Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2013

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.

US Spying Allegations

 * Comment Suspect the proper target article, at this time, is PRISM. It may takes days or weeks for the relation article to distill the proper information, but it is more in line with the scope of reactions to PRISM. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed it accordingly; I got a bit carried away and mentioned more details than I should in the EU-US relations article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The matter goes beyond PRISM. It includes offline, old-fashioned bugging as well. -- RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I recognize it's quite possibly much larger than that, but it is a bit of a crystal ball right now. The relations could totally break down. Or in 24 hr the powers that be agree that it wasn't much and it was a blip in the overall PRISM story. For an ITN posting, the story stems from ongoing discovery of how deep PRISM runs. If, say, the EU formally disbands any US agreements, that itself would likely be a seperate ITN item that would feature the appropriate relationship/agreement article. But this facet, of the bugging, is news of itself and needs posting, and PRISM (or a larger article on the general discovery of how deep all this stuff has been) seems to be the right target presently. --M ASEM  (t) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I was going to add that EU-US relations or a dedicated article would be best - but for ITN it depends on where the content gets added. If the content is added to PRISM (or a new PRISM spying controversy article, or Edward Snowden, or Edward Snowden leaks) then that is appropriate for ITN. -- RA (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Very serious matter that has put the EU–US Free Trade Agreement into threat. Alternative blurb provided. -- RA (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the threat to the trade agreement is the primary rationale, then the blurb should be worded to reflect that, and possibly we should wait until said agreement is affected.  Countries have spied on other countries (friendly or otherwise) since the beginning of time, so I wonder if this is really that shocking an event as the media claims it is. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The threats of repercussions for the trade agreement is an example of the seriousness. But the matter goes beyond that. The depth and degree of spying (e.g. listening devices in embassies and UN offices) is shocking. While some degree of spying between the two blocks is to be expected, relations (up until now) were assumed to be friendly. Looks like it wasn't seen that way by both parties. -- RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, it's alleged that 500 million emails and phones calls to and from the EU have been intercepted and according to the most recent media reports, several other allied countries, including India and South Korea were also spied on; it's that type of scale that's concerning here. Anyways, the coverage of the allegations by the media and the potential implications of this on the US' international standing could justify a separate article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to me that it's not really for us to decide how shocking or bad this is. The relevant thing is the reaction, and it certainly seems to have sparked a major diplomatic reaction in Europe, as well as getting extensive international media coverage. Perhaps the blurb should refer to the reactions of European leaders, as that is part of what makes it so notable. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reaction so far is noise. That's not notable. When it becomes action we can reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose we already posted the original discovery, we cannot update ever time some twist of interpretation comes out in the news. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree completely with Medeis, and let's stop being surprised that spying occurs (and has for millennia), and that spied upon people express outrage each time it becomes public. Don't kid yourself that they didn't already know this was happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll formally oppose this; countries spy on each other all the time(even on friendly countries) and will continue to do so. If there is a specific effect (such as the aforementioned trade deal being scuttled in the future) then we can talk about that, but as Medeis said we can't post something new every time. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. There are several notable stories about spying, and we should of course post each notable distinct story, if it is notable and distinct enough (which this is). As for all contries spying, it is still notable when it gets found it. Thue (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Spying is not notable. Getting caught is. -- RA (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is headline news in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Yarnell Hill Fire

 * Note – if more sources catch on to this, it should be worth noting that this is the greatest loss of firefighters since September 11. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just re-wrote the hook to reflect that, as others will probably note that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I'd like the article to be improved before posting. short, but this is the best we can do at this moment in time. YE Pacific  Hurricane 04:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Major news, and part of the wider story of the heatwave and wildfires in the South West. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Top story on BBC news currently, even ranking ahead of the largest ever fire in the West Midlands. Large numbers of firefighter deaths are fortunately not common. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Same as above, 19 firemen deaths is an unusual amount. Donnie Park (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a significant event in its own right. It's both unnecessary and inappropriate to bring the September 11 attacks into this. Just let it stand on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose especially mention of the single largest loss of life since 9/11 sa that is purely us-centric. On a general note, this has no in the news repercussions, and on the international media (bbc for the moment, ihow long will it last?)Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support As newsworthy as the serious road traffic accidents we report around the globe. Also agree the blurb should be specific to this event only.  CaptRik (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: proposed an alt-blurb too. Not sure if I've linked things correctly. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The alternative blurb looks good, although "United States" generally suffices (although there are others, the USA is the primary topic). I think we also link countries from ITN blurbs, but I'm not completely sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated (alt-blurb), thanks. CaptRik (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, we do not link country names as per WP:overlink. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It is a very unusual number of deaths for firefighters.  That said, I would suggest leaving September 11th out of it.  9/11 was such an exceptional event that trying to draw comparisons to it does not seem all that helpful.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb should mention this is a wild/brushfire, in Arizona. --M ASEM (t) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I deliberately left out mention of Arizona in the alt-blurb as I referenced the country itself. I'm not sure what our normal convention but I don't remember us mentioning counties/regions/states etc when the country is mentioned.  CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the wild/brushfire aspect should be included. The way the original blurb reads, without being familiar with the actual fire, makes it sound like it was something happening in New England (where there are a lot of named "Hills" within urban centers, and the reference to 9/11). At least establishing that it is a wild/brushfire doesn't narrow the geography but gives better reason to why so many have died so far. --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How to do you feel about the alt-blurb now? I clarified that it's a wildfire, linking to the main article, and replaced the location with a link to Yarnell.  CaptRik (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better; I'd expect the reader will have a good understanding of how difficult wildfires are to contain and ergo why the lost of life here is significant. --M ASEM (t) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support 19 dead firefighters is tragic, note-worthy news no matter which way you look at it (aka the ending of the blurb, no real opinion of that). --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * well I agree there was consensus but perhapos should have waited for a few more hours for the rest of the world to comment.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost 13 hours isn't enough? --Tone 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This "rest of the world" nonsense only gets pulled out when a US story gets posted. For the record, the hours this was open  were probably the least friendly to the Americas possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor.
 * Also bear in mind, I did say it was a legitimate post. HJust a general ITN standard it should wait. (and there have been ITN discussion on this)Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Case in point how? This is a U.S. story, and you argued that this story needed more time to allow the "rest of the world" to comment, even though the discussion took place overnight in the United States. On the other hand, it was during waking hours in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia throughout most of the time this was open and available for comment. So... what part of the "rest of the world" was not given ample time to comment? South America? Yes, this objection (often from you) that the "rest of the world" was given the chance to comment is limited almost exclusively to U.S. stories, and it's quite clear here no one else is miffed by this posting. --  tariq abjotu  01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hissene Habre arrest

 * The article needs a lot of work, many controversial facts need sourcing. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


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

[Closed] 15 birds discovered in Brazil

 * Oppose for now on the basis that the update isn't sufficient. It doesn't tell me anything useful about the species other than their genus (and none of those articles has any mention of this news) and a note on their range (that doesn't tell me which range relates to which genus, let alone species). Following the hook, I want to know a bit about each of the species and a bit about the discovery but I'm just lead to dead ends. If this information isn't available yet, then it's probably best to wait until it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stale - discovery was announced June 5. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, can be suspended until scientific descriptions are published. Brandmeistertalk


 * Oppose - As was justly noted in the nomination for the bird discovered in Pnomh Penh, new species are discovered quite often. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but not 15 birds simultaneously. Brandmeistertalk  08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, expeditions are mounted to do just that. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Support but I what was the actual last requirement that was completed a week ago? Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ratification by all member states. The last formality looks to have been the depositing of the German instruments of ratification with the government of Italy (see Treaty of Accession 2011). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then out that into the timeline table. Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tmeline updated. Mallweft (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as a major Europeaen and itnernational topic. The last accession was 2007 and it will be several years before the next one if I'm reading the Future enlargement of the European Union article right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant event not only for Croatia, bur for the whole Europe. -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, very significant event for the country and the EU. Egeymi (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news story, particularly when you look at the number of articles this will change. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Expansion of a notable international organization; a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. per above. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 08:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant for Croatia (minority topic). Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ocomment there is only 1 sentence of an update "Entry into force and accession of Croatia to the EU is set to be 1 July 2013, as all 27 EU members and Croatia have ratified the treaty before this date"Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more sentences. Mallweft (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support A country becoming a member of the EU is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many unions exist around the world and they always add nations Nottruelosa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only two comparable unions, the African Union and the Union of South American Nations. The African Union's last two accessions were in 2011 (South Sudan) and 1994 (South Africa). The Union of South American States has not expanded since its formation in 2004-2011 (depending on what you count as formation). In what way therefore are either of your points factually true? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at all these international organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_organization_leaders_in_2012 I got the leaders article cause I can not find an article that says list of international organizations without leaders Nottruelosa (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the articles for those organisations you'll find that they cover a huge range of organisations that range from talking shops with no power and little influence, to trading clubs, to sports governing bodies, to scientific treaty organisations, to transport regulators, etc. You are not just comparing apples with oranges, but apples with the entire food department of a major supermarket. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, Thryduulf. It's evident that the above oppose has no weight to it whatsoever. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A new EU member state is indeed significant news. Should be posted at midnight local time. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to oppose this, I agree with Nottruelosa, and saying her vote is weightless is a bit bullying, no? But the target article has been getting about 1,000 hits a day for some time now. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a limit to how uninformed a vote can be before we may call it weightless? Thue (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullying!? You're kidding, right? In what way does my comment constitute bullying? I wasn't commenting on the editor in question at all, you make it seem as if I'm being forceful or rude in getting my point across. Here's a more detailed explanation: When weighing up the argument Nottruelosa gave Vs. the counter-argument Thryduulf gave it was clear the oppose had no weight to it, ergo why I called it "weightless". --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue the point. You obviously know what I meant by bullying, and if you disagree you can suggest another term for it, but the criticism stands. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the bullying issues, I think somebody who does not know that EU is the closest political entity to a federation without actually being one that there is out there, and that the level of integration within EU is well above the levels of any other unions out there (i.e. how many unions have their own currencies?) does not merit having their opinions receiving significant weight on this issue. Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis, Wikipedia is not a source. The number of hits is blindingly irrelevant to whether or not this is in the news. But as it happens, Nergaal is right, and you and nottruelosa are wrong - the EU is a sui generis international organisation. I'd gladly support the addition of a new state to the USA for ITN; an entire sovereign country joining the largest single market in the world gets my nod too.


 * Support Agree with what has already been said, the EU is one of the most well know organisations. Croatia officially becomes a member at 12 midnight UTC+2 (22:00 UTC) so at the time of writing in just 15 minutes. --  axg  // ✉  ]] ''' 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support as discussed above. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

World's Fastest Bird Killed

 * Oppose it was one bird that died, and it is categorized as "least concerned" as far as endangerment goes. It was only unseen in the UK for 22 years, the blurb reads like this specific bird was actually the fastest. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (EC) This is not an endangered species, just rare in the UK. Further, suggest a reword of the blurb to change "fan" to "wind turbine"; I thought fan meant person. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Altblurb--the purpose of a blurb is to attract readers, I am not set on mine. An alternative might be "The world's fastest bird, unseen for 22 years, is whacked before onlookers in Scotland." μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't completely unseen for 22 years; it just hasn't been seen in the UK, which isn't part of its normal territory. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was reflected in my suggested altblurb by "in scotland". "Unseen in Scotland for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is whacked before onlookers" seems a bit awkward. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't unusual for wildlife to leave their normal territory and end up somewhere else. I'm also only seeing this covered by Fox. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Usual or unusual, it has apparently only been seen once in the last 22 years, only to die in front of an onlooking crowd. As for the source, I chose Fox as outside Scotland.  See also. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the nomination, but I am still not persuaded. Not seeing widespread coverage, nor is this an endangered species, just rarely seen in one country. I would oppose if this was the US and not the UK, too. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the species were critically endangered or previously thought extinct then there might be a story. As it stands this would struggle to make the front page of a regional specialist magazine, so it's really not suitable for the front page of a global general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except it obviously hasn't so struggled. In addition to the British, US, and Irish coverage, and the UPI it's made headlines in Latin Italy and Denmark. (I believe the language is Danish). Except for not knowing what to call the victim in other languages, I am sure Italy and Denmark are not the only Non-anglophone press covering this. How often exactly do the Scottish kill birds that so rarely visit them? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It has not made headlines, it has made the equivalent of inside pages on a quiet news day. Your question is a non sequitur because "the Scottish" didn't kill it - it flew into a wind turbine. How often do birds do that? I haven't a clue but I'm guessing quite often as it doesn't make the news. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's like saying when Michael Jackson died it wasn't news because black men overdose all the time without it being news. As for not being a headline, how did I see it?  Of course it made headlines, but not necessarily the top of the front page.  Neither will Croatia's accession to the EU be top of the front page news throughout the anglosphere. We have the world's fastest bird, we have a once-in twenty years sighting, and we have a violent death in front of spectators.  What's not to love? μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If people in the UK want to see this bird, they can go to its normal territory. It's only "once in twenty years" in the UK. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * altblurb added to clarify this was in Scotland, and not by a Scotsman. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. April Fools' Day was three months ago.  In addition to the arguments above about this nomination's low level of newsworthiness, the proposed blurbs are so sensationalized that they would be shot down for use as a DYK hook.  The really boils down to "common Asian bird, outside its normal range, flies into wind turbine and dies." --Allen3 talk 02:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What a ridiculous suggestion! Allen3 emphasises how meaningless the event is. I cannot help but feel that the nomination is simply a joke. 86.158.216.17 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's just rude, perhaps you should read WP:AGF before commenting further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a tragic tale but a little parochial for ITN I'm afraid. It's not going to make any great shakes outside the locality, so not really an ITN/C.  If it was the last one, then yep, but if (as noted above) there are many around, then no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is very notable and strange Nottruelosa (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it notable? Birds fly off course all the time and birds not infrequently collide with wind turbines. What about it makes it significant and newsworthy on a global scale? Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was vagrant for 22 years according to the nominator is he lying?Nottruelosa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood a misleading statement. The bird has not been seen in the UK for 22 years, but that is because the UK is a very long way from its range - it is seen daily year round in the Himalayas and daily during the summer in north east China, Korea, south eastern Russia, northern Japan, southern Papua New Guinea and the eastern half of Australia (see File:HirundapusCaudacutusDistribution.png). The equivalent in human terms is a South Korean tourist dying in a road accident on her first visit to Britain in 22 years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the story is ironic, and as an anecdote it's darkly humorous. It's also quite fascinating, and a great opportunity to post some interesting articles.  (I'd never heard of this swift.  Where are our birders in support?)  Comments about "meaningfulness" would carry a lot more weight if we didn't post so many sports results.  Its stodginess is making me begin to think that ITN would be the one guest you would not want invited to a dinner party.  With this nomination we have: World's fastest bird, Vagrant not seen in 22 years, Killed before a crowd gathered to see it, By a "green" device that might as well have been designed by Saruman for all its environmental friendliness.  This seems like an ideal ITN nomination for me, unless one likes ITN reading like the weekly newsletter of the International Union of State Bureaucrats and Sports Pub Crawlers. This is science, this is unique, this is cool, it should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So any creature that ventures outside of its territory and is observed being killed by a crowd of humans is fair game for posting? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not science any more than any other creature venturing outside its normal range is, your (or anyone's) opinion of wind turbines is completely irrelevant and "animal dies outside usual range" is hardly unique either. Irony does not equal newsworthy, nor does dark humour or repeating the same arguments that have failed to convince others the first time. Featuring an article you haven't heard of and/or find interesting is what DYK is for not ITN. Your opinion on other stories posted or not posted is also entirely irrelevant to whether this nomination is newsworthy or not, and as basically everyone except you agrees it isn't for the many reasons expressed. If there are any birders here (I haven't a clue) then the evidence is that they don't consider it worthy of global front-page news either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, it's your opinion Thryduulf, that my opinion is an opinion? Whose opinion is it your opinion that I should give when I express my opinion?  Yours?  And yes, 311dot, next time the biggest bird or the smallest bird or the heaviest flying bird or the bird with the widest wingspread is found in the next continent over after a 22 year hiatus and then killed in front of onlookers gathered to see it, I will indeed support the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This just isn't in the news. I really had to search for it, even on the BBC's 'Highlands and Islands' section. This is a ridiculously trivial story, and I can't imagine circumstances in which we'd post it. Anyone still unclear on the difference between a fan and a wind turbine is welcome to read the relevant articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm clear on the difference, but saying something was killed by "a Scottish fan" suggests to me that something was killed by a person, not a piece of technology. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] News Corp split

