this was a complaint… But anyway: I agree that we shouldn't disqualify a submission because it only has relevance for a single country; but there is a relationship between the width e and its local relevance in an individual country: in other words: for something mainly notable in a single country the bar is higher than for an event or death relevant to a wider group of countries. L.tak (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Death of a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives doesn't give any convincing evidence on notability for me. I'd have surely supported it if he were a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations who could be easily recognised worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 53 Speakers of the US House, not many more than the 44 Presidents we've had. It's a position of significant impact (DC #1) and made him widely regarded as a very important figure in his field (DC #2). – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not a matter of numbers at all. His position is only third in line for presidency and not one that promotes him as a very important person to be regarded as such in his field. For both criteria you're referring to it's subjective to say that they're fulfilled.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struck by "a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations". Which "diplomat with long-time career in the international relations" deserves to be in the same sentence as a U.S. president? Paul Wolfowitz? His death by old age would almost certainly be shouted down by the people here. –HTD17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Six years as the speaker of the House of Representatives does mean a very important politician. It's comes as no surprise that most people don't recognize him anymore, since his last term ended over 18 years ago. But remember that he held the same office as John Boehner holds now. Even though Boehner's position is more prominent with split congress now, it's still pretty obvious that the Speaker of the House is a pretty darn important figure in the U.S. political landscape. Only more important figures to come to mind are the President and the Secretary of the State. And having held this office for six years? I don't recognize his name either, but on merits alone seems "very important". --hydrox (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really doubt most here are willing to post say deaths of former Indian parliament speakers and such, this is just certain bias raising their heads yet again. And seriously why was Foley important person in his field, I do not see that it is enough that he was a speaker. What sort of important achievements are credited to him specifically? SeraV (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India has a Prime Minister which leads its parliament; I would be more than willing to support posting the death of a former one(being the head of the largest lawmaking body in the world), should one be nominated. The fact that one has not been nominated should not prevent others from being posted. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. A relatively unremarkable congressman other than the fact he was speaker. He's not known for any particular legislation, hw wasnt associated with any change in political directions in Washington, he didn't go on to any notable offices afterwards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being Speaker of the House, something which only 55 men have been, and the head of one of the three branches of government in the US (all of which are, in theory, co-equal) isn't notable? If that isn't, what is? The Speaker dictates what goes on the House, setting direction in its dealings with the President. Foley got Bush to break his no-tax pledge, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - many of the "oppose" votes above seem to be mislead by the title "speaker" and don't realize that speaker equals president of the house of congress and is the second in the United States presidential line of succession, ahead of the president of the senate. An enormously influential position. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea from where you are making up the idea that editors here are misled by the word speaker--there's no indication whatsoever that anybody's confused as to what that office is. It's actually the hight of rudeness to say this should be posted because your opponents are confused, rather than giving reasons why the nominee stands out in his field. No has anyone yet pointed to where we post the equivalent position in any other country. Foley was a truly unremarkable speaker. He is noted for nothing other than losing the house to the opposition and being the first speaker since the civil war to loose his own seat in congress. Please, please, please, for the sake of the children, can we hear of his accomplishments as speaker, rather than that he held the title and attacks on the opposition ? μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was Speaker of the House. What about those few words is unclear? As a politician, this guy is clearly notable enough to be listed in recent deaths. His death was widely reported "in the news". JehochmanTalk19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't just lose the House to the opposition; he lost the House to the opposition for the first time in 40 years in a massive wave election. He also lost his own seat, which is unusual in and of itself. As I stated already, he got Bush to break his no-taxes pledge. His "accomplishment" is rising to one of the highest offices in the United States; you call this "holding the title" but the position is much more than a title. As Jehochman says, this was in the news and this is the "in the news" candidates page. If holding a high office doesn't make one important in politics, what does? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are just making this up now. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Foley didn't originate the tax increases Bush agreed to. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. And if losing elections gets you on ITN, then let's see one other example. Meanwhile, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Someone has to be speaker, even though he can be a nobody. The previous speaker, Jim Wright, was ousted on ethics charges, and Foley was chosen as being the least objectionable non-entity available. But still, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to be President, too. So what? I actually agree with Jehochman that most of the opposes here don't actually understand the importance of the speakership and what they do. You don't just fall into the speaker's chair nor are you chosen at random. You do it through influence among your peers and making deals. You direct what legislation is taken up in the House(as Boehner did in the last couple weeks). If you want to put something in his article that you feel is missing, then do it. I nominated it because it was in the news and this is "in the news" not "find articles that satisfy Medeis". If being the leader of the Legislative branch of one of the most powerful nations in the world (and the House itself is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, only behind India and the UK's, I think) doesn't make one an important politician, then I don't know what does. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's presumptive to assume that editors don't understand the role of the Speaker. Many just don't think it's important enough, in an of itself, for RD. It's the head of one of two branches of the legislature.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again ask, if the head of one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, and frankly, one of the most influential in world affairs, isn't important enough, then who is? In the US system, the three branches of government are equal, meaning that Congress (and its leader) is just as important as the President and the Chief of the SCOTUS. I don't think it's as "presumptive" as you state. Without a reason, "it's not important enough" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You state "it's the head of one of two branches of the legislature". That's not important?. We are also forgetting that this is "in the news" and this death was "in the news". 331dot (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From comments above i think opposes are more because he is no longer in office. you would see support if it was Boehner but someone who left office 18 years ago probably needs to be head of state to get more support -- Ashish-g5505:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone needs to be head of state, then we should write that down. Some offices are equally as important despite the holder not having a litany of policy achievements- the process of what they do is sometimes more important than the result. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had the speaker died unexpectedly in office the dying in office would be likely notable and worth a full blurb. It's simply silly to say this is a case of "don't Like". Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neal were very notable as speakers. Gingrich will most likely be listed here. It's probably a lost cause to expect people to remember the history. But Foley only got the office because the very powerful (and controversial) Tip O'Neal retired due to age and was replaced by Jim Wright who was drummed out for corruption. Foley hadn't schemed for the job for years and won it on the merits. He was chosen as a moderate who wouldn't offend anybody. He didn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per DC#1 the fact that he was Speaker would be enough if he died in office, but as he didn't the criterion is that he "had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." The article contains a distinct lack of information on his impact, legislative/policy achievements, etc. Supporters have been unable or unwilling to provide such information. The articles/obituaries I've read (and I read about 10 of them) didn't provide much either. So unless and until this is rectified, I oppose. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you did read articles and obituaries about him. In fact, the LA Times argues that he is notable because he didn't rock the boat too much; Speakers after him were more interested in politics than actually running the body (his successor Hastert didn't bring anything to the floor unless most GOPers supported it) The focus seems to be on DC1 but there is also DC2. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. This is getting silly. You want us to rate this guy as notable because he DIDN'T do anything really notable? Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did do something. He held a high office that is difficult to obtain. One doesn't have to change the world to be important. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Did you? If leading a branch of the US federal government does not make one important in their field per DC2, then what does? 331dot (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not notable, even if he held a political office. This nomination is notable, only for the fact that it was posted so swiftly, then withdrawn. Save the diffs people! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for an admin: As the nominator I see little point in continuing this discussion, and I request that it be closed to spare this page further disagreement. If holding high political office in the US isn't considered important, then I guess that's just the way it is, however unfortunate that is. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request I'll take over the nomination. Would an uninvolved admin please review this discussion, disregard the illogical votes, and decided if this person meets the criteria for notability. I think a few opinions here have no basis and are just anti-Americanism. If we are going to list recent deaths at all, we need to have an objective standard and try to follow it. JehochmanTalk12:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an updater, I totally agree with you. However, I worry that by now the RD is stale. Not that there's a set timeframe for determining that, last week is "recent" under some definitions. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should post it anyways for a few days. The death is very widely reported "in the news". https://www.google.com/#q=tom+foley&tbm=nws There are many fresh news items posted within the last 24 hours. We are not too late to do the right thing. All the oppose votes are--I want to say bullshit, but I won't--based on personal fancy rather than fact. If the guy was so unimportant, why has his death been so widely reported by so many sources? JehochmanTalk12:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular opinion on this nomination, but the debate is immaterial now. Foley died just shy of a week ago; this nomination is now quite clearly stale. Redverton (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Stale" has a technical meaning here at ITN, it means it is older than the oldest item in the template. This is not the case here, so the discussion is not moot. However a bold admin closure would be desirable at this point. --LukeSurltc14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you're quite right. Stale was the wrong word. However, his death was 6 days ago, and the debate here itself stagnated 4 days ago. Whilst I'm not particularly bothered about whether it goes up or not, I do disagree with Jehochman's view that alot of the opposes are illogical - ITN's been having a debate about the threshold for putting up politicians for years now, and with that considered I see little evidence that the opposes should be discarded. Personally, I wouldn't close this nomination as yet, as it's going to removed day after tomorrow anyway. However, I don't endorse following Jehochman's suggestion that the opposes be discarded. As far as I'm concerned, the opposes are valid, even I'm not sure I agree with their views, which means there's not a concensus to put Foley up. Unless that consensus rapidly changes over the next 24 hours, this can't go up. Redverton (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you LukeSurl for the definition. I didn't know "stale" had a specific cut point here (is that mentioned anywhere?) So, there are older postings currently up, meaning this isn't stale, and an admin should give this consideration based on its merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a violation of WP:POINT to argue that the Speaker of the House for 6 years is not a notable politician. The Speaker is one of the top three politicians in the United States. The death was reported very widely in the news, which qualifies it to appear here. People who stonewall and disrupt should not be rewarded by getting their way. No, no, no. JehochmanTalk15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-close. I'm not going to edit war over this, but this discussion should remain closed. The horse is dead now and it should stay that way. While I still believe it is worthy of being posted I don't feel it is worth rearguing the issue; there clearly is not consensus for posting. I disagree that Speaker of the House is not a notable position, but others validly feel that way. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let somebody uninvolved review this. I don't want a bad precident to be set. Editors who've disrupted this thread with frivolous arguments should be given feedback so that they don't do it again, and again, and again. JehochmanTalk15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I think the bad precedent here would be to keep beating this horse. I've usually found myself in the opposite position(something being posted that I don't agree with) so I see where the other side is coming from even if I don't agree with them. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-close I hadn't realised this nomination had actually been closed days ago already. Re-opening a nomination really should be reserved mostly for when the circumstances of the nomination have changed radically. This isn't so here, and from the looks of things this debate is just going to devolve into arguing and no consensus. All with just over a day left before it becomes stale anyway. I reverse my position on LukeSurl's suggestion this be closed, and I now agree with him. I see no worth in this debate carrying on. Redverton (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (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.