 * Oppose as I am to all business news that doesn't involve some other notable story with impact on readers who don't work for the companies involved. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support With respect, this clearly has a wider impact than just affecting employees of News Corp. It is a very large, influential and high-profile multinational. Neljack (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The blurb seems to list only 1 of the 2 companies formed. It should list both or use different wording to clarify exactly what is happening.  Spencer T♦ C 05:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The second company will retain the News Corporation name; I'm open to suggestions on wording. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the split of News Corp that is the story, not the names of either of the two new companies, even though 21st Century Fox is validly big local news for the LA Times. Is that guy who squatted the domain smiling now, or is he just a myth?
 * How about: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is split into separate publishing and entertainment companies.
 * The article needs quite a bit of work. Formerip (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it's ITN-worthy or not (I find business stories very hard to judge so I generally don't), but if it is that's a better blurb than the initially proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I agree that there would be a stronger case for posting this on ITN if there was some sort of other notable story involved, but the company had such a wide reach before the split that its transformation is notable. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because splitting up a very major company is something that doesn't happen every day. The hook needs work, though. I'd rather go with "Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corporation completes its split into 21st Century Fox and New News Corp.. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same people own both entities, boring business news story. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, regardless how influential they are, I don't get how deserving it is to appear in ITN as it is totally unremarkable. Donnie Park (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Vatican money laundering

 * Oppose This pales in comparison with the Jon Corzine case, where the former NJ governor was just charged in connection with trading losses leading to 1$ Billion in unaccounted for customer funds, with the firm, MFG Global having accepted a $100 million dollar fine and liability to repay the billion dolar loss. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We generally post convictions, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose relatively small scale as far as similar crimes go.  Spencer T♦ C 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] New pulsating star

 * Oppose. Interesting for a subset of astronomers and relevant to stellar evolution models, but no wide-ranging impacts or reason for the public to care. And I'm an astronomer. Modest Genius talk 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the article has not been updated with the new results, and is almost entirely unreferenced. Modest Genius talk 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius; too esoteric for ITN. Also doesn't seem to be covered outside of science journal/information outlets. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -per Modest Genius but I want to thank Andisel for the nomination. The article is interesting, as is the concept. But just a bit outside the mainstream. Try again! Jus  da  fax   10:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This hasn't been prominent in the news, and it's not clear exactly what the implications of this observation are, yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] World's oldest genome sequence

 * Support but suggesting something like this as an altblurb The genome of a Horse from the Middle Pleistocene is the oldest DNA ever sequenced, and suggests that the Equus lineage began 2 million years earlier than previously thought. EdwardLane (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Science stories are always good. However, I don't see the update in the Horse article. But, if we go with the altblurb, the evolution article seems a better choice for the target one. --Tone 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sounds good, I'll add that as altblurb EdwardLane (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this, it is a very important story. I have updated our evolution of the horse article with the new findings; see the Genome sequencing section.  I also rewrote the blurb above, probably making it too long.  I hope I'm not acting out-of-process here -- I'm only moderately familiar with the way things are done on this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I was going to nominate this yesterday (when in was announced), but didn't know off hand which article to target and didn't feel like figuring it out - the evolution of the horse article is a great target. The main story here, however, is the record breaking DNA age (understanding of lineages is in constant flux). I suggest tightening the blurb event more:
 * ALT2: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse bone is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest DNA ever sequenced by a substantial margin.
 * Also, I would like to see a bit more on the sequencing (its one short paragraph at current) before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Comment: WikiProject Equine member here, a couple small thoughts.  You may want to use the word "equine evolution" as opposed to "horse evolution" in the blurb; while the animal sequenced was a horse, (so that's fine there) the evolutionary discoveries are relevant to the entire equus genus, (donkeys, zebras, horses...) not just the horse.  The edit to evolution of the horse article is fine from this side; we have a link to the evolution article within the larger horse article, so probably will have few changes there for the immediate future.   Montanabw (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear that "equine" will be a hard word for lots of main page readers. Regarding the length of the edit, I'm reluctant to add more right now because generally in science articles we try to avoid "recentism" -- it's already a bit contrary to policy to add this material before it has had a chance to be grokked by the field.  This is an area where one has to find a compromise between the requirements of stable scientific articles and the requirements of current news. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The article has enough sentences for an update, but only two references. It shouldn't be hard to reference the other sentences.  As for "equine", we should not dumb ourselves down.  The word is certainly familiar to minimally educated native speakers and we can simply pipe to the appropriate article if it matters. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I added a third ref - think it might be 'ready' except for agreeing a blurb, I'd be happy for the posting admin to sort that out from the various bits proposed EdwardLane (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ready updated and unopposed. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which blurb is prefered? I see some blurb-related discussions, but it's not clear which one is preferred over the others.  Spencer T♦ C 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first blurb is way too long. Otherwise they're all equally clunky. ThaddeusB's attempt is pretty good, but maybe;
 * ALT3: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest genome ever sequenced. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I can support that, though obviously I favour my 'clunky' blurb slightly, but not because of the wording (for which I think Abductive has done a decent job), rather that I think that all the articles :genome, Horse, Middle Pleistocene, DNA, Whole genome sequencing, Equus_(genus) and obviously Evolution of the horse are quite decent interesting articles compared to some of the 'just slightly better than stub' things that can sometimes get posted, and so they might 'deserve' the chance of front page billing. If the particular variety of prehistoric horse that was sampled has an article(presumably it does?) I'd have liked to have linked to that too. I just added a link to permafrost in the other blurb above in case the posting admin does choose to go with that (however unlikely). Anyway that was the thought, I was trying to squeeze the nice links in. EdwardLane (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I'd rather have it posted with any of the blurbs now than to wait for the perfect wording - they are all factually correct. Here's my try: "The DNA of a 560–780 thousand years old horse is successfully sequenced". I like Abductive's version though. Narayanese (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT3.  Spencer T♦ C 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Mongolian presidential election, 2013
{{ITN candidate }}
 * article      = Mongolian presidential election, 2013
 * article2     =
 * image        = Tsakhiagiin Elbegdor.jpg
 * blurb        = Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj {pictured) is reelected as President of Mongolia.
 * recent deaths = no
 * altblurb     =
 * sources      = Associated Press via Idaho Statesmen
 * updated      = yes
 * updated2     =
 * nominator    = Kelapstick
 * updater      = Kelapstick
 * updater2     = Mongolkhun
 * updater3     =
 * ITNR         = yes
 * note         = Note this is my first ITN nomination, so apologies if I mucked it up.  Also the election was on 26 July but it was announced on 27 July, so I don't know if it should have been put in todays or yesterdays nominations.
 * nom cmt      =
 * sign         = --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support once updated with more than a sentence - presidential elections are very ITN regardless of where, and it seems like this was a landslide for the victor, so even more reason for it to stand out. Charmlet (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oopsie :) Regardless, ITN/R. Charmlet (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I had transposed the second candidates figures. A fair bit of expansion has been done to the article since the initial nomination. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I was pleasantly suprised by the quality of the article. Let's get the results in a table then we're pretty much good to go. --LukeSurlt c 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The result is in a template which is transcluded to elections in Mongolia should anyone want to put forth the effort. It is missing the % participation but I couldn't find that yet. I have no Internet short of my phone right now but can get to it in the morning if it isn't done by then. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i have managed to transclude the template. Will clean it up when I an at a proper computer. Nice to see we now have a picture of all three candidates now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it re-elected or reelected?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, reelected doesn't come up on spell check. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A google search shows that both are widely used on en.wp pages, but the hyphenated form is used much more often (roughly 32,000 hits vs 12,000 hits). Wiktionary marks the hyphenated form as an alternative spelling of the unhyphenated, but Firefox's British English dictionary knows only the hyphenated form (this isn't conclusive though as it also objects to words like "signage"). In summary therefore I'd say either is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of Marc Rich

 * Question. Which of the three RD criteria are you asserting Mr. Rich meets, and can you explain how he meets said criteria?  Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich qualifies under criteria 1 ("The deceased ... had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region") and 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"). (1) His activities in the oil industry had a huge impact on economies of both Israel and Switzerland. (2) He was widely regarded as one of the most influential commodities traders in history; he was dubbed "the King of Oil" and "the King of Commodities," and he has been credited as an inventor (some say the inventor) of the modern oil trade.


 * "It's been a long time since we've heard from Rich but his influence hasn't faded." Marketplace


 * "Billionaire Marc Rich, who invented modern oil trading" Reuters


 * "Rich and Green were the first traders to use short-term purchases, now known as the spot market, to make big money, quickly. Buying large volumes when the price was low, they were able to control the market when prices rose." Washington Post


 * "'He actually bought and sold the earth's crust. Everything in your iPhone, your computer and your light bulb, Rich was involved in buying, selling and delivering,' said Copetas [the author of "Metal Men: How Marc Rich Defrauded the Country, Evaded the Law, and Became the World's Most Sought after Corporate Criminal"]. 'He invented the spot oil market and he's the only individual in history to have successfully manipulated OPEC, the oil companies and ultimately the price of oil in the United States and the United States government.' ...
 * 'And if the federal prosecutors had caught him at the time, they were ready to slap him with charges of treason that would make the kerfuffle over Edward Snowden look like a spat between two gerbils,' said Copetas.
 * Many of today’s biggest oil and metals traders trace their roots back to Rich, who expanded the spot market for oil in the 1970s, wresting business away from the world’s biggest oil companies." Financial Times


 * "Rich and Green were the first to pioneer the spot market (goods for immediate delivery) for crude oil, and they exploited it to realize quick profits. Due to his great success in the field, Rich was dubbed the "King of Commodities." Haaretz


 * "he deserves credit as one of the greatest creators and sharers of wealth in business history.
 * His most visible legacy is Glencore Xstrata, one of the world’s largest natural resources companies. Glencore was formerly Rich’s private holding company: Marc Rich + Co. Trading houses following in Rich’s footsteps are now a key part of Swiss growth and prosperity. A third of world trading in petroleum is handled by Swiss-based groups including Vitol, Gunvor and Mercuria.
 * Today’s world oil markets are partly the product of Rich’s vision." Financial Times


 * "'Marc Rich at one time in the mid 1970s was crucial to Israel's survival because after the Yom Kippur war they were cut off from the oil supply,' said Ammann. 'Israel really had to fight for their oil and they bought it from Marc Rich.'


 * The Israeli state never forgot this his help. With a lobbying campaign underway to scratch him off America's most wanted list, the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial pardon." The Guardian


 * Apart from those two specific criteria, Rich was notable as "the world's most wanted white-collar criminal" for nearly two decades. When US President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, Rich was on the Americans' "Ten Most Wanted List," alongside Osama Bin Laden.