We do post UNSC member election. And this year there's more going on with Saudi Arabia declining to accept the seat. Alternatively, we could go with saying that Chad, Nigeria, Chile, and Lithuania got elected. --Tone16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Security Council elections are ITNR; not sure how the blurb should be worded, but maybe there is a way to mention Saudi Arabia rejecting being elected(a rare event). 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please post a blurb for the ones who were elected and will take their seats. I'm not sure we can fit all this in one blurb. We might need to have two. JehochmanTalk17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia's rejection of the seat absolutely needs to be in the blurb. This is something that has never happened before and it reportedly "shocked" people inside and outside the Kingdom. See NYTimes. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs I have removed "to accept" from the blurbs as redundant. One declines an invitation. One doesn't decline the acceptance of an invitation. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and boldly added the other electees to the blurb. It is awkward to talk about Saudi Arabia and ignore the others, and it would be yet more awkward to have two blurbs about the same election. Please discuss and I'm happy to make changes if better ideas are presented. JehochmanTalk13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on Shia Muslims killed at least 59 people across Iraq, including a suicide truck bomb targeting at least 15 members of the country's Shabak people. (Reuters)
Islamist gunmen kill two Tunisian policemen in clashes in the northeastern city Goubella. (Reuters)
Swedish archaeologists in Old Uppsala unearth a great number of mysterious posts in perfect alignment for more than a kilometre in what is suggested to be a display of power of a fifth century Swedish chieftain. (Dagens Nyheter)
Nominator's comments: This is headline/front page news around the world. Open to blurb changes. I dated it today as Obama signed the bills just after midnight. --331dot (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. What's important globally is that the US will now pay its bills, not that the government shutdown will cease. The rest of the world isn't bothered by a few American national parks being closed. But it would be if international financial obligations weren't met. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is an uninformed view. The shutdown involved far more than national parks, and its impacts extended to virtually every agency in the federal government. Those federal employees still on the job were technically working without pay. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not uninformed at all. Of course I knew that there were more impacts within the US, but to the rest of the world (Does that matter to you? China anyone?) the debt issue as far more important. The posts immediately below support my position. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its certainly in the news, but link to the WP article on teh actual law that was passed yesterday.President Ted Cruz for 2016Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Pull Except for policeman blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request, the government was in full swing, and there was no chance of default. Editors shouldn't be taking it upon themselves to post political items after two supports when it takes a hurricane that kills 100 people days to get posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is partisan sore-loser nonsense, to put it politely. Your side shut down the government for two weeks, saw public opinion turn radically against you, lost the political showdown and now are pretending it didn't happen or was insignificant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My side? Does that mean your side wins, nyah, nyah, nyah? Do you even realize how ironically childish your comment is? This political theater should never have been posted either way. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US not paying its bills is not "political theater", it was a very real possibility. Even if it was such, it is still front page news, and this is "in the news". Further, "blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request" is just a political statement, it was the OMB that gave the order. They could not guarantee the safety of the monuments themselves and visitors without personnel. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yeah, the local politics are fascinating, but we all knew this would be resolved after the ransom period elapsed. Sadly it's just demonstrated that US politics are currently in a worse state than that of Italy, which is quite astonishing. Otherwise, the "deal" was 100% inevitable. Not one of the US politicians would have wanted to be responsible for it getting worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your crystal ball is quite excellent. Mind helping me choose some lottery numbers? We didn't know anything of the sort. If Boehner hadn't decided to push forward without the majority of his caucus, or if Ted Cruz had tried to delay the vote last night, either of which conceivably could've happened, we'd be posting about the U.S. default right now. Lots of Tea Party politicians did want to default, we're just lucky none of them in the Senate used their power to make it happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we did. Anyway, it's irrelevant now. There are many millions who view this intensely childish behaviour from the US politicians as sabre-rattling. It's pathetic, embarrassing and something even Berlusconi wouldn't have encouraged. Good news, Wikipedia posted the failure to agree, then the agreement, two for the price of one. Systemic bias is alive and kicking! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not post news from the U.S. just because systemic bias exists? That makes no sense. This is major news, free from systemic bias, that impacts the world economy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The shutdown was front page news worldwide; the end of the shutdown was front page news worldwide(what's the name of this page again?)- and it's not like it was a short amount of time between them (a few hours or a couple days). The effect also was not limited to US territory (US overseas military cemeteries were closed, as one example) and potentially it would have affected the entire global economy had it gone on longer. There is no reason this shouldn't be posted, systemic bias or not. As for that, countering systemic bias should not be done by preventing valid stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least 21 civilians are killed when their minibus hits a land mine in southern Syrian town of Nawa, with opposition activists blaming the Syrian army. (Reuters), (BBC)
The United States Senate reaches a bipartisan deal to avoid default and end the 16-day US government shutdown. The House passes the legislation by 285–144. The bill now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it. (AFP via Sydney Morning Herald), (CNBC)
A Panamanian registered ship sinks off the coast of South Korea, killing 9 sailors and leaving 2 others missing. Coast Guard officials rescue another 8 crew members. (Yonhap)
Divers in Russia recover a 570kg (1,255lb) portion of the Chelyabinsk meteor that landed on February 15, 2013. It is one of the largest meteorite fragments found to date. (BBC)
Comment - According to this the plane was delayed due to a storm, which i would assume is Typhoon Nari since Nari has been affecting Thailand, Vietnam and Laos within the last 48 hours.Jason Rees (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I created the article on the 2013 Women's Draughts World Championship. I think if that article receives some more updating, and the article on the winner has more information added (the Russian Wikipedia article has some more information) then this can be posted. I know there is not a lot of information about the championship but since Draughts (Checkers) is not represented at all in ITN, I think this deserves some recognition on the Main Page. I will try to add more information to both articles but if anyone finds any information or feels like working on the articles feel free to do so. The more people who work on the articles the better chance this item has of being posted to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the article in its present form is too short, DYK is a good option but it is a bit short for there as well. --Tone16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a real shame. It would have been nice to have something to stir up the dull-hearted and dull-headed regulars at ITN, but sadly both target articles are nowhere near good enough to feature on the main page. Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Scientific evidence that Yasser Arafat may have been poisoned
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncertain. This is only stating that there is a possibility that he was poisoned, not an actual determination that he was. As I understand it, the issue is now figuring out how the polonium got there. I'd feel much better about posting this if they were making a definitive statement and not just saying something is possible. That said, this is getting a lot of news coverage. I'll need to think some more before deciding how I feel about posting this. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as too inconclusive. "These findings support the possibility of Arafat's poisoning with 210Po...However, on the basis of this forensic investigation, there was sufficient doubt to recommend the exhumation of his body in 2012. Three scientific teams are currently analysing body, shrine, and earth samples. Because of legal procedures, the date of publication of the detailed results of the exhumation analyses is unknown." Not the forensic team's fault—it has been nine years since Arafat's death. But I prefer to not run this in ITN unless we have it clearly established. Certainly that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article though. NW(Talk)04:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lack of hair loss and marrow death are significant, the other symptoms are generic, and the best the sources say is "possible". μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although Arafat was notable and his death influenced his people and his country, it is just never-ending story even if it will be established. It is highly possible that there will be counter-claims and other "scientific" evidence. Egeymi (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
International credit rating group Fitch Ratings places the United States under a "Rating watch negative" in response to the looming financial crisis. (Reuters)
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: I'm not quite sure whether Man Booker or Catton should be bolded, so please feel free to change/tweak the blurb. --JuneGloomTalk20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, only the bolded link is held to ITN quality standards. The alternative opens up a whole new way to force the template to stagnate. - BanyanTree19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all links should be held to a particularly high standard, but a few-sentence microstub linked in a way that many people will click on it is an embarrassment. If it were something unimportant it could just be unlinked, but in this case that's not a possibility. I'm opposed to it being eliminated altogether, as the prize is for the book, not the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support tagged as [Ready], needs posting quickly, alt blurb provided, not ideal, but better than not posting the world's most renown literary prize outside the Nobel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patience Nothing I've seen yet indicates that this is ITN-worthy, but I'd like to see more news reports come in before supports and opposes start rolling in. Sources are mentioning a possible Tsunami to follow, and it appears like major news sources like the New York Times and the BBC are waiting before they report. The blurb appears inaccurate, everything I've seen says 7.2. RyanVesey01:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I misread. Sources are saying there is no risk of tsunami. With that in mind, if some of the major sources don't start mentioning this and the death count doesn't rise, this can be considered an oppose. RyanVesey01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, early reports I saw on Twitter said it was of 7.0 magnitude, but it was later revised. Sources say there is a death toll (as of now) of four people, and several buildings suffered structural damage. Küñall (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll now stands at 20[34], which I believe is at the lower end of what we would normally post for an earthquake. As usual, the magnitude means next to nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says over 30 dead (and then lists 32) - added the link into sources above. Support article in a decent shape - but could obviously be improved just from that source. EdwardLane (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Let's see if this gets to be posted at this state. There's a bigger disaster a month ago (300 deaths) but that was again ignored at ITN despite having an extensive article. Boohoo. Screw American+British bias. ITN now has American+British+Indian bias. lol. –HTD10:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death toll at 60+ plus now. Plus, it's the most powerful earthquake to strike the Philippines (and probably Southeast Asia) in a while. Might as well improve the article and list it at ITN, if only to combat systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article improved. The BBC are now giving 73 deaths and considerable damage to historic buildings. The odd listing of aftershocks which appeared since I last looked needs summarising. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to increased death toll and damage to historic buildings. This shouldn't be posted with the current aftershocks format. The article also has no lead. RyanVesey15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A judicial inquiry is ordered into a stampede during Navrati festivities near a temple in India's Madhya Pradesh state that resulted in 109 deaths and 120 people being injured. (NDTV)