 * "[H]e was called the world's most famous fugitive." NYT


 * "Following his indictment, he would become one of the world's most famous white-collar criminals." Forbes


 * Support this is a weird but good borderline case. He can be considered the richest fugitive ever to buy a pardon as a minimum qualifier. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - death update is insufficient (2 sentences). Kind of a weird situation where people aren't likely to come out with "I'm sad he died" reactions in droves, but I imagine there has to be at least some of reaction out there.  If the update can be expanded with reaction or in any other way I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If his death is important, it will not be necessary to wait for "he was such a huge influence" quotes. There are always the "on news of his death, The True Fork Times called him the greatest of the..." quotes.  This is a borderline nomination that needs a good update.  μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of what more would need to be added to the death update? He was 78, so his death from a stroke wasn't really a surprise. Dezastru (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have just posted a whole bunch of stuff above (you should sign it) which is presumably commentary from the last few days. Copy some of those into the death section saying.  On his death, the Financial Times said "yatta yatta yatta" for a few papers and it will be quite good. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Clinton's pardon of Rich was highly controversial at the time, which was the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Clinton later said he regretted the pardon for the damage it did to his legacy, seeing as Rich was a major contributor to the Clintons. Not our usual ITN RD but significant as a reminder of a highly awkward period. Agree article needs a better update, I may be able to look in on it. Jus  da  fax   19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per explanation given. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Pardon or no pardon, he was a famous figure in a globally significant field. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Gliese 667 C planets

 * Question: Are the habitability claims reported in scientific sources or the original journals? What does the specific original wording say from the people who actually made the discovery and/or are recognized experts in the field?  -- Jayron  32  01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the research from the astronomers who made the observations in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics. Andise1 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The planets exist within the (theoretical) habitable zone. It is impossible to say whether the planets are actually habitable with current technology.  I do not believe such discoveries are rare anymore, but this one has generated a lot of press coverage, so I'm on the fence as to notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThaddeusB, I would like just a bit more. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit more what? Are you asking for more sources about this news item? (I am just trying to understand what you want more of.) Andise1 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree in asking "more 'what'?". If you specify, it should be available. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What make this discover any different than all the previous times they've said an exoplanet is in the habitable zone. The answer is, it seems, nothing. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Incredibly well updated article, very notable first discovery of more than one habitable planet orbitting a star. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, Habitability simply means a planet is the right temperature (32 to 212 degrees) that its oceans never over- freeze or boil. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Exoplanet discoveries are fast and frequent these days. And these planets are suspected to be 'super-earths', so there's no reason to suspect they're habitable; they can easily have no atmosphere at all, or a toxic atmosphere, or punishingly high surface gravity. There's no guarantee that water is even present - only that if it is, it remains liquid. Nothing stands out here. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - habitable exoplanets are not uncommon these days, but three of them in the same system is really rare. Even our solar system has only two (Earth and Mars). Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support - the press coverage was substantial and the update is very good. That is enough to get me to weak support after thinking it over.  Additionally, it is the first "3 at once" discovery so that helps a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready only one oppose, very well updated, a credit to the project; to us; ready, now.
 * Oppose, without some sort of water signature I can't support these exoplanet postings. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - If mankind should begin exploring other star systems someday, these nearby planets will be some of the first to be visited. Significant story of interest to all humanity. Great article and update, and putting our best foot forward on the Main page is always a plus. Let's post it. Jus  da  fax   19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting per consensus, though I'm slightly weary of all these star articles blowing up ITN lately like Alex said above. Secret account 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The next one better have something more than "in the habitable zone"... Abductive  (reasoning) 05:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the next one will be "scientists discover first alien planet to legalize gay marriage defeats Manchester United". μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

 * Note: This is posted on behalf of User:sca, who was having difficulty doing so. I express no opinion on the matter myself. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Sergiy Stakhovsky

 * Oppose many top seeds fall in many tournaments every month of every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We post the finals only, for obvious reasons/ --LukeSurlt c 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You say that both articles need updating yet you only link to one article. You also spelled Wimbledon wrong (which I corrected for you). Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It is not the finals but a world record as someone as low as Stakhovsky (around 130) won over the top 10 before during the second wimpleton / or equivalent round.Nottruelosa (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sharapova was beaten by world number 131 Michelle Larcher de Brito today. Nadal was beaten by world number 135 Steve Darcis on Saturday in the first round.  Need any more?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a record, but even so it is essentially trivia at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ITN isn't a sports ticker, we should only be posting the result of the finals and anything truly extraordinary (e.g. if the record for the longest match is broken or something). Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We don't post interim results from the Olympics, much less Wimbledon. The eventual singles champions will be posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just trivia; if he wins the whole thing, that will get posted. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Cambodian Tailorbird

 * Comment. It's not a rare story at all. Just try googling something like "new bird species discovered 2012". Formerip (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Onion: Scientists Probably Discover A New Species Of Frog --LukeSurlt c 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha :) Well, there's Bird species new to science described in the 2010s that says that there are around five new species discovered per year, some of those extinct. However, this one had a particular interesting backstory, I thought it could be a nice science story on ITN again. Also, TFP regularly features birds :P --Tone 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That table doesn't look very reliable - the numbers are completely unsourced. Even if it is accurate, it says 22 new species of bird have been discovered so far this year. 22! Formerip (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Support significant new bird and mammal species discoveries are infrequent enough to be notable. The article is woefully undersized, for the three paragraph minimum however. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose New species of animals are dound all the time what makes this so important. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between any random species (of which there truly all many) and a high order vertebrate (of which there are few discoveries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * New species of birds are not found all the time, and not in major cities. Of new animals, about 20,000 a year are described, almost all insects, and one or two are birds. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just remembered to actually vote. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support new species of vertebrates found in major cities is a very rare thing. It is the combination of both factors that leads me to support, either in isolation I'd probably not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, aside from gimmick of being found in "the outskirts" of a city, nothing unusual. Also, story has absolutely no lasting scientific impact. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready; supported and well updated. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kevin Rudd
I have no idea what I'm supposed to put in the updater field. I'm sure someone here knows, so feel free to fix that. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait - it's not 100% clear that Rudd will be the next Prime Minister. It's probable, but there's also a chance that the independents will back Tony Abbott. Constitutional crisis looms.... The Age. So wait until we actually have a new Prime Minister to add. Worldwide readers don't care who the leader of the Australian Labor Party is, but once we get a new PM, then it's front-page-worthy. Adpete (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: p.s. whether or not he becomes PM tomorrow, he is the 26th PM of Australia. Australian convention is to count them only once. Adpete (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Thanks for that. I'll just remove "the," in that case. To the larger issue, I suppose we can place it on hold for 12-24 hours, then? International news sources seem to be reporting Rudd's return as a given, but you're right to point out that it's a bit more complicated than that. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a clear-ish picture of the forthcoming chain of events is emerging. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support posting now, minus the bit about him becoming PM (until he is sworn in). A sitting PM getting axed by her own party is newsworthy enough to post right now. The blurb can be updated if (and, I assume, when), Rudd is sworn in. We should definitely not do nothing until Rudd is sworn in. It would be silly to wait with the ticker blank given that the wait could be almost 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A rare event; the rough equivalent of a US President losing their re-election bid in the primaries. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way too premature at this stage. He has simply won a leadership challenge within the party. He still must go through a confidence motion and win support of independents, as the party does not carry a majority in parliament. There's a chance, remote as it may be, that he may not become PM. -- Dorsal  Axe  10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Just curious, since this is my first time ITN'ing anything, but what happens if I change the blurb to cut out the PM bit?
 * Wait until there is an official change in PM (which is, technically, a matter for the Queen/Gov. Gen.). --LukeSurlt c 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. The BBC News article says "Ms Gillard must write to Governor General Quentin Bryce stating that she is resigning as prime minister before Mr Rudd can be sworn in." and implies that she has not dome so yet . If so then she is technically still PM and it's just a change of party leadership, which is not ITN-worthy. A change of Prime Minister on the other hand certainly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gillard has resigned. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will support a blurb announcing Julia Gillard's resignation as PM following the leadership challenge. However it is still not 100% clear who will succeed her. -- Dorsal  Axe  12:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a blurb on Gillard's resignation to the "altblurb" field. Sorry if that's out-of-process or something. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Dorsal  Axe  13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, once we have confirmation that he's been commissioned by the GG. From what was said at Gillard and Rudd's press conferences tonight it can certainly be inferred that Rudd has been given the official big tick, and the press is reporting it this way, but it won't hurt to be sure.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Support on significance for posting the resignation now, with an update when a successor is named. There's no reason I can think of why we can't do it that way.  The resignation has been confirmed reliably, though information is a bit light in the Julia Gillard article.  Is there a better bolded article or can we get that one a bit more expanded?  If we do that, we can go with the alt-blurb now and expand as needed later.  -- Jayron  32  13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait I think I remarked something similar before when it came to something in Israel a long time ago. Julia Gillard losing the leadership vote is not significant enough for ITN nor her resigning as PM as a consequence. A new Australian PM would be, but that hasn't happened yet and it is unclear precisely who it will be or whether it's even going to really happen now as it's also possible that an early election will be called (for example, if sufficient independents demand it both leaders and the GG will have no choice, or even if they support Abbot he may just ask the GG to dissolve parliament) and I don't think the calling of an election even in these circumstances (not that far from the elections being expected and one of the reasons formthe challenge is to improve their chances or at least try to mitigate their losses in the election) is significant enough for ITN. This isn't 1975, yet whatever some random articles may say but a resonable reality of a minority government. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to posting Gillard's resignation now and then updating the blurb when a new PM is appointed. --LukeSurlt c 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb. Resignation as PM and losing party support while in office is significant in governance of a country. Rwos (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once Rudd becomes PM. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as soon as he's confirmed as PM. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. This could be Australia's only shot at a posting all summer and a prime minister resigning is enough. We don't need to wait to see what happens next and, as has been pointed out already, what happens next may turn out not to be ITN-worthy. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * *Comment It is not summer in many parts of the world, including the southern hemisphere. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Which article(s) are being proposed for bolding (i.e. which have the best updates)? --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of how unlikely it is we'll hear of Australia again before Halloween. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It has been announced that Kevin Rudd will be sworn in as Prime Minister by the Governor-General in approximately one hour (at 9:30 a.m. local time or 2330 GMT/UTC): . This is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented situation - a Prime Minister who was ousted in a party coup has then ousted his successor in another coup to get his old job as PM back. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready sworn in. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, can someone confirm that source? The video's giving me issues.  It says "is" but may mean "about to be". μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to The Guardian's liveblog, the swearing-in has not taken place yet. I'll keep an eye on it and update here when that changes. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay - The Guardian says it's official. Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sworn in - it's official . -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] SCOTUS Decision on Defense of Marriage Act

 * Oppose. For better or worse (and, quite possibly, for for richer or poorer), we've developed a pattern of rejecting stories about gay marriage that do not represent a first in international terms, which we should hold to. If there's a significant way in which this turns out to be a world first, then I'll reconsider my vote. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. The significance of this really depends on how widely the court rules. However unless it makes very large changes to the federal situation (i.e. more than simply the apportionment of federal benfits) I can't see this being significant enough for posting. --LukeSurlt c 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per FormerIP's comments, and given that repeal of the law would actually have very limited effects. It would not actually establish or institute gay marriage where it does not exist. The Voting Rights Act decision will have much greater real world impact. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If SCOTUS came down with a decision that gay marriage is a constitutional right, then maybe that would be worthy of posting, but that is unlikely.  The limited scope of any likely decision(there should also be one on Prop 8) means that it probably isn't ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Partial support if merged with Hollingsworth and Shelby rulings. Sceptre (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment DOMA declared unconstitutional under equal protection of the constitution. Tehre's another case still pending now... --M ASEM (t) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Making it clear that not all of DOMA was determined unconstitutional, more direct that parts regarding federal benefits were. --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment BBC source: -- 14:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The other case, whether the lower court's decision on California's Prop 8 (state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) which declared it unconstitutional, was held in no standing by SCOTUS (in light of the above) leaving the lower court ruling in place. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This ruling has created a precedent that will make it impossible to stop gay marriage from becoming legal everywhere in the US. While the game isn't over, it is now just a formality to go to checkmate in a few moves. Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support major news, I'd be okay with merging a bit on the Prop 8 ruling into one ITN blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: BBC News and The Guardian describe it as "historic " on their respective front pages. Although it'd be nice to somehow include all SCOTUS rulings from this week in one blurb - if anyone can manage that.  S Pat talk 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to make it clear for non-USians that are considering this for ITN: the ruling basically strikes language from DOMA that would have denied federal benefits to legally-recognized same-sex couples as long as their marriage was done in a locale (including a foreign country) where such is legal. That itself is appearing less important than the fact that the DOMA parts were rejected on the basis of the US Constitutional clause of "equal protection" and thus limiting rights to just the opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. This decision does not explicit makes same-sex marriage legal across the US, but makes it federally recognized under Constitutional protection. As such, the next major action that most analysis are saying is that any state that block same-sex marriages will see their laws challenged on the basis of this SCOTUS ruling that is based on the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Nothing has made these state-level laws unconstitutional directly, but these legal challenges will likely set out to show that. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This does not establish any nationwide position on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support What the US does on key issues is significant. Thue (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Losing financial benefits because of civil status is newsworthy how again? It's not like we're talking about SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage across the US. Documenting every single precedent along the way diminishes it IMO. Save the LGBT advocacy for when it actually happens. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per most of the reasons already outlined above. Much more significant events on this issue i.e, France, were voted down here. Hard to say why this deserves special treatment.--85.210.109.22 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A moot move by SCOTUS, which is only about some particular aspects. It's not the same as federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States. Brandmeistertalk  18:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A "historic ruling" in the headlines around the world. Opposers reasoning lacks weight and fails to convince me. An ITN-worthy blurb with mention of DOMA and Prop 8 should be posted asap as vital... and putting up a new species of bird in Cambodia instead makes a mockery of the very function ITN has on the Main page. Jus  da  fax   18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * what did the bird ever do to you? -- Ashish-g55 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Cambodia for that matter.--85.211.126.62 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Initially i was unsure about this but this is getting more attention than i would have expected. The ruling may not be legalizing same sex marriages country wide but it might as well could have... ill support it. -- Ashish-g55 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Doesn't make it legal everywhere, but it really paves the way for federal recognition. A major international news item per Spat. A larger federal ruling than anything before. 72.130.52.73 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly how to measure these things, but I'd suggest it is not as large as the federal ruling legalising gay marriage in Brazil two months ago, which we declined to post for lack of worldwide impact. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While I'd argue for inclusion of both Brazil and US rulings, the US ruling affects twice as many people, more if you consider the "ripple effects"-- the US accepts 1 million immigrants a year-- and bi-national same-sex spouses of US citizens just experienced a major change to their immigration status.  That's a worldwide impact.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I just thought I'd point out that 'international significance' does not seem to be a disqualifier for many other articles posted on ITN. Just to name a few current ones: Silvio Berlusconi scandal, floods in Canada, there's even one about North American hockey. So to suggest that this news should be disqualified for lack of international significance seems wrong to me, especially since it probably has much more significance than hockey. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is nowhere nearly as significant as it would have been if the SCOTUS had ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In fact, they refused to tackle the question; this ruling basically overturns a ban and a 1996 bill, but makes no real headway in terms of marriage equality. Surely France's ruling two months ago would have been a better choice. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Federal benefits to SSM couples is huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Although this decision isn't an international agreement/whatever, it will have a lasting effect in the United States, and this could easily be a step towards international action. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? This procedural ruling from SCOTUS could have international impact? What about the actual legalisation of same-sex marriage by several nations recently? I suggest you look again at WP:CRYSTAL. Claiming that SCOTUS has international influence where the actual elected government of France doesn't looks like a pretty insular view, smacking of American exceptionalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think many of us supporting this ITN item would have supported the French news items as well.  But let's be fair-- the US has 5x the population of France, and let's be honest, the US is substantially more influential than most nations. Federal government recognition of SSM has immediate consequences for people globally-- via immigration decisions and diplomacy.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice of all those people who 'would have' supported the French story to go and find other things to do when it was actually under discussion. France is more influential than most other nations, too. But crucially, the DOMA decision does not enable one single same-sex couple to get married - it's all about the inter-state effects of doing so. The separate striking down of the appeal on CA Prop 8 (for lack of standing) has a more direct effect on same-sex marriages, but that's not a whole nation. Seriously, this is looking like a particularly nasty instance of US-centrism here. I don't say that often, but for some reason, I seem to say it a lot about LGBT issues. The hopeless fragmentation of the US's civil rights law, and the limitless arcanity of its judicial procedures, are not the fault of the 95% or so of LGBT people who live in other nations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It's certainly a complex issue, but the decision has gotten extremely broad attention both in and out of the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose If a country legalising same-sex marriage is not significant enough to post (without more), which seems to be the current position here, I don't see how this ruling - which doesn't even go that far - can be important enough. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I listened to a story on The World, (a show jointly produced by Public Radio International and the BBC) which specifically aimed to discuss the international impact of this decision, it miught be worth looking at what they had to say about it Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per NelJack, FormerIP, and especially 331dot.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a world power who had an act on the books that has now been determined to be against their founding principles. This isn't about the gay marriage aspect of it, this is about the repealing of DOMA by the SCOTUS after 10+ years on the books as a landmark decision in countries that explicitly define marriage. Regardless, I see a lot of opposes such as "well we didn't post this so we can't post DOMA" which is just plain crap. This is in international news, and it is "in the news". None of the opposes have denied that this is in the news, just that it's not big enough. Charmlet (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I was discussing the ruling with friends (non-editors but frequent readers) who went specifically to the Main Page to find the link to the United States v. Windsor article, expecting to see a blurb on ITN and we were all shocked that there wasn't anything at all here considering the international attention this is getting. Instead, we are still featuring stale news about the Stanley Cup that has been over for a couple days now and is certainly no where near the historic level of the Supreme Court decision. People are coming to Wikipedia to find out more information about this decision and implications with it being so widely broadcasted. This should have been posted several hours ago. AgneCheese/Wine 03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think ITN truly serves readers' interest like that anymore (if it ever did), you're mistaken.  Calidum Sistere   03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. As an editor (though I don't participate at ITN often), it is easy to get tunnel vision and insular. It was certainly a bit jarring to be looking at the Main Page today through the eyes of several readers and seeing how it was clearly failing our readership at this point. We (the readers and I) took it for granted that a dynamic medium like Wikipedia would be on top of something so monumental and internationally newsworthy. We were all obviously wrong. While I can peak behind the curtain at the ITN process, readers like my friends will never stray to pages like this and will just be left bewildered and empty handed when they come to the Main Page expecting Wikipedia to be covering something that nearly every single major international news source is covering as an historic event.   AgneCheese/Wine 04:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If they wanted to find the article, they could do what I often do. Come here to this page. If it is not in ITN it will be on ITN/C. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Especially in light of the case being decided under Equal Protection (rather than Federalism), this decision will have global ramifications.  E.g. this directly impacts the immigration status of the spouses of American citizens in same-sex marriages. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's have a sense of perspective here, please. Does this ruling establish gay marriage in the United States?  It does not.  In the global movement to gay marriage, this is a very small step, considering that many other countries have already gone the full distance.  In anycase, even if this was something that established gay marriage, it has a fair chance of not being notable enough even then - with other countries, we've stopped posting news like that because it's becoming rather routine now.  At the end of the day, this is domestic news, which is of relevance to one country, and it's news that only opens the door to maybe having gay marriage sometime in the future.  That's not ITN material. Redverton (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Given the tremendous attention that this Supreme Court decision is receiving in the United States (together with the other decisions on voting rights and affirmative action), it seems incongruous that the only U.S. item on Wikipedia ITN is about the National Hockey League championship, which is a topic of pretty limited interest here. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - While I know this is a story with a greater deal of US interest than international, I think it is a watershed moment in this specific legal framework. It is not just a case, it is a fairly massively shifted paradigm. I think it meets the criteria for general notability. It doesn't have to be the complete answer to the gay marriage question just like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon wasn't the last step in space exploration. But it was a pretty big leap, just the same. In relative terms, it's certainly more important worldwide than the discovery of a new bird species, and this is from an avid birder. The story is not just that we had a ruling on same sex marriage...the specific heated context, the vast shift in social attitude and the historic nature of the context surrounding the case make this internationally notable. Being first is irrelevant in that sense. If you took all the major newspapers from the english speaking world yesterday, I guarantee this would have had more front age hits than the majority of the topics that are currently listed on the front page. It seems ludicrous to argue semantics when no one could legitimately claim this is not notable. Every major media outlet would beg to differ. I don't recall seeing any coverage of a new bird species, on the other hand.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems that ITN has room for posting a piddling nothing story of a new bird species being discovered (without consensus), so it must have room for this. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * United States v. Windsor should be the bolded article, right? --LukeSurlt c 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The post on ITN reads "...limiting federal benefits to opposite-sex marriages". Shouldn't that be "same-sex"? Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit of an ambiguity in English there. Depends if you read it as "benefits to opposite sex-marriages were limited" or "benefits were only given to opposite sex marriages". Perhaps we could change "limiting to opposite-sex" to "restricting to opposite-sex". --LukeSurlt c 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked, should be unambiguous now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Recent Deaths: Lau Kar-leung

 * Comment not much on his death or the reaction to it, which is probably needed for someone who's not that well-known across the rest of the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RD of Richard Matheson

 * Oppose as the "tribute" section is badly written and entirely unreferenced. Otherwise a notable author.  Although not sure what he has over James Herbert who didn't make it to RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Change of leadership in Qatar

 * Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Abdications of reigning monarchs in countries where they have a constitutional role are not common anywhere in the world. ISTR we posted the abdication of Beatrix of the Netherlands so there ins't a reason not to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cam e here to nominate. Definitely worth posting per ITNR as well. Except the page has NO update and is short of sources.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. When a cleanup has been made, this can go up on ITN. --Tone 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, since it is clearly notable. Egeymi (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per ITNR. We would unquestionably do this for a ceremonial monarch, so it makes sense to do this for a monarch who actually runs the country too. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the significance of this will be lost on most readers. It's not just a change of head of state, it's that an abdication of this type is rare as heck.  How we sum that up in a blurb (and per Lihaas, it needs updating etc), I'm not sure, but given a reasonable shakeup and a suitable blurb, I could support.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I have updated the article to the point where I am confident it meets ITN standards, but please do let me know if article quality concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chicago Blackhawks win the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals

 * Support, per WP:ITNR. Prose underneath final game has been added, roster sections have been updated. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 03:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a bit more expansive game 6 summary (one similar in length to what the other games have) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Summary has been expanded. Canuck 89 (have words with me)  04:51, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Update looks sufficient and the finals are ITNR. Marking Ready (though as a Bruins fan I'd hope this never makes the mainpage.   Calidum Sistere   05:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted, update looks good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Mick Aston

 * Support. Reading his article, he seems to be notable enough in his field to be posted IMO. We don't see many archaeologists. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait . Yes he absolutely meets the RD criteria as far as I am concerned (lifetime achievement award, almost certainly the most notable archaeologist in Britain) but there isn't enough detail about his death available yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that exact details are not going to be immediately forthcomming, but the article has been updated (kudos to The Rambling Man), so I don't see any reason to hold off any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Having met him I felt compelled to come here and lend my support for this nomination. He was a staple of the British archaeological scene. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I appreciate that he won't be well known outside of Britain, but I would argue he's been a major player in his field and is helping bridge that to TV and his contributions to historical knowledge itself is significant. Time_Team shows the TV program itself has been exported abroad if anyone has regional notability concerns.  CaptRik (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD assuming his article is updated with a couple of sentences about his death. I can't see anything at all in the article itself (other than the past tense) to suggest he's passed away.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dunnit myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull, here is a case of somebody known only locally, and only from television. There are a lot of experts and specialists on television documentary series. What awards did he win? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was more than just a specialist on a documentary - he was co-creator, site director and archaeological consultant for 18 years of the programme's 20 year run. He received a lifetime achievement award last year for his role in popularising archaeology and his distinguished academic work. He has been widely described as the most notable archaeologist since Mortimer Wheeler (died 1976) (e.g. ). As noted above, Time Team is not just a local TV program, and his death was reported in Australia 1 2, Zealand, Nigeria, USA and likely elsewhere. Several of those are copies of British articles but papers don't do that for every TV expert that dies. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi conviction

 * Oppose He has two more appeals possible. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. That's not a reason, Medeis. We often post significant criminal convictions and appeals are always possible (even though at least one is a racing certainty in this case), but not guaranteed to be as newsworthy. Formerip (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a reason, yes, there are plenty of criminal matters we have had nominated and not published because they had not reached final appeal, and no, appeals don't go on indefinitely, he has two per Italian law. There is no encyclopedic interest here. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It doesnt matter if he has appeals or not. Those appeals will take years and given who he is, even after the appeals he may never see inside of a jail cell. Him getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless of future appeals. -- Ashish-g55 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Per Ashishg55. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, with the option of adding in the (threatened) collapse of the ruling coalition to the blurb if that happens. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We would never post any convictions if the fact that appeals hadn't been exhausted disqualified them. This is in the news now and is notable now. People understand that defendants have a right to appeal convictions. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, "Pending appeals, Berlusconi is sentenced..."  But he's not yet been remanded to prison, has he?  I'll be quite happy to support a "Berlusconi begins serving..." blurb next decade, when it happens.  But a sentence in Italy is like a hurricane season forecast. In the meantime this is no where near the top of the news, nor objectively (as opposed to ideologically: ..."given who he is...getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless") important.  μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. L Faraone  00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, can we change the title of the target article to something less evocative, like "2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction"? There have been concerns over whether BLP would extend to "calling" this girl a prostitute, and why we'd need this in the title of the article I know not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please note the target article is still called "charges", not "conviction". I've started a WP:RM about it, as the title is clearly inappropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A court has made a finding of fact; this man paid for sex with an underage girl. The abuse of public office charge stems from his browbeating the police into releasing her, so it is a consequence of the first fact. So there is no way Berlusconi can sue anybody for libel. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. Charges have now become convictions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Gary David Goldberg

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

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Bobby Bland

 * Support - Bland played a major role in the history of blues and R&B music. His numerous hits helped define an era and his distinctive voice was unforgettable. Has won all the big-ticket music honors. Jus  da  fax   04:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I've never heard of him (not my era or style of music) but with two hall of fame inductions and a lifetime achievement award it's clear he was a very notable person in his field. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose/not ready on article/update quality - the article is short and not well referenced. One sentence on his death is not sufficient to meet ITN update standards.  If article quality is improved, I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with ThaddeusB. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom, Jusda, and Thryd. Contrary to IP 76, the article is much improved since ThaddeusB's qualified oppose.  ThadB, has the article improved enough yet?  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My oppose was qualified also, which is why I said I agreed with Thaddeus. There have been some minor improvements since Thaddeus posted, but overall, the quality of the article hasn't changed much. The Biography section is significantly undersourced and one source is relied on too heavily. When this thread started there were 12 sources. Since then, just three have been added, primarily to verify the death. And the death content itself hasn't expanded much. So my concerns, like Thad's, are based on the the totality of those issues. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - The career section is modestly improved, but remains at least half unsourced (likely closer to 2/3rds). The death material meets the bare minimum, but is insufficient in light of the overall article quality.  Either the death material needs expanded substantially or the article needs to be well sourced for me to support. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some further updating now done, with refs - will probably do some more today and tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - major figure within his genre. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - as per Ghm. Article now improved by him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Very important musician. Article is in good shape now, thanks to Ghmyrtle. --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted, although it will probably be a very short stay, unfortunately - it is currently among the oldest items in the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RD: Richard Matheson

 * Support - Obviously a very important author. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending update. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - major figure in his field. His work on The Twilight Zone alone would make him notable. Jus  da  fax   04:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (pending update) - A significant author whose works have been picked up on television and in the cinema. Was due to be awarded the visionary award at the Saturn Awards tomorrow. Miyagawa (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment' - article referencing is poor, with most of the career section unreferenced. I would also need to more than a single sentence on his death to support (e.g. reactions, "legacy" info, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the "tribute" section is badly written and entirely unreferenced. Otherwise a notable author.  Although not sure what he has over James Herbert who didn't make it to RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean Herbert? In which case, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Can you cite "far more important"?  I doubt it. (Herbert had awards, halls of fame, movies, lifetime awards etc etc etc).  Please try to be neutral here.   And there's nothing about his death or the reaction to it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support once updated - highly important author and screenwriter. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Have added a number of trubutes to page. Article should be good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work so far, there's still a section with a maintenance tag at the top.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be ok now.yorkshiresky (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral - The referencing of the "career" section is still a little weak - not weak enough for me to oppose over, but also not good enough for me to support. If TRM agrees it is "good enough to post", I am willing to post.  I also won't object if someone else posts it first. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nik Wallenda high wire walk across the Grand Canyon
Note: ThaddeusB had nominated this event in the section above, a few minutes after this nomination. I have closed ThaddeusB's nom, and I am copying his nom comments below to keep the discussion in one place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You linked to a Washington Post report. Click on it and see what the heading says. Moriori (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, different sources say different things. As I noted below, the AP (and sources that follow it such as Washington Post) say "near" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - duplicate nom removed and comment consoldated into a "support" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) There is some (RS) debate about whether the location qualifies as the Grand Canyon proper or not. The majority say "yes", but the AP and a few others (that don't simply repeat AP article) say otherwise.  In any case, we can use an alternate wording...  This is a unique accomplishment never done before in human history and a rare opportunity to get a positive story on the homepage.  The event was broadcast live in 200+ countries worldwide (obviously in the middle of the night some places), so truly of international interested.  We covered Wallenda's Niagara Falls walk last year and Baumgartner's skydive.  Many reliable sources described this as a greater challenge than Niagara, although I would consider it roughly on the same level.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Taken at face value, I was prepared to support this. But this wasn't Wallenda's longest walk, and more importantly, it wasn't actually at the Grand Canyon, although it was nearby. Yes, it's a technicality, but it makes for a much less interesting story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hardly. "Grand Canyon" is inaccurate.  Perhaps something like this, or this or this for instance. Yes, there are media reports which say canyon, but we shouldn't allow their sloppy journalism to influence our standards. Moriori (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The USGS refers to the location as part of the "Grand Canyon area". It also states that the Grand Canyon formation includes the Little Colorado River Formation.  At least geologically speaking, Wallenda did cross the Grand Canyon. (But we obvious can use a different wording if wording is the only concern.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A bit off topic, but could someone please fix the current events portal for June 23, as it is currently a red link. The portal link is now fixed. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have settle the GC/not GC issue on the article. For the one sentence (lead) version, we settled on "walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge".  This I suggest:
 * ALT: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge.
 * The feat is equally impressive whether he technically crossed the GC (according to the USGS he did) or a rock formation with the same properties but up river from the "real" Grand Canyon (i.e. the widest part in the National Park). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the LA Times article even states that he couldn't get permission from the US gov't to walk across GC proper. And doing it in an area gorge or near the site takes some of the "shine" off the feat. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unfortunately, I have to oppose because of the big debate about whether or not it was actually the Grand Canyon that Wallenda crossed. Without question, there are many people who mistakenly believe that it was the Grand Canyon that he crossed, rather than the nearby Navajo Tribal area at the Little Colorado 40 miles east (whether it's technically part of the GC or not). And it's undisputed that Wallenda did not receive a permit from the U.S. government to cross the Grand Canyon; park officials have been quoted in reliable sources verifying this fact. Although Thaddeus did a great job of rewording the content to address the objections to the claim that Wallenda crossed the GC, the debate will always exist. Because of all the reliable sources that say it was not the Grand Canyon he crossed, such as the Forbes story, plus the many others that strategically use the wording "near the Grand Canyon", I don't think this nomination should be supported. It was a great feat, but the dispute about the location is the pink elephant in the room. There will always be an asterisk next to the claim that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI... the nominator's own, one-sentence source, the Washington Post story (via the AP), actually contradicts the notion that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. Both the title and body say that it was near the GC. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with the objections raised above. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, tabloid stunt. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not saying the stunt was a mere stunt? μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose just a stunt, not going to change anything for anyone but him. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a world record, notability of the location is unclear, and the whole thing is a stunt. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro bus crash