A dry ice bomb explodes in an employee restroom at Los Angeles International Airport. Nobody was injured, and no arrests were made. Terminal 2 was briefly shut down and evacuated. It was the second incident of its kind to have occurred at the airport in two days. (CNN)
Oppose, I find no precedent for the posting of the receipt of this award. He received the award four days ago, so you can also say it is a bit stale. This is the first I'm hearing of it, so it seems that major news organizations don't think it important, and it's certainly not "in the news". The NYT buried it in a short paragraph on an article about Snowden's father's arrival in Moscow. RyanVesey20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw it mentioned when i happened, but it is far too much attention to a small award. Almost funny he didn't get the Nobel. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The award occurred on the 10 October. This is the same date as the Alice Munroe item, which is currently the last item on the template. This item is stale. --LukeSurltc11:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support if it wasnt stale. We dont need blatant eurocentric bais to post what is sdeemed okey by them in the Skharov prize. If thats ITN (without dsicssion?),. then this should be too!Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly stale. We just have a surfeit of petty posts regarding non-notable prize winners. The prize recipients should all mature off the board faster than any of the serious news. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I would post this now, except Hansen's article is a mess. It needs copy editing, fact checking, and some references. Please work on that and post here when you think it may be ready. JehochmanTalk12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article we could wikilink to that relates to their research? "Empirical analysis of asset prices" means very little to me. --LukeSurltc13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find a suitable article to link to since there are different articles on Wikipedia pointing to some of the seminal works of these authors. However, most of their contributions are only extensions of the traditional CAPM, which appears to be the most appropriate solution for the wording in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting with link to CAPM, instead of the bios which will match what we did for the other Nobel's and sidestep the problem of bios that are not in particularly good condition. JehochmanTalk15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to CAPM. Fama and French even had a famous paper in the early 1990s that took CAPM to task with regards to explaining stock valuations, and it isn't like Shiller's work was really just extensions of CAPM either. We really don't have a good article to link to, so let's just point people to the biographies and let them go from there if they are interested. NW(Talk)04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition activists say Syrian army tanks killed 11 civilians including 3 children in a crossfire incident during the battle for the city center of Daraa. (Haaretz)
Indian authorities commence rescue efforts in the aftermath of Cyclone Phailin, with initial reports of at least 20 casualties and widespread damage along the landfall area. (First Post)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died a few days ago but wasnt nominated here. He did have a tate funeral today [36] which would make it recent enough and to post what wasnt. Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Looks like an interesting (and probably a newsworthy) event in Putin's efforts to distract the Russian society from more important issues, such as corruption. I started an article, but it defensibly some expansion. --Երևանցիtalk20:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "... a demonstration of 15 to 20 activists." Just two posses fighting, no real significance so far, apparently. I do not know if we posted the homosexual propaganda law when it was adopted on the federal level, but it's something that could've been posted realistically at least. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose a blurb, Weak support for RD, once the article is improved somewhat. This seems to be getting some coverage, even outside the US. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Myunghee Bae arrives in North Korea to visit her American son Kenneth Bae, who is serving 15 years of hard labor. (CNN)
The UK government publishes a draft royal charter aimed at underpinning self-regulation of the British press following an agreement on the issue by the country's three main political parties. However, the proposals are greeted with concerns about press freedom by the industry. (BBC)
Latest news: "As of 8 p.m. Friday, India time, Phailin had indeed officially reached Category 5 status, with an intensity of 918mb and sustained winds of 160 mph (260 kph). That ties the wind speed record set by the 1999 cyclone at its peak, currently the most intense storm ever to make landfall in India." According the latest news on CNN (as reported on t.v. not yet online), sustained wind speeds are expected to increase to 270 km/h before landfall. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Too premature to know. If it causes serious damage, then we can post. If it misses landfall, or weakens significantly and does little damage, we probably won't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. This is in the news. We can update the blurb every 12 or 24 hours. It's very unusual to have such a large and powerful storm. JehochmanTalk20:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe the Saffir-Simpson Scale is used in the Indian Ocean, so while it's achieved the equivalence of Category 5 status, it's a bit odd to use "Category 5" in the blurb (as the alternative blurb currently does). -- tariqabjotu20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's no question this will make landfall, and the article is well updated. People are looking for information now, not just death tolls afterward. The nomination for the last cyclone (that hit China killing 500) was ready the day before it hit but didn't go up till over half a week later. We don't need to botch this one. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for it to make landfall. Hurricanes/cyclones can dramatically change course without warning and also change in intensity. There is no harm in waiting until this storm hits. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Brainer but let it hit Its a category 5 cyclone which is rare and dangerous but lets wait till it hits. Changed alt blurb to say Super as that is the term used to classify Cat 5 storm -- Ashish-g5502:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be picky here but the word "super" is wrongly applied in this case. We call Category 5 typhoons super because they are called such by the JTWC who only use the term cyclone outside the Westenr PAcific. it is also worth noting that while the WMO warning agency for the region the IMD has a "Super Cyclonic Storm" category they have failed to use it to describe Phailyn instead opting for the more PR friendly "Very Severe cyclonic storm".Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the objection. It's probably best to refer to verified air speeds, since rating numbers are largely meaningless to laymen anyway. They are to me. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super is used for storms with wind speeds > 258 km/h. this storm has reached that speed so i see no reason not to call it super (as the storm stands right now) -- Ashish-g5504:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we shouldnt be using is it hasnt been called a Super Cyclone or a Super Cyclonic Storm by either the US Joint Typhoon Warning Center or the WMO RSMC the Indian Meteorological Department to describe Phalin. While it is true that storms above 130 knots are called Super by the JTWC it is just the Western Pacific basin that label is applied too. Feel free to take a look through the logs we have kept for this system if you require further proof that this has not been reffered to as a Super Cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section is called In The News, not Last Week's News. This article got 45,000 hits yesterday--people are interested in reading it now. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News is when something happens. Nothing has happened yet. This is like posting a blurb about the Super Bowl the moment the pre-game show (which is like half-a-day long) starts. –HTD10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not to reiterate a news ticker but to highlight articles of reasonably good quality about topics that are in the news, in hopes readers will read and possibly add to that. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Howard the Duck - damage has already occurred with this system within Thailand, Myanmar and the Andaman Islands - so while i dont mind waiting until the final landfall and the main impact zone it is not like posting the Super Bowl the moment the pre-game show starts.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what any of the proposed blurbs are saying. Also, the article isn't saying any damages in Thailand or Myanmar; it just said it was an unnamed tropical depression when it passed through there, so you're right, it's not posting the Super Bowl when the pre-game show starts, it is posting the Super Bowl during the NFC Championship Game. –HTD13:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im trying to add the stuff on Thailand etc but i am having problems finding the bits, since there has been a lot of flooding there recently.Jason Rees (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Landfall of Cyclone Phalin is occurring right now. Officially it made landfall at its peak intensity as a very severe cyclonic storm however unoffically per the JTWC it had started to weaken over the last few hours after it went underwent an eyewall replacement cycle but was not able to complete it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That contradicts the entire notion of ITN, which is to feature good articles (which this is) that are in the news (which this is). This is the worst storm to hit the world's second largest country in 14 years. That's far more than enough to justify posting when just about every storm (Sandy wasn't even a Hurricane when it hit) that hits gets posted. You are also ignoring the fact there's a strong consensus above, even among the "waits" to post this when it makes land fall. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vote counts for the waits are: 3 "wait until there is massive damage", 2 "wait until landfall" and Resolute's "Wait per WP:CRYSTAL" vote. Those 3 stipulations are quite different from each other. –HTD19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I think it's pretty bleeding obvious that if this turns into something more than "big storm hits big country" then I'll re-assess my position, as I'm sure many others suggesting "wait" will do. Also, I'm entirely entitled to "ignore ... the [fact] there's a strong consensus above..." (even though that's tenuous at best, outright false at worst), this is my opinion, not a collation of those before me.
Actually, TRM, if I recall the RfC on the topic properly, it was decided quite lopsidedly that you, among all editors, are not entitled to your opinion. I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain of that. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Everyone above is positing their opinion here. I did the same. Your suggestion that my opinion should somehow be governed by a consensus (imagined by you alone) is quite bizarre, back to the drawing board I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral on this. The storm is much weaker than was initially estimated, but at the same time, it resulted in the evacuation of 800,000 people. This might be a a significantly high number to post it without a significantly high death toll. RyanVesey20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support posting with the blurb focused on the large evacuation; virtually any movement of such a large number of people due to a single event is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose large evacuations are notable, but in India doesn't seem to be that unusual. We already post too many storms. Ps, 7 fatalities from a monsoon in India??? Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not posted then really Systemic bias could not get any worse... the storm is being called perhaps one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the recorded history (NP). Deaths alone dont make things notable... We posted Hurricane Sandy, Colorado flooding, Calgary flooding and we dont want to post a Cyclone covering size of half the India. And if anyone wants to say this happens regularly then its been 14 years since a storm this large hit this part of India. Also nobody is saying post right away but after once the widespread damage has been confirmed then we should post it...-- Ashish-g5522:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOT ready with that blurb. and consensus without a casualty count that's whigh is dubious.