 * Oppose - this doesn't seem notable. Vehicles crash every day. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality grounds; also no news sources are given above. My inkling is to think that the number of casualties is not enough in this case, though they were foreigners(to Montenegro). 331dot (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exactly the type of article we aren't supposed to have on WP per NOTNEWS and certainly not in ITN. --M ASEM (t) 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting comment on our news that 2013 Nanga Parbat tourist shooting (with nine tourists killed in terrorist-strewn Pakistan) is receiving a lot of support, while this (with 16+ tourists killed, albeit in an accident) is receiving a lot of opposition. Just a comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's a question, you just answered your own—"albeit in an accident". &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment A few months ago there was a fatal bus crash in China (with only Chinese! OMG not foreigners!) and it got posted.75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Twice as many dead, but yes, that should not have been posted either. Good catch! μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits, the article is in no shape to be posted, as it consists of only one sentence. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment and update - 19 deaths now, the article was expanded. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  06:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Based on improved article quality, and the fact that the notification rectangle has turned red. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just doesn't reach the level of being worthy of ITN inclusion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Albania election

 * I think the blurb should mention the winning coalition. For forming the next government, it is more important which coalition wins than which party comes first. (There is a centre-left and a centre-right bloc: according to exit polls, the centre-left bloc has won.) --RJFF (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per ITN/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. -- Ե րևանցի talk  04:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because yes. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  04:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article is a little prose-light. Formerip (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is dreadful, referencing is appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir tourists attack

 * Support once the article is up to ITN standards.  Calidum Sistere   06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, casualties from multiple countries. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * strong oppose nine casualties in an attack in Pakistan is not notable by ITN standards for war torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, etc. There are no expectations of international repercussions (China being Pak's best friend are not going to escalate this)Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support upon update. The notable thing here is not the number of casualties, but the fact that they were from other countries, giving the story an international scope; and in general attacks on tourists are rare. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is non-educational to provide extra-publicity to common terrorist-acts. How pathetic that while destructive stuff gets regularly posted, there isn't much chance to get an ITN on the newly proclaimed World Heritage Sites. -- ELEKHHT 15:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you try proposing these new UN sites? Other stuff does exist, and I think, right now, new UN sites will easily be promoted at ITN, as long as the articles are up to scratch.  The World Heritage Site article needs some updates I think, and then we're good to go?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your positivism, but no, I'm tired of the outcome. -- ELEKHHT 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll help out with the update, if required. Previous outcomes are not relevant.  Boom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TRM is correct - previous outcomes don't matter. Also the only way to change the balance of stories on ITN is to try.  Lately we have posted a number of "different type" stories that may not have even been nominated in the past. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * New world heritage sites are definitely notable. All that is needed for a successful nomination is a sufficient update. --RJFF (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I missing how world heritage sites are related to domestic French legislation? Post the WHS nom and see what happens. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe need to read more carefully what I wrote. Also thanks for all the DIY advice, but I am familiar with Wikipedia.-- ELEKHHT 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - terrorist attacks of this scale happen at least once a week or in Pakistan. I am uncomfortable with the idea the lives lost are somehow more important because they were foreigners. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that foreigners are more important, but it does provide an international scope, especially in this case where the victims were from three countries. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support What makes this particularly notable is that the people killed were apparently climbers headed up Nanga Parbat, the ninth highest mountain in the world and considered extremely difficult -- many people have died attempting it. So these were not your ordinary tourists.  (I should note, though, that it doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers.) Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you support because "killed were apparently climbers" although "doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers". -- ELEKHHT 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I would support anyway, but if it turns out to be correct that they were climbers then it becomes a strong support. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - The article has now been updated, and will be ready for being posted provided there is sufficient support. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: One of the headlines in many international news media. --RJFF (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this seems to be notable because the victims were foreigners, which is not an encyclopedic viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Support A tragic accident but (for our purposes) provides interesting ITN hooks. -- RA (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either RD or Blurb is fine. Article is a bit sparse, but this is top sporting news right now, so willing to overlook article sparseness for level of coverage this is getting.  -- Jayron  32  04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - his death is a big story, but he wouldn't be considered at the top of his field. Thus, only a full blurb makes sense.  I would like to see a bit more expansive article (prose wise) before supporting so consider me neutral on full blurb at this time and opposed to RD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb. 24 Hours of Le Mans is ITN/R anyway, however running a "racing" blurb would be burying the lead. --LukeSurlt c 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to hang on to this until the end of the race but I am going to be off before then, but as the full blurb is 90 minutes away and I am figuring that it will be another predictable Audi win unless they suffer from a horrible mechanical failure I shall propose my version of the full blurb below. Donnie Park (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (proposed blurb) The 24 Hours of Le Mans, won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, was marred by the fatal accident of Allan Simonsen.
 * Good one. It seems like a reasonable idea to combine the conclusion of the race with Simonsen's death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support particularly the newly proposed combo-blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support combo blurb - good idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Thaddeus B. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the blurb because we use the present tense in blurbs and because I think "fatal accident of someone" reads a bit awkwardly. Formerip (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm pretty sure no-one ever refers to this race as "24 hours of Le Mans". It's the Le Mans 24 hours, surely? That's what the news source calls it. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Altblurb This is what is normally simply called the Le Mans in English, no? I suggest: "In car racing, the Le Mans, is won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, and marked by the death of Allan Simonsen. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it referred to as "The Le Mans". Le Mans on its own is identifiable, but not The Le Mans.  24 Hours of Le Mans and Le Mans 24 Hours are used alternatively, both are acceptable. The359  ( Talk ) 22:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a source that uses "24 hours of Le Mans", in English? Formerip (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wins the Le Mans" has plenty of examples. "The Le Mans" is as common as "The El Nino" and "The Alhambra." But it seems this is a series, and the 24 hour race is one in the series?  If it is just part of the series we probably shouldn't be publishing it.  Personally. I know more about knee surgery or crochet, so I have no professional opinion here--just a bias towards being concise and unawkward in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speed Channel, ESPN using 24 Hours of Le Mans. "Le Mans" is a brand name given to three different racing series based on the 24 Hours of Le Mans - American Le Mans Series, European Le Mans Series, and Asian Le Mans Series. "24 Hours of Le Mans" avoids people confusing this for any of the three series. Most of your examples of "the Le Mans..." is actually just part of a title, such as the first example being "the Le Mans Series Manufacturers Championship", or in other examples "wins the Le Mans 24" or "wins the Le Mans 24 Hours". <font color="#004400">The359 ( Talk ) 22:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I would go with Le Mans 24 Hours and have changed the altblurb to fit. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Le Mans 24 Hours" gets 5.7M Googles, "24 Hours of Le Mans" gets 26.8M. Stephen 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting congrats on a well done blurb. I was wondering how someone would put all that info into one blurb, and it was very well constructed.  Well done.  -- Jayron  32  03:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Alberta floods

 * Support. Significant flood with a large displaced population, affecting a major city and the signature event of the City (the Stampede).  Article seems to be in good shape to me. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) The article is in a good shape. Tentative support. --Tone 13:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I'm sure some will say "three deaths doesn't warrant a blurb" especially when the floods in India have killed more tha 500. However, the flood has impacted a significant portion of the city, Calgary is one of the largest cities in Canada and the fallout from this flood will impact the whole province for quite some time. It's also been getting front page coverage in major news sources outside Canada (ie. CNN). -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a major natural disaster affecting the centre of a major city in the regional context. Featured on the BBC news as well. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been fortunate to not really be affected, but I know many people who have.  This flooding is unprecedented for our region and has been significant national news for the past several days, with widespread international coverage. Resolute 16:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, 100,000 displaced is huge for Canada. Teemu08 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty big news here in Alberta, that's for sure. I live further north and am thus unaffected by the situation in Calgary, but I do know people who live in that city. From what I've heard, the worst has likely passed. Here's hoping they can manage things effectively from here on out. Kurtis (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Riga Castle fire

 * Comment - is there a compelling reason for a stand-alone article? From what I see, including the material in the main article would seem to be the better way to cover the fire.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is previous - 1992 Windsor Castle fire. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Windsor Castle article is a very long one, also the fire article is a long one. At this point, merge is a reasonable idea, I have suggested it on the talkpage. Tentative support to post, otherwise. --Tone 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now merged the articles. The update is substantial, seems ITN material to me. Could I get more feedback before this gets stale? --Tone 05:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment seems hard to say what the impact of this is, both in Latvia and across the world. Suggest we wait until more information is available before trying to declare judgement.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - News coverage is extensive and the article quality is good now that the two have been combined. Will need more than just my vote to post though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The last BBC report I could find was from a couple of days ago where it said no-one was killed and it was unclear what actual damage had been done. Can you clarify that position which may help us understand why this should be ITN?  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I supported because the fire damaged a historical building of great importance to one country and because it was one of the top few "world" stories on several websites the day it happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 NBA Finals

 * Yeah, so this just needs to be updated, namely with a summary of Game 7 and a clearer indication that this event has already occurred and resulted in a Miami win. --  tariq abjotu  04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose ever BOOOOOO MIAMI WON – H T  D  04:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. The update is there and it's ITNR. I doubt there will be any serious opposition. Also, adding the sport. --Tone 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with HTD here. (Seriously, should be posted.) 331dot (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How sneaky posting this when most of Europe was at work or school! Lol jk I trollz u. Count this as a post-posting support...--85.210.103.215 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are plenty of free pictures of (series MVP) LeBron James that could be used to update the picture. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No no no for the love of Jimbo, no. (LOL) – H T  D  16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Jimbo"? That's Mr. James to you. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Could someone please pipe the links beneath "Miami Heat" and "San Antonio Spurs" to the actual current teams, not the franchise, which means 2012–13 Miami Heat season and 2012–13 San Antonio Spurs season? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. And the Alberta floods have a pic, so there is no risk of a LeBron pic anymore. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Thaddeus is merely following a request, but this is not the way we normally report any sport event: the club article, not the club's season article, has always been the target, and I see no reason why it would not be in this case. The club article includes the present squad. The season articles are far inferior, with virtually no prose.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought, but could be wrong, that Bender was correct and we usually link to the season pages when available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. --  tariq abjotu  22:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur, and have respectfully reverted this change. Stephen 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will remember not to post season articles next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Jeffrey Smart

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

*Oppose Not convinced that he was a very important figure in the field of cinema. Important perhaps, but not very important. The article also lacks citations and reads like a puff piece. Neljack (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally linked the wrong article, so you might want to reconsider your vote. Andise1 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry, I must have missed Bongwarrior's comment. Seems to have been a very acclaimed and innovative artist. His death is getting international attention - I found this interesting article from The Guardian: Our article contains a good, in-depth discussion of his art, though it may need some work regarding sources. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Article will need some work (more citations). In particular, the "influences" section is (potentially) OR if not cited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is lame, it includes sentences such as "The following are a small random selection...." Many more references required, to be honest it's borderline sales brochure towards the end of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Kenneth Wilson

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


 * Moot - The article states that he died on the 15th, not the 20th, which means that this is already older than the oldest blurb currently in the template, and thus stale. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose regardless of the above, remove the external links and See also and the list of awards and you have a stub. And a poor one at that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT nobel learueate. is notable enough,Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The general consensus I have observed is that merely winning a Nobel Prize is not enough by itself, though this man has won other awards. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should have been posted. (Probably too late now). The man revolutionised statistical physics. One of the greats.  Jheald (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article should be so much better then, and should have been nominated in time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Southeast Asian haze

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

Does the west wind have anything to do with climate change? That's you know, completely the opposite of what it should be in the tropics. The winds of that whole map are messed up. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly note the the wind indicated is ground wind. Secondly I have done my very best to copy the wind data from here. It should not be too far off. Could you tell me any specific areas where the wind directions are messed up? Thanks. Oliver  lyc  08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did. I meant messed up compared to climate not to data issues. I once saw a wind direction probability rose of Darwin, Aus. or Cape York and the asymmetry was remarkable (it was trying to show how the prevailing wind is more reliable in the trades than the Westerlies). As slash-and-burn happens all the time in Indonesia, maybe that everything is going the wrong way now and causing is caused by global warming changing things, similar to how a warming Arctic weakened the Westerlies so much that Hurricane Sandy could cause the worst flooding in New York history? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've heard either of those theories. Any reliable sources for your research?--WaltCip (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is something similar going on here? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed to a better blurb and picture. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See the article about the monsoon. – H T  D  16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1: Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia has caused the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore to date, with the PSI hitting a record 371 in the Hazardous range. -- Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is decent. Ready to post? --Tone 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if that helps, the article is in a good state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the shorter ALT 2: "Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia has caused the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore to date" μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - picture is nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. In response to Tone, I would like to see more support before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a very major event for that part of the world, article looks good. CaptRik (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Unusual but notable and ITN-worthy. Jus  da  fax   20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Draughts World Championship
How do they do it, that perfect checkers play (the 8x8 kind, at least) has been computed? Do they just force them to use suboptimal and unsolved openings? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 8x8 board was solved using slightly different rules than tournament play use. The Championships are played on a 10x10 board, which makes it a order of magnitude more complex to solve using brute force.  (It would also be impossible for a human to memorize the solution - it took computers 10 years to solve working nonstop.) Also, the opening moves are determined by a random draw in many tournaments (not sure about the championships). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose In principal I might consider supporting this, but the article on the world championship is simply a list of winners. There's no useful encyclopaedic information about the format of the tournament itself so I can't see how this can be considered for the main page in its current state (sorry!). CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, none of the articles are not up to ITN-level quality. Would be an interesting story to consider, otherwise. --Tone 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose like Tone says, none of the linked articles are up to scratch, we'd need some serious work for ITN. Having said that, it's a good topic and something we perhaps should consider in the future if we can upgrade the quality of the relevant items.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to Recent Deaths] James Gandolfini

 * Support RD, skeptical about full blurb Tony Soprano is an iconic character. The Emmy Awards put him at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprise this is the kind of death (young, unexpected) that could use a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall quality is adequate, but will need a good death update. As a unexpected death of a person in their prime, his death should be notable enough to generate plenty of sourcing (i.e. on the death, not just obits). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be plenty of reactions, especially from Sopranos cast and crew, by tomorrow morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I think this deserves the full-monty when it comes to posting, so this means a blurb. CNN has practically went full boar about his death, which he won a three television Emmy's and Golden Globe's, so it is a huge deal.HotHat (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This actor should be ITN mentioned. Even though I realise that there are a "american famous actor"-syndrom on Wikipedia here we have actually an actor that deserves a mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very noteworthy actor who is deserving of a spot in RD.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Multiple-award winning actor, unexpected death. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only He was famous only for portraying Tony Soprano, for which he was given all the credits and was honoured with multiple awards. This is not enough to support it for a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per the above reasons. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for a full blurb is that his death was unexpected and under unusual circumstances. It has nothing to do with one's opinion of his acting, which I think was highly overrated. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I don't feel he is on the same level as Margaret Thatcher (I believe the last death to get a full blurb) or Nelson Mandela (who is often also suggested as someone worthy of a full blurb), and as I understand it a full blurb is reserved for those tip-top people. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A full blurb can also be used for situations where the death itself is notable (not syaign that applies or does not apply here, just that it is a possibility). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested only an RD because first while a notable actor and award-winning, he wasn't a person I'd expect known across the globe, and while a stroke at 51 is unusual and tragic, it is also not unheard of. RD ticker is perfect, but I'd think a full blurb would be a lot more difficult to support. --M ASEM (t) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. His fame was narrow, all built around a single TV series. Even American TV fans who never happened to become keen on the show would not know who he was. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. For RD only, though. That should go without saying, but recentism is certainly at play. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, although it was posted.Egeymi (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Ready] Recent Deaths: Gyula Horn

 * Support in effect, if not image, one of the most important statesmen of the end of the last century. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The death update looks good, but the rest of the article is mostly unreferenced. For example, the "His role in 1956" section has zero refs.  I can't support the article at its current state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, do please tag it. But I won't be back to it tonight. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs proper referencing, including dealing with WP:LINKROT. Right now not in a good enough state for Wikipedia's main page, RD or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point the article is quite handsome and looks well-referenced. Unless there is some further defeect (in which case, please tag) I intend to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "His role in 1956" section is completely unreferenced and is marked as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented out that section. It looks like it was translated from the Hungarian article which read well enough to look for sources in.  Had the section been addressed before his death it could have been removed entirely on BLP grounds and much would have been hard to restore. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Slim Whitman

 * Support 120,000,000 records sold back in the days before anyone knew what a billion or a trillion was. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article will need more referencing (and preferably also some reaction to his death) before I can support on quality, but notability is there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements as outlined by ThaddeusB. The nominator and Medeis make very convincing points as to notability and importance within his field. Pedro : Chat  21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Never heard of him, but I'm convinced by his accomplishments – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, seems to fit the bill.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of causing drama, I have pulled this. The article is in poor shape with vast unreferenced blocks.  Supports above are based on notability alone, with no reference to article quality (except for me & Predo who both say it is not adequate). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No drama at all. Stephen 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article is in better shape now - just a few more citations in the "Biography" section and removing the orange tag (and posting) would be warranted. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Repost the claims have been referenced or removed and the tag is gone. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the tag has been removed and a few s have been fixed, the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th paragraphs of the biography section are without any references. Thus, my concern about article quality remains - it is better than it was, but not good enough (IMO).  However, I won't dispute it if someone else posts.  As a point of reference, DYK requires a minimum of 1 citation per paragraph.  To me, that is a good standard to have for "normal" stories (such as this one), which exceptions possible in exceptional circumstances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's much more helpful if one actually tags the claims in the article so they can be reffed or removed rather than mentioning them here and making one guess and have to keep revisiting the issue. In any case, I have added one or two refs to the paragraphs you've mentioned, and commented out para 7 for now, since it looks interesting but easy refs were not forthcoming. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Uttarakhand flash floods

 * Comment: There were several articles about these floods under various different titles. They've all been redirected to 2013 North India floods now, as the flooding affects multiple states.  The overall death toll is at 130.  Article needs some work (better use of English) and broadening to reflect the complete scope of the (obviously very notable) disaster. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The linked article has been changed, and the death toll updated. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the entire article, and rewritten it in many places. A little tweaking might be all that is required, but otherwise the article seems ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - notability is obvious; article condition is now decent - the English and scope are much improved (thanks Soni). A further copyedit and a few more sources (i.e. more information) wouldn't hurt, but there's nothing to oppose over.  (P.S. I'm glad someone wrote this article so I didn't have to, as I was going to nominate this if no one else did.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious support. Very significant floods covering a very large area. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Major news. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 *  Question Support Does anyone know how regularly this region experiences floods of this magnitude (from the linked article the geography makes it look like it could be a regular occurrence). If so, is this story different to previous years, or has it simply made bigger news this year, possibly because of the death toll?  Just trying to get a feel for things before offering an opinion. CaptRik (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I know/can figure out, there were floods last year in a smaller magnitude. Other than that, I dont think there were any other floods, atleast on a major/comparable scale. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the geography, its quite common to have floods in this area. But the magnitude is huge this year. Last year's death toll was less than 40 or so. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses, I support this. CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Tone, ThaddeusB, The death toll has risen to 500 now. Could we have a sticky (or a reblurb), given how the serious the news appears to be? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated and bumped. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Death toll has surpassed 1000 (see NYT article). Needs another update. -Zanhe (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the article needs to be updated. The BBC has yet to get to that total, but it may be because the last update for them was 10 hours ago.  However, please make sure the article is updated correctly and then we may be able to update the ITN blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Article re-updated, TRM. I suggest we reblurb and rebump to "Death toll due to flash floods and landslides in Uttarakhand, India now crosses 1000."
 * Also, the ITN credit for the two updaters has not been given, I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Repinging Tone, ThaddeusB on the above. A correction of death toll, unless the official toll actually reaches 5000 as reported, would be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the blurb to read "more than 1000" earlier today. As to updater notifications, they are rarely done by most ITN admins, but if you like feel free to give them yourself: ITN notice --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. I was under the impression that they were always given out, and the admins updating it was the one always giving it. Thanks for the clarification. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This item is currently at the bottom of the ITN template; I think we may want to bump this again instead of removing it if a new item is added anytime soon. This is a huge disaster, it's still ongoing, and the article is still being updated and attracting a lot of pageviews. --Bongwarrior(talk) 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bongwarrior. If it's likely/ possible, the news should be made a sticky at the top/bottom of the ITN thread. Relevant newsworthy items are coming up everyday for this incident. Yesterday, a chopper in the rescue crashed, killing all 20 onboard. (1 2 3) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Tianhe-2
Support if performance figure is indicated in the blurb (33.863 Pflops compared to American 17.590 Pflops is a significant difference). Brandmeistertalk  07:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Good update; we've also posted a similar item a few years ago as well. Marking nomination 'ready'.  Spencer T♦ C 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan funeral bombing

 * Except in Pakistan.--WaltCip (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a little facetious to have said. Anyway, I support, pending article creation. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the best at creating articles, so it would be nice if someone could create an article about this incident. Andise1 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created an article about the incident...even if this ends up not getting posted I still feel it is worthy of an article which is why I created one. Andise1 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose although I wouldn't have phrased it quite like WaltCip, the point is that events are going off all the time like this. We would need a separate ticker to keep up with them.  This is tragic, incredibly so, but seemingly not out-of-the-ordinary for this part of our globe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose basically per TRM and WaltCip. There is a War in North-West Pakistan, just like there is one in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Bombings which don't affect the course of the war have sadly become routine. ITN could almost turn around daily with the bombings in those four countries alone. --IP98 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 protests in Brazil

 * Wait let's see which way the momentum's going, we can post this as timely tomorrow if they don't die down. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support it already drew attention from the UN and Amnesty International for the police brutality during the protests. Pikolas (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's hardly anything, those bodies exist to react to protests. It's like the bureaucratic-protestant version of the military-industrial complex.  It's when real entities react that we have a news story. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is now frontpage on BBC and CNN. Yesterday, 100k protesters in Rio and 60k in São Paulo, plus many thousands more in Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and Brasilia. President Roussef has reacted to the protests: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22961874. Someone with wiki knowledge should update the article. Thanks,201.9.176.124 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not frontpage on my BBC, and the article (which I finally found) states 10s of thousands across Brazil, not the 100ks mentioned above. Blurb doesn't actually tell our readers what this is all about, so all in all, not a good ITN/C.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the article I posted, it says 100k for Rio and 65k for São Paulo. The wiki article however is a mess, and I only found it via the portuguese wikipedia. Thanks for your comment, 201.9.176.124 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I tend to go for global sources like the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that's exactly what s/he's saying. The BBC source provided above mentions that "The demonstrations are Brazil's largest since 1992" and "In ... Sao Paulo, about 65,000 people took to the streets. The largest march was in Rio de Janeiro, where some 100,000 people marched peacefully".  Mohamed CJ   (talk)  03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. The article has some sections unrelated to the event which is WP:Synth.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Chronus (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support certainly bigger than the tempest in a teapot in Sweden that we swarmed over ourselves to publish. Eurocentrism has got to stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the "50-100 rioters" in Stockholm is more than TRM's "100k protesters" he's looking for in Brazil... – H T  D  11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, just been looking for information on this in fact. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready to post. However, I'd like another blurb. Can you suggest something like "Hundreds of thousands of people in Brazil protest against X"? --Tone 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article needs some cleanup; the "background" section is a mess. For example, there's a relatively poorly written section about reproductive rights (2013_protests_in_Brazil), yet I have no idea how this relates to the protests, which I thought were about public transportation issues? This isn't a patchwork "List of social issues in Brazil" article.  Spencer T♦ C 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon a closer review, I see the 2013_Brazilian_protests introduction to the section, which is unreferenced. Nonetheless, I highly doubt those sections need to be included, but if so, they need to be substantially truncated so their relevance is not overstated like it is now.  Spencer T♦ C 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending subsection. Accordingly, Abductive  (reasoning) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sections aren't offensive, they are truth. I need sources for truth, true, but I'm already working on this. We had a hard life for 21 years, sometimes much harder than this (Dilma >>>>>>>>> Fernando Henrique), and even so we didn't went to the streets. Obviously social liberal movements against corrupt, rich, intolerant Evangelical preachers in our government was a catalyzer. While in part I can't give too much attention to them as it is part of Globo's and government's agenda to drive people's opinions away from the most important, as seen in the rushed vote for the "Projeto Cura Gay" for allowing psychologists to try to change sexual orientation, it is a matter of fact that seeing revoltuous mobs against those guys in the second round of the Arab Spring made many wake up that they would go to the streets to push for their wishes too. Lguipontes (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The facebook page calling for a new protest in Rio today says: "Esse movimento é horizontal e sem lideranças. Estamos seguindo o que foi decidido na plenária: só negociamos depois da REDUÇÂO da tarifa, de todos os presos políticos libertados e do anulamento de todos os processos contra manifestantes. Não há mais mal entendidos! As pautas não foram decididas por ninguém sozinho, mas por uma plenária aberta que contou com mais de 1500 pessoas! Todos juntxs! Pras ruas amanhã!"
 * For this reason, I think it is important to document the background of what made this eruption of protests (no, this is clearly not solely about the bus fares, it means that the protests will have no negotiation with the government before they attain this minimal ground of ours) in all aspects that make a significant minority (20%+) of Brazilians mad with their congressman. So, given that people here in Wikipedia complain this is OR, gives the article lack of clarity or whatever (Wikipedia inflexibility is inflexible, I know), we need to create more specifical articles or move them to "X movement in Brazil 2013 about issue Y" (but then I will have to do almost all the research because I'm one of the only few that speak Portuguese), put small summaries in the main one and mantain the present style, instead of just deleting altogether. You could try to build it more reasonably in its talk, where another long-term Brazilian user supported the article in the way I wrote it. Lguipontes (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply because something might be truthful doesn't make it relevant to a particular article. This information is OR unless there are reliable secondary sources linking these specific issues to the protest. I'm not seeing that, but please include refs if they exist. We do have articles like Social issues in Brazil where it would make sense to list these ideas, not in a specific article about specific protests. Also there's LGBT rights in Brazil (see lots more articles like that at Template:Brazilian LGBT topics). I'll make further comments on the article talk page, but article ownership is a concern when you describe these sections as "my narration" of the protests.  Spencer T♦ C 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When I removed the subsection I did so to get the article posted to ITN, not because I disagreed that it was true or not. The material needs citations before it can be put back. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is being worked through on the article talk page. This is more of an issue with the title of the article "2013 protests in Brazil". The background includes other protests that occurred in 2013 in Brazil (that are mostly referenced), yet are not related to the Revolta da Salada protests currently in the news (and the focus of the article, as seen by the introduction). The article needs to be retitled to something more specific (so that other information can be in a separate article about 2013 protests in Brazil), but there is not yet a centralized agreed upon English (or even Portuguese name) for the protests as of yet.  Spencer T♦ C 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, important, massive, article has 61 refs, delay is pointless. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready Yes, I asked for a good faith wait yesterday, and today shows it's good and ready to go, now. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