oppose UNTIL damage/casualties are reported...and with a "significant" number. And "very severe is ague and sensational and category 3 is wrong per abjotuLihaas (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to evacuation. Damage/casualties have been reported FYI. BTW, I'd consider this even to not common at all, not the strongest storm in recorded history, but still pretty darn rare. YEPacificHurricane02:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb has nothing to do with if this is ready--feel free to suggest another if you like. Consensus is to post when this hits, which it has. Body count won't be know for days. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting a fixed up blurb. The evacuation was massive, which is good grounds to post. The fatalities stand at 5, and that number can (sadly) be increased as the news reports come in. If we wait for final figures, this will be stale news. JehochmanTalk02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. I am not knowledgeable in auto racing, but from reading the article she doesn't seem to have been very important in her field. If this is being nominated because she died due to her injuries from her accident or otherwise died suddenly, then a blurb should be proposed(which I would probably oppose as well). 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't know much about the topic either, but this is the third-from-top story on the BBC at the moment, which I think cuts it. It seems like she was the top of here field if her field is restricted to women (that's not insignificant) and a major celebrity in Spain. Formerip (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reserve and test drivers (unless they have significant achievement in other series which she haven't) are nowhere as notable as those who compete regularly in the series as she only came into media attention last year because of her accident and I don't see anything that suggest that she is a major celebrity in her home country, compared to her compatriots Alonso, Contador and Nadal. Donnie Park (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much of her fame is down to her accident, but fame is fame. You could say the same thing about Malala Yousafzai, for example. Formerip (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those tried to make a difference to help others, almost paid her life for trying and since then got nominated for a Nobel Prize and as with the former; at the age of 32, was she going to make a difference by just driving a F1 car in straight line. Donnie Park (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a terribly tragic death. However, she was not a sufficiently notable as F1 driver for ITN. Per WP:ITND it is required that "[t]he deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." De Villota did not have before or after her accident enough top-class (F1) experience to be regarded as "very important figure" in top-class motor racing. --hydrox (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost half of the article's text (based on eyeballing) is about the accident that led to her death. Insufficient importance in her field for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a recent death nomination, not a blurb in ITN. The current two up are Scott Carpenter and Ovadia Yosef who are both as notable as this lady. She was important in her field because she stood the best chance of becoming the first female F1 driver. Torqueing (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An astronaut who was about the 7th person in space (4th American)? Where is the notability in that? And the chief rabbi of a *sect* of jews in a *country*? Please... If he was the chief rabbi of the world then that would be notable but he's not even the only chief rabbi in Israel. Torqueing (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the significance of the Mercury 7, I can't help you. Not to make light of her death, but she didn't do anything. Being a "potential" something means you didn't do it. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about Maria but the "Mercury 7" was nothing. The Russians did everything in space first apart from land a man on the moon. On top of that this guy was nothing apart from an astronaut of which there have been thousands. Even the Mercury 7 page is tiny with no mention of any significance whatsoever. Torqueing (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak much about all other stuff that exists, I would've been indeed happy to support the nomination if she had started even one F1 grand prix during her career. But as far as I can tell, she never entered an F1 grand prix. Although I agree that she was on the track to becoming one of the scarce breed of female F1 drivers (not the first one, though), I don't think we should equate potential to achieve with actually achieving it. And anyway, we still have Susie Wolff. Also, exactly the same WP:ITND criteria apply to Recent Deaths as to full blurbs, so Recent Deaths is not a way around those. --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She is #5 in trending news items for The Washington Times, behind "NFL", "Republican Party", "Barack Obama" and "Senate". While her career was nothing to write home about her death has attracted sufficient attention. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm pointing out that this isn't some "buried on page five" event in the regular news, but is considered by the searching public more important than, say, "Nobel Prize", and also refuting the "not of worldwide interest" argument above. - The BushrangerOne ping only07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using IAR to justify that means that you need to explain how it is beneficial to ignore the rules in this situation. This person was trying to be an F1 driver; she was not actually one. There are many deaths covered in the news that many people read about that we don't post for various reasons. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: I think this is a good opportunity to feature the series Doctor Who and its history on the year of its fiftieth anniversary. And we have quite a good article. ---- HektorHektor21:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The acquiring of lost episodes gets more arduous every year, so this is in that way a remarkable feat. Also, this is biggest single find of the DW missing episodes. 101090ABC (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see a lot wider coverage of this in order to support it. The last Doctor Who story we considered(with controversy) was the casting of the new one, which was significant news in many places. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First as apparently there's a moratorium on this news for another hour (when the BBC gives a press conference on it). But more really on the oppose we're also only talking about 2 serials out of 27 that are missing. Now, if it turns out the BBC has nearly all of them, and these 9 episodes (two serials) are just the first they fixed up, that might be something, but as 331dot suggests, it would need more coverage beyond UK papers and sci-fi fans sites. (as a fan, its great news, but just not ITN). --MASEM (t) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope to read serious arguments here, not joke ones. Do you seriously want us to believe that BBC gives a press conference at midnight ? Furthermore it is in The Times so there clearly is no such moratorium. Hektor (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given what others are saying on the talk page of Doctor Who missing episodes, yes, in part that DW is not just limited to the UK and this would hit the US night news cycle. (Also consider that two sources have posted and then quickly pulled). Irregardless, the BBC is the authority here on exactly what was found so we should wait until they report. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are you obligated to make pointless hostile remarks. No one yelled at Hektor. The rest of us would like a source we can access, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lost works of art are notable, and just because something aired on TV doesn't disqualify it from being a work of art. (Neither is the point this is a British show a relevant objection.) In fact, TV shows even win awards. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should not be ignoring TV stories just because they are TV. Doctor Who is clearly an international show even though it is produced locally to the UK. The primarily reason here to oppose is that this is just not much of a story if it is only 2 serials/9 episodes out of 27/106 missing. Cool and all, but a drop in the bucket. But if the BBC reveal it's something more, I suspect we'll get better coverage from mainstream sources on that, but right now this news is just not ITN-worthy yet. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A TV show can be a drama, no different from a play or a film, which are considered hight art. Not that these episodes are necessarily high art, of course. But Simply saying "TV show" is not a disqualifier. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just send me 9 blank pieces of paper with your signature, and I will send you the 9 episodes that were accidentally deposited in my safe deposit box. Your commission for this service will be 37%. Please send me your bank details so I can effectuate a transfer of your fee. JehochmanTalk23:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Medeis; although, this is a bit belated now. The comment "Lost works of art are notable" is correct. Television is just a different avenue for art. RyanVesey17:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you remember I strongly opposed the Dr. Who casting decision because it did not represent any actual achievement. In this case, yes, I can support because they are lost works of art that have been recovered. Worthwhile. You could probably trim off the distracting "one month before the fiftieth anniversary of the series" irrelevant to the discovery of the lost episodes. Teply (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah...no. This really is, as has been pointed out already, trivia. Interesting? A notable find? Sure, but ITN-worthy? Hell no. Most of the notability here comes from them being lost...they really were "crap" ;) --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think there has been a long time general consensus that last time Tendulkar will appear on ITN is when he retires from cricket altogether. Well that day has finally come. By far biggest retirement story in cricket for years to come. change the blurb as needed ---- Ashish-g5518:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
which was what exactly? Tendulkar is biggest name in cricket by far and we have posted retirements of sport figures at his level many times -- Ashish-g5518:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every athlete is not the same obviously. Some dominate certain sports and retirement for them is a "significant development". In some cases more so than posting the large number of sporting results as we do every year -- Ashish-g5521:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We generally don't post retirements; in the case of the coach we posted, soccer is one of the most popular sports in the world and he was the coach of one of the most well known teams. Cricket, while popular in many countries, doesn't rise to the level of soccer. I don't think I would support posting Ruth (or, to be more modern, A-Rod or Derek Jeter) either as baseball has a similar reach as cricket(popular in some countries but not most). I would be open to changing my mind if extensive news coverage of this is demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change my !vote to weak support. From the stories I read this man seems to be regarded as the best cricket player in the world, or at least in India(which does have 1/7 of the world's population), which may warrant an exception to our general policy of not posting retirements. Personally I am not going to fight hard for this, but I think it is worth posting and is a chance to post a story from India. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also front page item today on The Sydney Morning Herald, The Melbourne Age, The Australian, and ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). --dmmaus (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's a standing consensus against posting retirements, and unless this is for a notable reason there's no reason for an exception here. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid to feel otherwise, but the assertion here is that this man is probably the top player in the world. Not near the top, the top. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont remember any such consensus as we have clearly posted retirements bunch of times before. if you really care then i can pull them from archive -- Ashish-g5523:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is, if not a consensus, a strong tendency to avoid posting retirements; the ones we do post have to meet a very high bar(and are often controversial even if posted). 331dot (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure i would agree that we look at it per case basis but any argument that says we dont post them totally invalid (there is no such consensus). 3 are mentioned above -- Ashish-g5523:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an Australian, I honestly don't think there is any serious argument even outside India that Tendulkar is easily considered the greatest cricket player since WWII. He is certainly the very top of his field by a comfortable margin. I don't have a strong opinion on posting sporting retirements, but if any were to qualify, then this one should. --dmmaus (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Considered" vs. actualy stats/data held record holders at THE top is different. the 3 you cite are only considered (though bowler vs. batsman, I concede, is different)Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A retirement is a non-event. Should he come back from retirement we could post it. If he was required to retire early for some reason, we could post it. The fact that his career is done isn't unexpected. RyanVesey00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone considered one of the greatest players in the history of a sport, especially one with such a long and glorious history like cricket, a retirement is a big deal. Only for consensus "greatest" players though. Secretaccount02:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability grounds. Posting retirements should be rare, but I think this is one of the more exceptional sporting retirements that will happen for many years. Tendular is not only one of the greatest cricketers of all time, he is easily the most famous athlete in India and a near god there--based on his fame in India alone he is arguably one of the most famous men on the planet. There are few figures in the world of such extreme notability. It's a shame the article isn't a bit better--if it was a GA or FA this would be a shoe in for me but as is it's just over the line (Yao Ming's retirement was posted in part because his article was an FA).--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the posting of sports retirements. Furthermore, as seen in cases like Michael Jordan (someone, if anyone, whose retirement we would consider posting since he was unarguably the top in his field), athletes sometimes un-retire too. SpencerT♦C05:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So was Sachin "unarguably the top of his field". And at any rate the personal opinions of not posting retirements are personal opinion. One thing not in question is tha this is in the news. (for the record, I was awary of positing it first but there is no doubt this is int he news)Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't usually support sports items, but the BBC cricket correspondent is calling him the greatest of his generation. If we post sports retirements at all, we ought to post this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found this a difficult decision, but (1) Tendulkar is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of a major international sport; (2) he is absolutely huge in India - "national hero" would be a major understatement; (3) I think we ought to be more willing to post sporting retirements - we can't be declining to post them on the basis that sports aren't ITN-worthy given that we post lots of sporting events, and retirements of very top sportspeople can be at least as big a story as some of events we post (Tendulkar's retirement is undoubtedly a bigger cricketing story than the final of the Indian Premier League, for instance). Neljack (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken the liberty of altering the blurb to say "announces his retirement" rather than "retires", since he will play two more tests.[45]Neljack (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wait came here to say that but also per above. Till he actually retires is more notable (and ittll be in the news for sure). In accord with other consensus on the ITNC page to wait till the event occursLihaas (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sports retirement. I oppose all sports retirement ITN postings. Why? First, because they are always contentious. Second, because they are of limited impact. "What?", you might ask. Yes, limited impact because sports greats rarely retire when they are at their peak. No, they retire when they are a liability to their team or their sport, or they just aren't winning anymore. I rather like the postings when some athlete breaks some record, because they are making history. Retiring players aren't making history any more. I don't want to see "athlete can't keep up with the younger SOBs, quits" on the front page. Abductive (reasoning)17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that a retiring player isnt making history. Why do we post deaths? do deaths make history? its what they did during their life that matters and for sport figures its their career. In exceptional cases like Tendulkar who is basically worshiped by a billion people in India it matters -- Ashish-g5517:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths are objective facts. Retirements are statements of policy. There's a huge difference--although as mentioned above, if there were something else notable about the retirement, say it was for legal reasons, or because he'd been clubbed across the knees at a skating competition, that might be different. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Since last year the consensus has been that when Sachin Tendulkar retires, he will be posted. He has come up in virtually every retirement debate as an example of one that would be posted. Less notable retirements have a strong precedent, Niklas Lidstrom for one I believe. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD The fact he was a former prime minister, and by his death the incumbent president of the largest party in the European Parliament. Redverton (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. He is certainly sufficiently notable for RD. I have updated with three tributes and a BBC News reference.[46] However, most of the article lacks references. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Played an important role in the decentralisation of the Belgian state, as well as at the European level. Easily meets DC#1. Neljack (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was the Belgian PM for more than a decade and the President of the EPP for 2 decades. I think that's very significant. --Երևանցիtalk14:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready --updated and well supported. Article is extremely light on what he stood for, but it is updated and isn't tagged. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought about nominating this but decided against because the interest is in treating other degenerative conditions, which is purely speculative at the moment. A minor point: it's not published in Science but in Science Translational Medicine, a relatively new journal which is not (yet) in the top rank of preclinical medical journals. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
And "master of the contemporary short story" should be in quotes, (or preferably not there at all), unless we want the Main Page to have a POV on her status. --LukeSurltc13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom obviously but strong oppose current blurb and pic. It's not conventional to use a drawing when we say 'pictured'--if there's no free pic, leave one for another story. The blurb is POV, even if it's a quote from the Nobel committee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have contradictory requests here. Please discuss, and once a consensus appears the blurb can be edited. What we have now mirrors what the vast majority of reliable sources are reporting. Rather than "pictured", what word would be accurate? I see nothing wrong with using a lifelike drawing of the subject. It's the best we have. JehochmanTalk13:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Alice Munroe is master of the contemporary short story is a POV statement (and I'm sure Nigellwh intended for it to be in quotes) which should be fixed immediately. At the very least it should be in quotation marks to show it as a statement from the Nobel committee, not an undisputed fact. --LukeSurltc13:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's in quotes. All facts can be disputed, and frequently are. We report what reliable sources say. Huge numbers of reliable sources today are reporting that she is a master of the contemporary short story, with and without quotes. JehochmanTalk13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 'vast majority' of RSs are not using the 'master of contemporary short story' line in their headline--they are reporting this line in their stories, as WP does in relevant articles. I support the first blurb. I support using a photo or leaving out the picture entirely.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the POV issue, there few WP tenets more important that WP:NPOV. Many RSs do not have the same standard of NPOV that WP does. In fact, many explicitly push a POV. WP has a different editorial policy, most especially on the main page. IT is absolutely essential, not some minor issue editors quibble about, that the POV line in question be in quotes or left out entirely. I strongly suggest we remove it. The blurb does not say who said it. And I've checked the NY Times, the BBC and Al Jazeera--all have a headline without the 'master...' wording.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for awarding the Nobel is inherently subjective. If the Nobel committee presents it as their reason for the award, then objectively speaking, that is the reason (theirs'). The use of quotes is good enough as an indication of perspective. Nigellwh (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine in a WP article where we can add context to such a quote. The blurb in quotes doesn't say who said it. We can leave the rationale in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can refer to her body of work or we can refer to her as an author of short stories. The other blurbs to not praise the scientists for their 'mastery' of their fields, nor do they quote anyone else saying so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with those suggestions, but there is a difference between the Literature and Science Nobels worth noting: the Science prizes are based on specific achievements, while the Literature prize is based on an author's entire oeuvre of work. Nigellwh (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out a good quality free-license photo, and I will gladly place it there. For the moment we are quoting the Nobel Committee to explain why she won the prize. On each of these announcements we say who won, which prize, and we briefly state what their work was about. Another possible blurb: "Short story author Alice Munro wins the Nobel Prize in Literature." JehochmanTalk13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's in quotes I think whether we keep "master of..." is a style rather than policy question. Similarly I don't see a policy violation with the picture, (and I can't find a free photo), but I would, to a moderate extent, prefer a photo from a different blurb. --LukeSurltc13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — for just a simple statement without value judgments about her work.
For what it's worth, German Wiki does this today in its version of ITN, and instead of the above-mentioned drawing uses the Nobel Foundation logo. [47]Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It's quite probable that Malala Yousafzai will win the Nobel Peace prize tomorrow which will eclipse this, however I guess we could combine the blurbs. --LukeSurltc10:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wait, post now. The Sakharov Prize is a renown ITNR award, she has been awarded it, there is a short update to the (otherwise already at GA level) article. There is simply no reason why this should not be posted right away. That she might get another award is pure speculation; if necessary, the blurp can be changed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ready to post now, however, a better blur is needed. Either we start Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai ... or we add why she received the prize. Not sure which one is better. --Tone11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now; notable and ITNR, and article quality is at GA. If she does win the Nobel tomorrow, this can be updated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely not everyday when the leader of a government is kidnapped. I'd replaced kidnapped with "abducted" in the blurb but that's purely word-choice. —dainomite06:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support per others (though weakly as it came to nothing),. but importantly tie it in with the capture of the al-Liby chap as thats what they cited in saying Kerry said Libya connived in the matter. (denials and all that njotwithstanidng, a la Pakistan)Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Head of government being kidnapped; it seems to have been in response to allegations the Libyan government assisted the US in their raid to capture the al-Libi. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with updated hook. The fact that he was kidnapped makes the event notable. But we should still wait a bit before posting, because it is a developing story. It is likely that more details will be published which would allow for a more concise blurp.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, thus changing my earlier opinion. Now, this episode seems to be quite a non-event, more a symbolic act than an actual kidnapping.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Elmo" is sent to jail as Times Square characters raise concerns. A bogus costumed Elmo, who collected tips for cuddling children in family photos in New York's Times Square, is sent to jail for a year for trying to extort $2 million from the Girl Scouts of the USA. (Reuters)
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.
Support given the allegations noted in the updtae from the Telegraph, this is actually notable. A better blurb like "Azerbaijani Election Committee announce Aliyev wins a day before polls open" might be good. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There is no rush to report anything before the final results have been published and the Wikipedia article has been updated accordingly. Allegations of manipulations or election fraud might indeed be included in the blurp, but such a mention must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies. The story "results posted a day early" is less suitable, because the reason is not known. The news stories are essentially speculating or pushing a "Azerbaidjan = bad" prejudice (still, this could be just a case of "testing the system").--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just suggested an alternative blurp. I would oppose of using this photo to accompany the blurp, though: To me, it seems quite unfavorable (he looks somewhat silly).--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt Blurb I'll come down in favor of the altblurb, since the publishing of the results the day before the vote was held seems to be what is drawing attention. I am going to mark this ready above. An admin should use his or her judgment and get this posted one blurb or the other. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The articles are so-so, therefore I guess we should go with highlighling the laureates list article. Regarding the blurb, "for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems" seems a bit technical compared to the other two Nobel blurbs. Is there a good article we can wikilink? Molecular dynamics? --Tone11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(The article would have to be updated to list these three as the groundbreakers on that, but it's a rather decent article otherwise). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment I've posted the item with a link to computational chemistry. There's clearly overlapping areas of study. Rather than discuss this at great length, why don't we touch up the relevant articles, and if one of them appears to have more content about the Nobel winners, we can change the link to that one. Computational chemistry is a B-class, former Good article. It's not a bad place to send people and it cross references the other articles that might also be used in the blurb. I'm not sure we can find the perfect solution. JehochmanTalk15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Chopper was well known to most Australians. He was played by Eric Bana in the film Chopper based on his life. His crimes were mostly against other criminals, so he had some sort of respect from non-criminals. Claimed to have killed 19 men. Reformed after being released from prison, and wrote books, including one for children titled Hooky the Cripple, becoming Australia's best selling crime author. --HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. From what I have read, he does seem to be a very notable criminal/author, though I don't think he rises to the high level of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Updated one sentence, that he died, is not an update. Hardly seeing how this guy is the top of any field, there are plenty of killers with more under their belt. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "hardly seeing how this guy is the top of any field" an oppose vote? If you know of other recently deceased criminals, feel free to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is content saying he had a fatal illness, then he died. Seriously, what else does one add? How long it took for the maggots to appear? As for "top of his field" (a weird term for a criminal, surely), this is Australia, not the USA. Murders are much less common here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence should always be enough for RD. RD highlights a person who recently died, there's not much more you can write about that. RyanVesey20:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was discussed at length when the RfC to set up RD was proposed, and the single major objection was the fear that adding RD would mean lowering the bar. It was explicitly stated that the current guidelines would still apply. I am curious whether you've read the guidelines, since they explicitly say a one sentence update that mirrors the fat noted in the ITN listing is not acceptable.