2009 G20 espionage

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

[Posted] G8 summit

 * Absolutely Opposed unless there is some subsidiary event with its own notability. Politickers politicking in plush purlieux is not news. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR; if you don't want it on ITNR, propose it for removal. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Important global summit that allows us to link to interesting geographical places from ITN (i.e. interesting/unusual hooks to our articles). I'm surprised this is not ITN/R to be honest. I've suggested a slightly alternative blurb. -- RA (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * G8 summits are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There are not normally this many world leaders of large nations in one place at the same time. Do we post both the opening and ending, or just when it is over? 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but at close of play. Formerip (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support at the end - nothing has actually happened at the beginning - our readers are more likely to be interested when they can read about what has actually happened or been decided at the summit. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How in the world do you know that something actually will happen? μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it (quote from template). So, if there is a complete non event at the G8 then the update will not be significant and then it can be opposed without a crystal ball. wait until event is over then decide EdwardLane (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Something has a happend. Per the blurb the summit opened. -- RA (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know if this is on ITN/R? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently G8 was one of a number of items added to ITN/R here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing to see here, unless something major actually comes out of this, it's just another meeting (only this time, they didn't wear a tie!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry. I have opposed it, just as Medeis has.  And as you very well know, the discussion ongoing at ITN/R is now looking at redefining the whole point of these articles which have some kind of dubious "notability" candidates.  But thanks for your note! (If it makes you happy, the article isn't written in the correct tense and has a maintenance tag so you could/should be opposing on that ground too, but maybe you haven't read the article...  Per your conditions, your "support" is pointless, because you're saying "Support per ITN/R, but the article isn't ready".  Irony?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dubious? The item was nominated and accepted at WT:ITNR. Fortunately it's in the news and not "what The Rambling Man finds significant". --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you were averse to "sarcasm"? Items at ITN/R are now being routinely opposed and not posted, regardless of their update.  You know that.    The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Routinely? I know of one and that article wasn't updated so we can't even be sure the significance based opposes even mattered. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what TRM, you're right. I'm a jeering spectator, doing "whatever it is I do". You're better than me in every way. I was wrong to doubt your reasoning, your logic, or your suggestions. It really shouldn't be "what IP98 finds interesting", but it should be what TRM finds important. You're better than everyone, certainly better than me. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. You can reply to me, and be assured that you'll have the last word. I won't be replying again. --IP98 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R pending expansion of the agenda section. You would think it's easy to find, but google let me down. The closest I could get was this: --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has absolutely nothing about what was discussed. It's embarrassing that so many people are default "supporting" an article which has no ITN-relevant content.  According to "current rules", if it's ITN/R, nobody needs to "support" it until the update is made. ("Support pending update" is a waste of bytes).  Omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated - summit is over and the article has been updated. A have suggested two new blurbs above - one with the three major points of agreement, the other just on Syria which was the main focus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb issue: "transparency" in what sense? How does a main page reader have a clue what that means?  Noted at WP:ERRORS.   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Montréal mayor arrested

 * Once again, the mayor of Montreal is ousted due to the ongoing corruption scandal in Québec. No actual charges have been laid; I'm assuming that's what they'll be, and I won't be around later. Is this better to have this go up when sentenced instead of now? Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  14:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Two political upheavals, one an arrest, one a resignation, with the impetus being corruption in both cases. Maybe you can link fraud and corruption to the corruption scandal, if such an article exists? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless he does get convicted.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose innocent until proven otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - City-level politics, unless the attendant crime story proves to be really big. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The charges have to do with activities he allegedly did while a borough mayor, not while Mayor of Montreal, even leaving aside that we normally wait for convictions to post. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending update it's not often that the mayor of a first world city is ousted and arrested on corruption charges. The article requires expansion though. What happens next? Is there an election now? Details of the charges also needed. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have supported on those grounds if the charges were based on activities he did while Mayor, but they seem to be based on things he allegedly did while a borough mayor. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Possibly if convicted, but until then he is innocent until proven guilty. Neljack (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if convicted. Not a high-level enough politician.  Spencer T♦ C 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to be minor news. Call me if he smokes crack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose c'mon - he's a mayor of a big city, isn't corruption part of the job skills requirements? much less interesting that congressmen named Wiener showing their wiener around, that we didn't run with. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Czech raid against organized crime

 * Support I think a Prime Minister resigning in a scandal involving a major criminal investigation is sufficiently significant. It is certainly getting widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article looks good, ready to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Update could be a bit more thorough. Aside from that, support. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  14:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Definitely notable. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Change of head of government, and a serious political and criminal affair behind it. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, since it is notable and widely covered event.Egeymi (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looks appropriate for posting, but the article title is a bit under-specific, I think. Do the Czech police raid organised criminals on a strictly annual basis? "Nagyová case" seems to be the local name for it. Maybe a page-move would be in order? Formerip (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No they don't, as far as I know. This particular investigation relates several causes and it is not entirely clear why. "Nagyová case" is the name of the Czech Wikipedia article and it appears also in the Czech press, but I don't think it is fair to relate the scandal only to Nagyová, even though she is the most important target for the media. It isn't only about her. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose change in head of government, but not head of state. --IP98 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support interesting story which may interest WP readers. The article is kind of a wall of text. A few extra section headers and a TOC would help it. --IP98 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] José Froilán González for RD

 * Weak oppose. I am not an expert in auto racing, but being the first to win a race with a particular make of car doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me, at least.  This man did not win any championships and only won 2 races.  Maybe it just needs to be explained to me, but I don't see how he is notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In Formula 1 terms, Ferrari is not just any make. They have a continuous history in the sport from its origins around 1950 to the present day and have dominated it in several periods and have won by far the most constructors titles (16 to the second place's 9). I know this does not answer all your concerns, but if it were any team other than Ferrari then it definitely wouldn't be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I assumed the nom meant that he won Ferrari's first driver championship, but I see that it was actually just their first race victory (he only ever won two races). I'm not convinced that Ferrari's subsequent domination of Formula 1 means that he is a very important figure in the field, as opposed to those who were responsible for that subsequent domination (the drivers who won all those championships and the behind-the-scenes people etc). Neljack (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sympathaize If we had a two-tier system where certain less markworthy nominations like this could be posted when there's empty space at RD and would be bumped first when full tier nominations were approved I would vote in favor of this posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Justin Rose Wins the US Open

 * Oppose based on current article, which is shameful considering the notability of the US Open. Is it because a Brit won it?!  Obviously would change to support should the article be updated to a reasonable extent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The update on the "Final round" section is more quite appropriate and has nothing to do with him being a Brit. If it was due to that, then no one would've updated the "Final round" after their "bets" lost. It could've been better if it described how Rose won it hole by hole, though I haven't seen that detail in major golf tournaments articles... – H T  D  18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the article could use improvement. However, implying it has anything to do with Rose's nationality is not helpful. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Standard lack of understanding of "irony" here. Thanks for that guys!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't come across in text - probably would have better been understood if spoken. Sorry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready - article is now updated (and cleaned up) to the point where it can be posted. (It's INT/R so no "support" !vote based on notability needed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Helen Hughes

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

Alexander Ovechkin wins Hart Trophy

 * Oppose The only time we post MVPs in other sports is when including images for the final match/series, in which the MVP for that final/series has his/her picture posted. The only exception was the 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or award, which was posted in January 2013, in what was a contentious nomination. Furthermore, I don't see how such an award would give an ITN-worthy update for either article: it at best could be a sentence or two mention in the player's article and just another line in the chart on the awards article.  Spencer T♦ C 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer's rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Quetta Pakistan bombings

 * Support Substantial death toll, getting widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's a noted high-level victim. This is not sportpolbombpedia. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds; the article has very little content. Would be willing to reconsider upon article improvement. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on condition of article improval. Includes eleven students on a bus, and separately, a five-hour hostage situation in a hospital. This is pretty nasty. Also lowered the death toll. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nasty indeed when they bomb kids and then the hospital the survivors are taken to. I could support this but the article is a three sentence stub. It needs considerable expansion, with enhanced description of the events and a reaction section. Jus  da  fax   18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Getting widespread international coverage. Agreed with Neljack. Fai  zan  10:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality is very poor and it's already shuffled out of major news outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Election of Hassan Rouhani

 * Support - if it is official that he has been elected.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - BBC says this is the official result, announced by the Interior Minister . -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is ITN/R anyway. Therefore, it can go up as soon as the article is adequately updated. --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way: there is an article about the Iranian presidential election, 2013. Do not we usually bold-link the article about the election, and not the one about the winner? --RJFF (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's usual. And the election article is updated and in good shape. Narayanese (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Iranian presidential election, 2013 article he's a member of the Moderation and Development Party, might expand the altblurb to contain that (though it obviously needs a bit of work)? oh and support altblurb the other article still has an orange tag.EdwardLane (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that political parties in Iran are rather weak and do not play an important role. The focus seems to be on persons. Moreover, there are contradictory statements about Rouhani's party affiliation (see Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2013). Therefore, I would rather not mention the party in the blurb. --RJFF (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per ITN/R. Jus  da  fax   22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Obviously. Look, the political landscape in Iran is largely rigged, and the highest de jure authority in the country is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the fact remains that the President is the public face of the regime and sets the economic agenda. I mean, look at how much influence Ahmadinejad consolidated during his tenure! Granted, he was backed by the Revolutionary Guards, which have since become the most significant power brokers in Iran. Nevertheless, the Presidency is an important office in the country, even if it is only a democratic facade. It also demonstrates, at least from my perspective, that the ruling regime fears its people. Remember what happened in 2009 and the protests that followed; it was obviously rigged so that Ahmadinejad would win another term. If they tried to do something like that this time around, it could well have sparked another uprising on a massive scale that they wouldn't be able to put down. Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. This is good news no matter which way you slice it. Kurtis (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted w/bolded election article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Manivannan

 * Comment. He certainly has a large body of work, but I'm not seeing evidence that he was regarded as being at the top of his field, which I assume is acting/filmmaking. In the past I've seen that merely being popular is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support meh, he is just about important enough for RD by the looks of things. Also, am I the only one who reads his name as "mini-van"? Lol.--85.210.108.233 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny if you find foreign languages funny--usually the sign of an impoverished education. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is way too poor. A reasonable notable actor but we can't put this kind of unreferenced page on the MP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rambling Man. Would be support if the article were improved, but I can't see putting this up in this state.  -- Jayron  32  02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple maintenance templates., not enough details in "Death" section, bot an internationally famous person. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Quaid-e-Azam Residency attack

 * Note There were some copyvio issues in the article, which have been fixed. Fai  zan  11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's an important article. It has received significant coverage in the media, including BBC, CNN, etc. Baigmirzawaqar (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support It is notable event of South East Asia. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. South east Asia? Lol. Whatsoever, It seems a global one to me. Fai  zan  13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the event is getting global attention, but, (main/on)ly is south east Asia. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if it is getting global one, then how "only" in South East Asia? Fai  zan  15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not get the joke. Anyway, in plain words, this is not a very important event for Western World. But, in South East Asia, it is important. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: Good enough to go ahead. —<font color="#060">Шαмıq   ☪  тαʟκ✍ @ 16:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment not sure why a standalone article for the "attack" exists when the main article is barely more than a stub. I think the "attack" article is an unnecessary fork.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See comments of Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Quaid-e-Azam Residency attack -- Tito ☸ Dutta 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the upshot of that discussion was not to merge it in case it prevented it going on the main page. That's no reason not to merge the articles.  Oppose since this isn't the right article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a quick merge will be helpful. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're all aware that if it features on ITN, it's no longer eligible for DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 18:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted - Ultimately the event's notability is not dependent on which article it is covered in, and consensus is that the event is worthy of coverage. If the articles are merged, the blurb can be adjusted.  (Ironically, the main article's shortness would make putting all the attack material there a pretty clear UNDUE/recentism case as it stands.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Airbus A350

 * Support but it will need updating. Statements like Although the mid-2013 delivery date of the A350 remains unchanged, longer than anticipated development activities for the aircraft have forced Airbus to delay the final assembly and first flight of the aircraft to the third quarter of 2011 and second quarter of 2012 respectively seem a bit out of date. Also, I would like to see a maiden flight subsection with details like duration, flight plan, pilot reaction, etc (if such details exist). --IP98 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, though the interior mockup looks great, I'm sure Dynasty will find a way to squeeze a 10th seat into each row, making my semi-annual trip from LAX to TPS as uncomfortable as ever. --IP98 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvement. (Still waiting for them to upsell us premium-on-the-wing seating...) --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The introduction of a new series of airplanes for commercial use is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to help emphsize this point its not so much a new series, but part of the electrification and reduce of fuel usage of airplanes among numerous other improvements to improve efficiency and emissions, along with the Dreanliner. --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Then, there are the environmental and the technological issues as a good reason to include in my support statement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we need to change every mention of the aircraft to the present tense? --LukeSurlt c 19:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski if updated per IP98. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose until more than one sentence is included regarding the maiden flight (which is what this "ITN" is all about). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] US will supply Syrian rebels with arms