The guidelines are wrong. Expecting 5 sentences of prose on the death of someone is unreasonable and in many cases causes undue weight to be placed on the death in the article. What more is there to write about Read? RyanVesey20:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! So, "We don't need no stinking guidelines"? There is a discussion about this--but it should be an RfC, since we've had an RfC explicitly establishing ITN applied in full. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, guidelines are guidelines, not commandments written in stone. What exactly is missing from the article that you feel should be added before posting? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one-sentence-is-not-enough guideline is solid, and not a suggestion. What would be needed are a cartload of citations, given almost every paragraph has a CN tag, and some sort of recognition from historians, peers, or critics upon his death that he's a respected or world-champion murderer, not just one who got caught in a middling jurisdiction and then wrote children's books. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed side discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, it was very necessary. And I'm contemplating putting it back. If idiotic editors here aren't occasionally told the truth about the rudeness and incompetence they display, nothing will ever change. And I mean rudeness. My blatant form of "rudeness" is nothing when compared with the absolute bullshit perpetuated on pages like this by super controlling editors who think they own the fucking place. THAT'S the REAL incivility here. Fucking arrogant editors who want ITN to contain nothing more than gap filling trivia from America and England, making absolutely certain that our systemic bias if fully on display at all times. No fucking idea. And if you think I give a fuck any more, I don't. I've tried my best to improve the quality and tone of discussion here, to point out that non-mainstream items need more support, all to no fucking avail. Do your darnedest. I don't fucking care any more. And please don't delete this post. That will just prove that the truth hurts, and won't improve the quality of discussion here, or remove the systemic bias. And you're wrong that it's just Medeis. Medeis' crap has been stuffing up ITN and Ref Desks for years, and nobody does anything effective about it. You're ALL responsible. You all obviously prefer perpetual disruptive bullshit from editors like Medeis to an occasion fuck appearing here. I give up. A ban from this page will make no difference. I was temporarily blocked once before (for no crime I feel any guilt about), and came back hoping things might have improved, because I actually care about this place. But no, things have got worse. So, hide this criticism again if you must, and pretend that all is sweetness and light. But blissful ignorance is not a really great state. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to yell; he was just pointing something out. If you cannot or will not control yourself with your editing I would suggest that a Wikibreak is in order. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is responding to my fucks all you can do? How about this nomination? Nobody has effectively opposed this, but it hasn't been posted. If the article needs fixing, somebody should fix it, and it shouldn't have to be me. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!!! Maybe it should be you 331dot!!! A posting must NEVER depend on whether one particular editor has the time to fix an article. What the hell is really happening here? I'll tell you what's happening here. A massive display of systemic bias is happening here!!!!!! I know it's not a pathetic minor American TV star, but I thought we were a global encyclopaedia? It's not being posted without my swearing. At least when I do that it gets a little bit of attention. So seriously, is this going to be posted, or will it miss out because nobody actually cares? (If anyone now says the article needs fixing, but isn't willing to fix it themselves, that really is a sad look for Wikipedia!) HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post this, now - One editor citing guidelines doesn't overturn the obvious majority consensus that this exception is postable. Can an admin please post it to ITN? - Floydianτ¢20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)`[reply]
Also, as an addendum, ITN is not DYK. We don't expect articles on current or recent events to be Good articles. If anything, the increased number of eyes towards it makes it much more likely that someone with the available resources will be able to cite the details related to other points in his life. The article looks acceptable as it stands for this purpose. - Floydianτ¢21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, instead of requesting others to do things, do something yourself. There are currently 12 [citation needed] tags, we mostly never post items with one [citation needed] tag, let alone twelve. Sort that lot out and we'll post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do a shitload of work on here. Right now I'm incredibly busy. A look at my contributions will show you how little editing I have had time to do lately. I'm only calling in here to see how bad this place still is. Obviously even you didn't actually read my post above where I said "If the article needs fixing, somebody should fix it, and it shouldn't have to be me. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!!! ...A posting must NEVER depend on whether one particular editor has the time to fix an article." All of you are responsible for fixing articles, especially those of you who find fault with them. Throwing absolutely everything back at the nominator is just plain pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still see at least 6 editors supporting as is, and two holding up the show with claims of "We normally don't". Who are "we" and why do they overturn the consensus to post? WP:ITND doesn't seem to indicate that citation needed tags are a deal-breaker; merely that the article be comprehensive enough to garner a B-class rating. I can delete the citation needed tags, but the fact remains that more eyes are more likely to validate those facts. Beate Eriksen is a stellar example of the power of this. - Floydianτ¢20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally relaxed. Just trying to attract attention to this item. It's probably going to die through lack of interest anyway (didn't think that was one of our criteria!), but I continue to do my best to tackle our massive systemic bias. Part of the systemic bias is the fact that hardly anybody cares about non-mainstream nominations. Or our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters reports that major money market fund managers are avoiding U.S. Treasury debt due to mature in the next few months, as the debt ceiling nears and Governmental deadlock deepens. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
Heavy flooding in the Philippines city of Zamboanga leads to thousands of families being displaced and schools and most government offices being closed. (ABS-CBN)
At least four people are killed and hundreds of thousands of people evacuated as Typhoon Fitow hit eastern China yesterday. (Reuters)
International relations
North Korea claims to put its army on alert and warns the United States of a "horrible disaster". (Reuters)
Law and crime
A Denver couple, Wayne Sperling, 66, (jailed) and Lorinda Bailey, 35, (free) are accused of felony child abuse in one of the most egregious cases of suspected abuse in state history. Four boys, ages 2 to 6, were living in a house filled with cat feces and urine, with flies everywhere. They were nonverbal, malnourished, filthy, and uneducated, communicating to caseworkers and police in grunts. The couple were accused of misdemeanor abuse of 3 other children in 2006. (MSN)
Four people living at the same address in Savannah, Tennessee (3 men and 1 woman), believed to be involved in an area child pornography investigation and who had earlier fled a September 2013 FBI investigation (where computers and cameras were seized) are found dead of gunshot wounds (they may have been drugged) in a murder-suicide on a road in Double Springs, Winston County, Alabama. (MSN)
The laureate articles for medicine have some issues, so we chose not to highlight them. To avoid spontaneously breaking the symmetry of Wikipedia, I've changed the highlighting on both blurbs to be the topics of research. These are nice articles that have updates at least as good as the biographies. Unlike other media, we excel at answering the questions, "What did these laureates discover and why was it important?" JehochmanTalk12:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the change. When writing the blurb, I wanted to mention the Higgs boson but at the same time wanted to avoid double Higgs in the blurb or an easter-eggish link. This is fine now. --Tone12:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:No article specified Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Nominator's comments: This is only a suggestion to summarize all the news for this year's Nobel laureates in a separate article, named for instance "Nobel Prizes in 2013" or "Summary of Nobel Prizes awarded in 2013", and thereby prevent the ITN section of becoming a tabloid with almost all of the blurbs reporting "X and/or Y wins Nobel Prize in Z". --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe, if not last year the year before, that we do require the article update, as there was one case of a winner that I know I helped update before posting, but I don't think we had a sticky - each new award was nom + posted separately. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the indivual blurbs. The subjects the the prizes are awarded for are usually very suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, posting blurbs about eg cell vesicles is not what I usually assiciate with tabloids :P. Thue (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The Nobel Prize blurbs are an excellent opportunity for ITN to showcase some 'hard' stories. A blurb for each prize is fine - they're all on different topics, and usually include a decent article or two (more often on the topic than the people). For the sake of one week, 6 blurbs is fine, and has been fine in every previous year. Also, they're listed as separate items on ITNR. Modest Geniustalk20:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These prizes tend to be for interesting things, so as long as the blurbs don't just say "X wins the Nobel Prize in Y," the readers will have more to read about. Abductive (reasoning)21:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as said above Nobels allow us to link many scientific articles. And these are without a doubt top tier awards in their fields so they deserve their own blurbs -- Ashish-g5521:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both articles need updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Given that I said "despite ITN/R" any explanation related to it will do nothing to persuade me. What confuses me is why ITN/R automatically places the election for Ethiopian President in ITN, but leaves the election for the Prime Minister to discussion. RyanVesey02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We post the results of general elections to national legislative bodies, during which the PM is typically chosen (as they are generally already the leader of the party that wins) and as such they are usually mentioned in general elections blurbs. Further, heads of government often change much more frequently and often without a general election(such as Kevin Rudd briefly resuming being PM of Australia) and are also much more political offices than heads of state, which represent the entire nation. My larger point is that, if you have an issue with this ITNR item, such as believing it should have stricter criteria, you should take it to the ITNR talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you waste no more effort, this is on ITNR, so it will be posted. I don't think this should be posted, so I am noting my opposition knowing that my opposition means nothing. I cannot be bothered to discuss the significance of the elections of figurehead heads of states in Ireland or Germany, or the absence of significance of elections for various heads of governments. I said I am open to persuasion, but only if there is someone who cares to try to persuade me that the election of the Ethiopian head of state is particularly important. Anything less is a waste of your time (trying to persuade me of the importance of this specific election is probably a waste of time as well, not because I won't change my vote, but because getting me to change my mind won't affect the outcome). RyanVesey02:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - The article was updated with the passing of the Rabbi. Almost a million people attended in his funural, more than 10% of the country and almost 17% of the Jewish pupulation in Israel. (Only men were in the funural, so 34% of the Men Jewish pupulation, third of the country) – HonorTheKing (talk)22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ready to post when the articles are updated beyond one sentence. As we had in the previous years, the Nobel laureates usually don't get several paragraphs of update but 3-4 sentences should be a minimum. --Tone11:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should really include a link to Vesicle (biology and chemistry), which readers are much more likely to be interested in than the articles on the scientists themselves. In past years we've got around update issues that way, although it doesn't seem viable in this case. I recommend posting as soon as one article has a decent update, and we can bold the others if/when they're brought up to scratch. Surely there's a quote or two from one of them that could be used to expand the update(s)? Modest Geniustalk11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. Following up on my comments above, the situation has actually got worse. Why is this on the Main Page with three bold links, none of which have an adequate update, and two of which have orange-level BLP tags on them? Sorry, I think we have to pull until there's a suitable article to bold-link. Modest Geniustalk16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a brief update to the featured list, I'll look for a couple more sentences (and sources, just to placate the starving nation) in due course. Good swap. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the crazy tagging and editing was done after the post. I will reword the blurb and link to the list. Seems like a great solution. JehochmanTalk17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- mass evacuation, in itself, is not notable. However, if the storm ends up causing significant damage or casualties, I will be open to reconsider. ←DJ→00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I would disagree that the movement of such a large number of people due to a single event is 'not notable', but I too would like to see the level of damage and casualties it causes before supporting it. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The non-definite "we", clearly, an abstract "we", which can also be understood as "Wikipedia" or "the encyclopedia. Neljack's right, repeating National Rugby League as NRL is redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Mysore Dasara 2013 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Mysore Dasara 2013 is the 403rd edition of the annual royal festive gala event, a show of pomp and tradition that is held in the Mysore city in Karnataka (Post) Alternative blurb: During the Mysore Dasara 2013, the royal Mysore Palace, fitted with 96,000 bulbs is lit giving the palace a golden hue glittering brightness in the evenings which provides for a grand spectacle. Cultural programmes are part of the festivities News source(s):[54][55] Credits:
Updated and nominated by [[User:Nvvchar (Talk)|Nvvchar (Talk)]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar (Talk)|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:Nvvchar (Talk)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BMysore+Dasara+2013%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Mysore+Dasara+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated+and+updated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: This my first nomination. Please correct it if I have made some errors. Nvvchar (Talk)
Oppose: As you say, it surely is your first nom at ITN. The ITN blurbs have to be something that make to news globally or at least reach a very large audience. This event will hardly be a big news within all parts of India. Also i doubt the notability of this article i.e. Mysore Dasara 2013. Why do we even have this article? Whats so special of the event than that happened last year or the 400th one that happened in 2010? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nomination. This probably isn't in the news globally. We do need more nominations. Could you look for an event of interest that is appearing in the news in several (or more) countries and nominate it here? JehochmanTalk19:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTDs have been always historic events of what has happened on that day. I don't remember seeing anything of what is happening on this day. But i too am not aware of how it works and one might try there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We generally don't post arrests, preferring to wait for convictions, and I see no reason to depart from that sound practice here. The altblurb in particular would raise BLP issues, since it could be taken to imply that al-Liby is in fact a terrorist, something our article quite properly refrains from calling him since he hasn't been convicted. Neljack (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not a domestic arrest, Al-Liby doesn't deny his role, and this was the biggest attack by al-qaeda prior to 9-11. BLP concerns are satisfied by strict factuality in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not a simple arrest; it was a military operation. I believe we do occasionally post the capture of notable fugitives(he had a $5 million bounty on him) as long as we stick to the facts. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Could editors please have a look at the article and the arrest source and beef up that section? The current update is just one sentence. I'm sure we can do better. JehochmanTalk03:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I remain concerned about the blurb from a BLP standpoint. Could it not be changed to the other blurb, which is also more informative since it specifies what he's been indicted for (I'm sure many people, like me, will be unfamiliar with him and what he's wanted for)? Neljack (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is on the Most Wanted Terrorists list; that's a fact properly sourced. Any reputation problem he's got is caused by that, not by Wikipedia. "Terrorist" is a loaded word, to some degree. If you want to suggest a better alternative, please do! I could post another blurb, but we would need one that is no longer than the alt blurb. The first blurb was just too wordy. JehochmanTalk03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the fact that he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists List being included in the article, provided it is made clear that this merely means that he has been accused of terrorism, not that he is one. The problem here is that there isn't enough space in the blurb to clarify that. Neljack (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This blurb: "Anas al-Liby, indicted in the 1998 United States embassy bombings, is captured by United States special operations forces near Tripoli, Libya." is concise and avoids terrorist. "Special operations" could probably be left out as well. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that makes this especially notable is that he's on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. If he was just some indited guy being nabbed, that wouldn't really qualify. I don't understand how we can leave out the salient fact and still convey the meaning. Let the discussion continue and I'm sure this particular issue will resolve. For the moment there's sufficient supports to keep it posted until a new consensus develops. JehochmanTalk04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support Medeis's proposed blurb, which addresses the concern about being too wordy. I am mystified about why the Most Wanted List is so notable. Surely his main notability is that he's been indicted in relation to the embassy bombing (a major and high-profile terrorist attack). He's on the Most Wanted List because of that, so his notability in that regard is essentially parasitic on that. I would have thought what he was indicted about was the most important and relevant info to put in the blurb. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like Medeis's proposed alternative blurb, trimming "Special operations". To a non-American, the Most Wanted Terrorist list conveys little information and uses a loaded word that I think it would be best to avoid, while indited for a particular bombing is informative and has a more neutral tone. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Story dates from 19 September. We could debate the merits of the research, but for ITN purposes such discussion would be moot. --LukeSurltc12:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:[[56]] (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Researchers from Buckingham University and the University of Sheffield claim to have found evidence for microscopic organisms living in Earth's atmosphere. (Post) Credits:
Oppose'. Firstly this "story" is a week or two old. Secondly, I work in a science department at a university and this journal and research group are absolute laughing stocks among the academic community. --LukeSurltc12:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was a member of the 1972 Soviet Union basketball team which won gold at the 1972 Summer Olympics over the United States. Also, according to the article about him, "Belov is considered to be one of the best non-American basketball players of all time. He was given the honor of lighting the Olympic Cauldron with the Olympic flame, during the 1980 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, in Moscow. In 1991, FIBA named him the Best FIBA Player Ever." AND "He became the first international player to be inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on May 11, 1992. He was inducted into the FIBA Hall of Fame in 2007. He was named of the 50 Greatest Euroleague Contributors in 2008." Andise1 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD pending update and sourcing All sources in this article are in the lead, none are in the body. I do believe the individual's recognitions put him as an important enough member of his profession to post as RD though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD The intro of the article states that he was named the greatest FIBA player of all time, which along with his gold medal in the most remembered Olympic final puts him in a very small group of notable players who deserve attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD There are hundreds of men who have been inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame (including some of the TRUE greats of the game). Are all of them eligible for RD notice? 81.153.74.102 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Hall of Fame induction would indicate he's important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes then. All of the hundreds of men in the Basketball Hall of Fame (and the thousands of of other athletes in the dozens of other sports halls of fame - not to mention the porn stars in the XRCO Hall of Fame) are eligible for RD notice. That's good to know. 81.153.74.102 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a matter of "eligible". Technically everybody with a biography on Wikipedia is eligible. It's a matter of determining whether there is consensus on a case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, professional players were excluded from the Olympics at that time. Being called "one of the best non-American" players means that he is behind some other non-American players, and of course behind hundreds or thousands of North American players. Also, his is not a household name, unlike, say, Nadia Comăneci. Abductive (reasoning)00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is fallacious reasoning. "X is one of the best Y" is entirely consistent with X being the best Y - it says that X is a member of a class (the other members of which are not specified), but says nothing about which member of the class is the best. Neljack (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my house we say "Nadia Comăneci" all the time, but only very rarely does anybody say "Sergei Belov". Seriously, most RD's are rather obscure. This one doesn't stand out as particularly obscure. If they have a well developed Wikipedia article, that's notability enough to convince me. JehochmanTalk12:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly meets DC#2 - named as the greatest FIBA player of all time; was the first non-American to be inducted into the Naismith Hall of Fame. Some people seem to think that only American basketball counts. Neljack (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the opposite argument applies. Would we be describing the greatest amateur American soccer player of the 70's as at the top of the soccer field? Narrowing down the category does not make the nomination any more notable. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta be impressed in that 1972 Summer Olympics where the Soviets finally beat a team of American college kids after three tries... –HTD07:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack. Re Medeis, there is a big difference between "best American" and "best non-American" in terms of field - Being the best among ~4.5% of the worlds population or being the best among ~95.5% (present day figures based on List of countries by population). Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The population argument is somewhat off when the US has such a huge proportion of the Basketball playing population--just like it does not have in soccer. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. The guy is quite notable and was not just a player on the Olympic team, but their leading player. He was chosen to light the cauldron at the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. How many people have been given such an honor? JehochmanTalk21:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed but it should be noted that this claim of the 'best non-American basketball player' is extremely subjective, debatable, and poorly sourced. The main evidence seems to be a FIBA award given in 1991 before a number of European players entered the NBA, some of whom led their teams to NBA championships. Many people would argue that Hakeem Olajuwon (who became a US citizen and represented the US), Patrick Ewing (similar story), Dirk Nowitsky, Oscar Schmitt, and/or Arvidas Sabonis were more notable to name a few. Belov is a relic of sports in a very different era when amateur athletes could be rather notable in their field without playing at the highest professional level. It's very hard to compare his notability to present day athletes. In any case, the article needs work.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support for RD. The circumstances of the death were not unusual(he was 102) so I am not convinced a blurb is warranted but he clearly is notable enough for RD. (meets the latter half of DC #1). 331dot (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. This is an obituary item. I think full blurbs are for cases where Death and Funeral of... type articles are written (or there are unusual circumstances regarding the death). As regards this article, it looks good, and as long as we trust the unfootnoted references cover the facts of the article we should be OK. --LukeSurltc14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD when better sourced I agree he's notable enough for RD, but not for a blurb. The article is undersourced, though, especially the "Early life" section. I felt I had to orange tag it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His death is covered here on Wikipedia similarly as in the news articles. The media summarize mainly his career in the Vietnamese military, rather than his long-term stay in a hospital and details about his death. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only FA's are allowed to be placed on the main page. Wikipedia is a work in progress, feel free to improve the article. Up to this moment, you notified others about your opinion by adding {{refimprove}} tag. 9 editors supported posting of the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supports are for inclusion in ITN but they are all technically "Support pending update". Its implied in all supports since there is no point mentioning that over and over again. Please check article before posting. Thanks -- Ashish-g5517:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 There is (or should be?) a minimum standard that articles that have or merit orange tags shouldn't be on the front page. This article is woefully undersourced and you could have used your discretion on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and Desysop the "admin" who posted this with noupdate. If admins can't read the guidelines they don't need to be throwing their weight around. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Medeis, if you want to desysop an admin, actually do something about it rather than bitch here. Don't make hollow threats. Worse still is your utter lie that "no update" was made. It was clearly updated, per your own diff, to reflect the death. Sure, a single-sentence update is poor, but this guy has been borderline for years, there's not much more to report. More importantly is the maintenance tag added, that's a genuine issue that really should be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, that was premature of me. Kind of like posting this in four hours. But somebody does need to read "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." That someone has died is an explicitly insufficient update for someone whom we are going to list as having died. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if the news only required one liner then perhaps its not for ITN as that makes it a news item which isnt really the goal of wikipedia or ITN -- Ashish-g5519:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're unaware of RD. You'd probably prefer two or three lines of inconsequential guff to meet the current nonsense arbitrary criteria for an update. I'm not surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with current criteria and have supported small updates for nobel prizes. However if person was important enough then almost always their death would cause enough of a reaction to have a decent sized update. I dont even like RD and have fought for lower death items on ITN for many many years now. But since we have RD now i would rather not make it worse by lowering even the update criteria. I dont necessarily appreciate your tone but being here forever i know when to drop the stick -- Ashish-g5520:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an update to this article myself but there's more to be done which I don't have the time or inclination to do, but I've mentioned some of the things that need doing in the Talk page, in case anybody is interested in doing them. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for useful observations. I have verified some claims and added missing citations. Further discussions about the article's content belong on its talk page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
post-posting support. He was a clearly notable person, but his death wasn't noteworthy beyond the fact that it happened so a more significant addition would have been UNDUE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Large tragedy which is related to illegal immigration/asylum, a hot political theme. But the article needs expansion. Iselilja (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot. Quite an unusual event with significantly large death toll. I'm not sure if the article can be accepted on its actual size, however. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of the sinking is very vague right now. "The boat caught fire and sank." basically summarizes what happened in the article. Furthermore, the article doesn't really have a lot of information about the migrants themselves. It says they were all from Libya, which contradicts a BBC story that says most of them are from Eritrea and Somalia. I'll see if I can add this information to the article. SpencerT♦C18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's vague, there's not much information still. Many ships that catch fire sink. Finally, no, the article says the ship sailed from Libya, not the immigrants were from Libya. Please read more carefully. Having said all that, don't worry, let's wait a few days for to be Not In The News. The facts, as known, are all there, the claims are sourced, your claim is false, there's not much more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Radio 4, the people on board lit a fire draw the attention of other ships, which got out of control and just made things worse. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is way too small with not too much information to be linked to main page right now and it may not get any better. So Support iff the article improves -- Ashish-g5519:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "may not get any better", please link me to your shiny ball... Alternatively, suggest improvements. Over 130 people have died in a shipwreck off the coast of Italy, are you kidding that this isn't ITN?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After the hoopla you created over Emmy's about article quality are you seriously saying we should post things before article is upto standard? -- Ashish-g5519:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would first ask for correct English, secondly I'd suggest the arbitrary updates are nonsense (particularly lists of winners) and thirdly, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although, the blurb should be updated so that it makes grammatical sense: "At least 134 migrants a (sic) killed". I know that instances in 2009 and 2011 were named similarly, but is it possible to get the name of the ship or the international identification number so that the title can be less vague? ←DJ→20:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I don't think refugee is correct word here, refugee is someone who was persecuted in their country of origin or fleeing war. Most articles about this accident don't make that definition, so I think migrant is better. SeraV (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dead are described as women and children fleeing Somalia and Eritrea and asylum seekers from Libya. That's the definition of refugee. Migrants are people crossing the border temporarily for work or herding or such. Frankly, migrant here is a despicable euphemism meant to make stomachable a very ugly situation, and it's a disservice to our readers to euphemise. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think article is not ready for front page. Perhaps it can be merged into another article or something but as a standalone article it does not look good. However i wont remove the ready mark and let admin decide -- Ashish-g5500:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand specific objections, but there is an explicit requirement that new articles have at least three full paragraphs, which this one meets. Of course three small paragraphs is not a "great article". But the criterion is, actually, three paragraphs. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (a) "migrant" is the term used in reliable sources so that's what we use here, it's far from "despicable", it's accurate. (b) many people here saying "the article needs work" or expansion, but no-one suggesting how that's supposed to happen (or doing it themselves). Very helpful people, very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Traveller and passenger, or people, or untrained swimmers would also not be false, but they are far from informative. The word is a despicable euphemism, meant to avoid the fact they are both helpless refugees and illegal aliens, neither of which reality make some very uncomfortable. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nation leaving any international organization seems to be noteworthy. Receiving coverage in many nations. It has been slow in ITN recently(not a reason to post in and of itself, but...) 331dot (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a country leaving or being banned from an organisation such as the British Commonwealth should probably be ITN/R territory. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As this is of special interest to most of our readers (most of the world's native English-speaking population live in countries of the former British empire, heritage of which the Commonwealth represents.) --hydrox (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link should go to Commonwealth of Nations, and perhaps some more context can be added to the blurb so that those of us not in the Commonwealth are aware of what it means without having to click on the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page itself is "Commonwealth of Nations", so the link should go there as opposed to the redirect. It's a vague term, all I'm saying. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—with further clarification about the status of The Gambia and the Commonwealth of Nations per Lugnuts and Muboshgu; perhaps, also a further clarification about the reasoning as to why The Gambia decided to leave the Commonwealth. ←DJ→20:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both linked articles have a single sentence update. This is a reasonably big deal, so I'd expect a little more than just that, in both cases. Support the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if a country leaves the Commonwealth, aside from Canadians no longer have to compete with them at the Commonwealth games? No more financial aid? No more ice hockey exchange programs? What? Is that mentioned anywhere in the linked articles? –HTD03:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth page states "Member states have no legal obligation one to another, instead they are united by language, history and culture, and their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter and promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games." Some nations also want to establish European-Union like policies such as a free trade area. So basically, aside from not participating in the Games the effect is largely not participating in any decisions made by the group, which can include attempts to influence The Gambia's behavior(such as suspending them for not being Democratic or certain policies). 331dot (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - Despite the thin update as of this writing, I'm supporting the inclusion of the blurb on the ITN box on the front page. The article is in fine shape itself but I'd like to see a bit more added to the update as to why Gambia's leaders took the stance that the Commonwealth is "neo-colonialist." I would look into it myself but this is the first time in days I have had a chance to even glance at Wikipedia, and time constraints rule my life at present. To sum up: Good ITN candidate, please expand update, do not pull now that it is up. Jusdafax17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gunmen shoot down a military helicopter in northern Iraq killing all four crew members. (Reuters)
The Russian embassy in Libya's capital Tripoli came under fire after an attempted attack by gunmen who tried to force their way into the compound. One of the attackers was killed and four others were injured according to Libyan authorities. (Reuters)
An accident involving a church bus, a tractor-trailer, and an SUV on I-40 in Jefferson County, Tennessee, leaves eight dead and 14 injured. (NBC)
Law and crime
Law enforcement in the U.S. shuts down "Silk Road," an internet marketplace for various illegal activities including the illicit drug trade, and arrests its alleged principal, Ross Ulbricht. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Someone clearly notable in the field of writing. Well-known best seller and recognized for his work. Article has been updated with basic death info but might need more details. --331dot (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but think he should get an actual blurb. Best selling novel of the 1980s, one of the authors to have first print of book exceed 2 millions, 4 box off successes based on his numerous books, tv series, co-owner of the Baltimore Orioles Major League Baseball team.50.201.228.200 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would knowing cause of death be needed? The blurb could be something along the lines of "Tom Clancy the author of numerous books, movies, and co-owner of the Baltimore Orioles dies at the age of 66" Or "Tom Clancy the author of numerous books and movies including 'The Hunt For Red October,' 'Patriot Games,' 'Clear and Present Danger' died at a Baltimore area hospital."38.100.76.235 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC){Full disclosure: I am the author of both comments by the IPs, it seems to change from moment to moment.}50.201.228.200 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb One of the few writers that deserve it. Known worldwide and made more famous by the chain of video games like Ghost recon and Splinter Cell and many movies as well. I would put him up there with Stan Lee (ok maybe a step below) but i think he deserves a blurb. -- Ashish-g5515:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is slightly more than an obituary item. It was featured on the front page of the New York Times. With that in mind, I'd like a full blurb, but am neutral on it. RyanVesey18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb ('blurp' isn't a word). Significant and well-known author, so suitable for an RD listing, but the death itself does not have the impact required for a full blurb. Modest Geniustalk16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD obviously notable enough for RD. As for a blurb, as much as I personally would like to see it happen, my wiki- conscious is saying no...--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurp, that's only necessary if he means of death itself was notable, like a ricin poisoning--otherwise obvious top of field for RD. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but oppose blurb. I support this only because of the distinctiveness in his works that sets him apart of numerous other writers and puts him in place alongside very few others mastering in spy novels. However, the claims that he was one of the greatest contemporary writers or one who was extremely popular at the time of his death are false. Frankly, he's simply not comparable to Márquez, Eco, Murakami or Rushdie, and his time has already gone in the 1990s. Since then, his works do not enjoy the same level of popularity at the time of his peak.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be applying some odd elitist criterion, Kiril. Of what relevance is the fact that Clancy's biggest hits were in the 80's? To say that matters is WP:RECENTISM. Rushdie's work is simply unreadable, and has never sold well. By Ecco, do you mean Eco? μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why an elitist criterion? It's nothing else than only a reflection of my own opinion. I can easily recognise some of his works from the 1980s and early 1990s but almost none of those published later on. The same, of course, ought not to apply for others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would humbly submit that there is a clear consensus to post this to RD, and kindly ask that it be done. Personally I don't support a blurb, but discussion of that can continue if desired. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will obviously be posted but thee is no update YET other than the fact that he died on X and without reason and where. Thats 1 line. (and its not an obituary that needs mention of who is survivng and what is th e age (its on the infobox))Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't repeat my concern that if we are going to lower the bar we should do so officially rather than cheat when it appeals to us to do so. But that he died of unknown causes is in no way an actual update, which requires more than is said in the blurb per the actual guidelines. Surely we can have two quotes frm other writers about how he influenced them, or how the major sources reacted on his death. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few details I found in the NYTimes obit - specifically his best-selling status, and how Hunt launched his career. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready only two sentences in the death section, but quite a bit of actual update as of here, and no one cares much about the written guidelines any more. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD I have to agree with Kiril that Clancy's importance is being overstated. He never won a major literary award. I see no evidence that he had much impact on literature outside of his narrow genre of spy thrillers. He was one of the most popular authors of recent times, but that's not the same thing at being one of the most important and influential. Neljack (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite as many as read Clancy. (I've read Eco, but not Ecco.) In any case, we both think RD is good enough or him, no? μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read "Eco" as well and The Name of the Rose in a language different than English is on my desk. Your sneaky offence on the grounds of the typos that others make is not welcome here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Done --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
![[23]](http://api.ning.com/files/iRhh93x186kq3YEq6Tj0RCrcpSL3OvQdtbwchc04sZTEH*dDTiI18*jIZaAzy9XsZVInwk1aB5SKywdbwOhLYdUjlIQc5*pL/soapbox.jpeg){kind=link}
![[47]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Nobelstiftung_logo.svg){kind=link}