 * Premature These are merely unconfirmed reports based on unnamed official sources. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Premature. I agree with Neljack; it is not yet clear what sort of aid will be provided.  I also think the real story here is the determination of chemical weapons use, something which the US hadn't decided on before now. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We didn't post Russia and China supplying warships and weapon to Syria, and we have never posted such news with any other country in the world before. So, a supply to an opposition in a country which is illegitimate is far bellow any line of significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chinese and Russians are states, and have supplied weapons to a legitimate state since long before this conflict started. The USA is a state which may be supplying arms to an illegitimate armed insurgency. Should this prove to be true, it is a significant milestone in the conflict, and signals a change in the position on 3rd party state support for the rebel groups. --IP98 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, it drives back again to the neutrality and its representation on Wikipedia. This is not a place to promote the politics of the United States and to prove its significance because it supports illegitimate militant groups or whatsoever they're called. The state of the conflict is quite difficult to report, and every attempt to post news that greatly favours one of the sides may easily violate the whole concept of neutrality on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutrality means that we report things neutrally, not that we shut our mouths when there's a conflict. This is not something you fail to understand. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're on the right way with a slightly different perspective. The problem here is not whether we report something neutrally or not, but how it is determined to be significant in a more neutral way. Why to post always news when the rebels 'occupy' cities or get support from any outside factor? Why we shut our mouths when the government forces in the country take over against the rebels? 'Neutral' is not to report a single news neutrally, but to report series of news that will collectively illustrate a neutral point of view.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've made it quite clear below that your goal with this nomination is to put the evil people-killing (Stalin 20,000,000, Mao 50,000,000 of their own citizens) United States in its place for dealing with these illegitimate human beings opposing Putina puppet. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My goal with this nomination is to prevent something being posted that will likely push Wikipedia in favour of any of the sites in the conflict (please see my comment on the renewal of the article with the protests in Turkey).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this is a consequence of (in my opinion) what is the real story which is, if proven, chemical weapons were used in attacks against the various sides of the conflict and/or civilians. I'm being deliberately vague because it's extremely hard to prove. CaptRik (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the US position is that it was Assad's side that used them. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although, there are already several sides supposedly arming either side in the conflict so, in my opinion, for that criteria alone this specific story doesn't make the grade.  CaptRik (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, while this is formally about the chemical weapons, it is de-facto about the Syrian rebels having lost the momentum in the war, they went from being able to threaten Assad's hold on power to facing the prospect of losing significant territory in the Aleppo area that looked very secure just a few months ago. The chemical weapons use by Assad is a diplomatic card the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China w.r.t. Syria, the planned negotiations, the support Russia gives to Assad etc. So, it should be clear that the West will now no longer allow Assad to make significant military against the rebels, which makes this story very important. Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion that the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China is not something that will make the English Wikipedia better and more neutral. Even so, why to post the support supplied by the United States to an illegitimate factor in a country? Do we really need to report every move that the United States makes to kill people anywhere in the world?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Count Iblis though I wish there was a clearer article to point to. Nevertheless. Jus  da  fax   13:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war work? --IP98 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I've updated the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a much better call. Thanks to you both. Jus  da  fax   20:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I think notability is clear, if true. As for the truth of the matter, if it is good enough for the NYT to print, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait I support something, but this is a trial balloon. Last night the headlines were "will arm", now they are may arm.  Note also the "crossed a red line" phrase, which was used weeks back, and came to nothing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Medeis points out, we must be careful here. No arming has happened yet. If and when it does, that WILL be news. So far, the news is that according to some sources, some unnamed "American officials" have said that the US will arm the rebels. We are on the edge of speculation territory here. If anything is posted from this, the blurb must reflect the uncertainty and future prediction nature of what we have. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:ATTRIBUTE we'd basically have to quote the unnamed administration source verbatim to stick to the (almost, but not yet?) facts. The temptation heree is that this is breaking!!!. But we are not a news service. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing has actually happened yet, so this is premature at best. I don't know yet if I would support this if an actual arming takes place, but I certainly cannot support before it does. Off-topic, but I'm a bit surprised that this is being considered, given how many times in the past arming those fighting against a regeime you aren't currently friendly with has come back to bite them several years down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there will be a press release when the first crates of Egyptian made AK-47's, bought by the USA and moved by the Mossad, are opened by the rebels. On the other point, yeah, I know, we just won't learn .... :( --IP98 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not very significant news. Unlikely that this is more than a symbolic move. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Now it's "small arms" and "advisors". (No need to declare war; just cut and paste the Viet Nam palette.) μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose a lot of talk, and what definitive action? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] US gene patent ruling

 * The relevant article would be Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad_Genetics. --LukeSurlt c 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question It's good news at least here in the U.S., but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction outside of the U.S. Will this case have any bearing on genetic research outside of the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of patents and WIPO-type stuff, it could be an impact. Not so much on the actual research but more on IP. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support major ruling in the scientific research field. Though it may not have much of an impact on outside-US practice I still think it has enough symbolic significance around the world to warrant posting. Tombo7791 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The decision is wider than the human genome, covering all naturally-occurring DNA sequences. I have changed the blurb accordingly. --LukeSurlt c 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I usually don't go over here to express my opinion on proposed items, but this is very big news with worldwide implications for genetic research and all that might come of it. I have tightened the blurb a little bit, making it clearer that this is an absolute statement in the negative on the issue, and changed the highlighted verb to holds, as that's the proper term for a judge's final decision on a matter of law. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. the US is a major player in the field so this is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but need some expansion at Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics.  Spencer T♦ C 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Supprt I have added a paragraph about this to our biological patent article. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support In my opinion, this is probably the most important ruling in the field of genetics so far in the US.  I have added information to the BRCA1, BRCA2, BRCA mutation, and Myriad Genetics articles.  Anastomoses (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Significant ruling. A company which is unable to obtain a US patent is unlikely to pursue that course elsewhere. Purely as a curiosity item, can any of our European friends tell me if the EU has any regulation regarding patents of biologics? --IP98 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * European courts do not have quite the pizazz of the U.S. Supreme Courts. Latest intelligible report I could find (2011) was this - basically you can patent natural DNA in the EU. Our Gene patenting article is wholly U.S. focussed. I've tagged it as such and suggested on talk just moving it to Biological patents in the United States. --LukeSurlt c 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Just piling on. Big news! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I have also made some minor updates to the Angelina Jolie article as the timing of her announcement relating to her BRCA mutation was linked to the Supreme Court deliberations and she explicitly advocated for wider access and affordability of BRCA testing. Helen (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  17:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the question of impact outside the US, here is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald discussing possible implications for Australia. A Federal Court case in Australia ruled the opposite way from this US Supreme Court on the same issue over mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes earlier this year.  That case is being appealed with the submissions due today so the Supreme Court ruling will be included in the materials considered in the appeal.  Just FYI...  EdChem (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I persuade you to add an Australia section to Biological patent, or even start the Biological patents in Australia article? :) --LukeSurlt c 01:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How are these: in BRCA1 article and Biological patent? EdChem (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal: This image of the BRCA1 gene seems to me to be a reasonable option for illustrating this ITN item. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as: The United States Supreme Court unanimously holds that naturally-occurring DNA sequences (such as the BRCA1 gene, pictured) cannot be patented. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that image does not show the BRCA1 gene. That shows the protein that the BRCA1 gene codes for. The BRCA1 gene patented includes introns that would not be included in the final protein representation, so the image wouldn't even represent the protein made from the DNA sequence patented.  Spencer T♦ C 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, of course. I should have noticed that it was a protein.  Must have left my brain in its jar by the bed this morning!  I'm striking the proposal.  EdChem (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RD: Robert Fogel

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

[Posted] Dua's layer

 * Support Sure, why not. Breaks the war-politics-disaster-sports monotony.  -- Jayron  32  01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I.e.; agree with Jayron's Criterion and the article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would like to see more information added to the article before posting. For instance, what is it made out of? Is it a new cell type? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says it is an acellular layer of collagen bundles. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - it now has a stand alone article, which I will work on improving/expanding rather than overwhelming the cornea article with a lot of details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the original paper and expanded the article as best I could. The paper is focused on a specific corneal surgery (the reason the study was done) with minimal data on the layer itself - just info on how they discovered it and what it means for the surgery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to pull based on the concerns about whether it meets the reliable source guidelines for medicine. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Agree with the nominator. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 07:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support But request the word dubbed be dropped from the blurb. The article doesn't mention that its named this way. CaptRik (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a slightly alternate wording for the blurb above. CaptRik (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Certainly a rare event. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Technically the paper was published online 28 May, but I'm happy to date this as 12 June as this seems to be when it was reported in popular science news. --LukeSurlt c 10:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the post-posting concerns have swayed me. Perhaps we could try and "transfer" this to DYK? --LukeSurlt c 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DYK won't accept it since it already appeared on the mainpage, even if it were to be pulled. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting. Hm, an image would be nice. An eye, maybe? --Tone 10:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Followup I have posted a complaint about this item at WP:ERRORS. With all respect to the editors who supported, this is a bad mistake.  To people who are familiar with the way the media handles science it is obvious that the story is based entirely on press releases.  It has not been covered, as far as I know, by independent reputable science sources such as Scientific American or the New York Times.  Furthermore, most scientists would consider it tacky for an experimenter to name a newly discovered structure after himself.  There may eventually be a story here but it is not ready for our front page yet. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post and MSN picked it up, as well as Popular Science, noted above. -- Jayron  32  14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of who picks up the story, it's a question of whether we have any source that doesn't derive directly from a press release or the experimenters themselves. So far we don't. Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The research has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Ophthalmology, which seems like a perfectly respectable scientific journal, the kind we usually accept as very reliable. A published paper is not a press release, as the paper has been jury reviewed and properly vetted.  -- Jayron  32  14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just got 'd, and it seems Jayron said what I was about to say. That this story has had this amount of media traction probably owes a bit to some savvy media relations, but I think the story stands up regardless. --LukeSurlt c 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now forum-shopped this to WT:MED (asking for responses here). At this point I consider that I've done everything that I can, and if nothing happens I'll let it rest. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Coming over from WPMED, I must agree with Looie496 that we would not generally allow this sort of content in a medical article because there is no reliable secondary source (i.e. peer-reviewed medical journal). Reports like this come and go (i.e. into the dustbin, usually), and until it's been vetted it's not encyclopedic. Considering how many good-faith editors struggle unsuccessfully to get this sort of content into medical articles, it's embarrassing that this made the main page. -- Scray (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Jayron32's comment above, could you comment about Ophthalmology as a peer-reviewed journal to help the folks here understand the problem please? CaptRik (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just written a short explanation at WT:ITN of the special factors that come into play when evaluating science stories. Briefly, the issue is not the validity of the report but rather its significance. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose for a different reason. This is not a huge breakthrough, it's not even that interesting. If this deserves an ITN, there are literally 10,000s of similar discoveries every year which need to be featured as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tens of thousands of human body parts are discovered every year? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed both with Looie and Aaadaammm: problem is not with the specific journal, but that the article is a primary source and hence quite preliminary and it cannot be stated as a fact its content in an encyclopedic way. Only comments on it on secondary sources as are review articles will indicate if it is really true and even more important really notable. At the very least content should clearly state that this is only a preliminary research and comes from a single source, not yet validated by other publications. --Garrondo (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a recurring problem with science stories here on ITN. The problem is that ITN has to post within 5 days of the 'event', which is hardly enough time for secondary scientific comment. I let this one slide because it seemed self-contained in its damage to Wikipedia's credibility. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to think of a good way to express in the article lead the reservations that one should have of such a recent "discovery". Has anyone reputable in this field gone on the record to express such reservations that we could cite? --LukeSurlt c 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worse than just primary, it's self-aggrandizing too. Eponyms shouldn't be self-bestowed. Seems ITN ought to at least ask at the relevant project before accepting a story. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Naming something after oneself might be tacky, but is hardly relevant to whether or not the story should be covered. The proposed criteria that a journal article must be secondary to be worthy of coverage is not workable - a science story will be in the news when it is published, not when it is confirmed (and of course a secondary confirmation is also not definitive, as is the nature of science.)  The correct criteria is the level and depth of media coverage, with an eye toward to prestige of the journal that published it.  Perhaps we failed to properly evaluate this story in that regard; any arguments against this story should be on that basis - the other points are not relevant. I thank Loogie for offering some suggestions on how to better evaluate future science stories on the talk page.  (And as long as we are talking about hyperbole, saying there are 10,000+ similar discoveries each year certainly qualifies.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fourth article in the current issue of the Journal of Anatomy describes a new structure in the human brain . Including all species, I stand by my considered 10,000s claim. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering there are thousands of new species discovered yearly and each has a defining biological feature by definition, I'd say the statement is likely accurate. Most humans, however, consider knowledge about human beings to be special so that isn't the relevant # to compare to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom, and the fact that the rarity of such an event is its phenotype. It simply doesn't occur often. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and do NOT pull or change Yeah, the scientific community doesn't like it. So what. We do not pull things because people do not like it. If the scientific community gives it a different name or proves it doesn't exist as an independent layer, then we will modify the article. If the new name becomes the common name we will move the article. If it is seen as a part of another layer and the hoopla dies down, we will merge it. But for now it is discovered and named. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep posted the nomination process here was perfectly valid, it's covered in reliable sources. And I don't appreciate the level of condescension from people who didn't know this part of Wikipedia didn't exist until now. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly knew this part of WP existed, enjoy ITN, and respect your process (which is why I commented here). As part of the ITN process, something should not make the list if it fails rules for inclusion in WP. We are saying that the article in question may not merit inclusion in WP, because we have WP:MEDRS for a good reason: until peer-reviewed secondary sources recognize a biomedical discovery, the likelihood that it will last (and therefore merit inclusion in an encyclopedia) is low. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bro, the only condescension here is from you, Hot Stop. I've commented here before, but even if I was a complete noob, I should be encouraged to contribute. I think you should rethink your attitude. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a regular here, I agree - the only condescension here has come from Hot Stop and Richard-of-Earth. We should be welcoming input by those with knowledge of the area. It is embarrassing for our section that non-regulars who are coming to share their knowledge and make substantive points are being treated like this. I am sorry you people have been treated like this, and I can only say that it doesn't reflect the views of all of us regulars here. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me second what Neljack has said, and say that the attitude of HotStop does not reflect the prevailing attitude, or hopefully, the attitude of anyone but himself. All voices of all people who contribute to the discussion should be given just weight, and not dismissed out of hand for any reason.  Completely unacceptable to do so.  -- Jayron  32  03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Neljack said about Hotstop, who made an unflattering remark targeting a specific identifiable contributor here. But I don't agree with including Richard-on-Earth in this criticism. He did not attack any specific individual, but merely expresssed the view that we should not pull an article simply because people (in this case the scientific community) don't like it (and then added a few lines seemingly saying that there was nothing worth worrying about, etc), which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate view to express, whether one agrees with it or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggested rewording: 'Scientists announce the purported discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.
 * Alternative rewording: 'Scientists purportedly discover Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea. (or any similar re-wording you may choose to come up with)
 * Justification of above Suggested Re-wording: I've added the word 'purported' (as in 'purported newly discovered layer') to the opening sentence of the article in the light of criticism both here, and in the ITN errors page, and in the article's Talk Page. The Macmillan Dictionary defines 'purported' as 'said by some people to be real or true, but not proved to be real or true', giving as an example 'The judges will now study this purported new evidence'. The core of the scientific process is based on reporting purported new evidence, but requiring that such new evidence be confirmed by further research. When we have only one paper, as here, 'purported' seems to be the appropriate word. It seems to me that we need a similar modification to the current ITN wording, hence the above suggestion. I've already posted this in the ITN errors section as a suggested fix, but I'm also posting this copy here as Jayron wants the discusion in one place (but in practice if it's not also posted in the errors page it probably won't get fixed). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh: 20 hours later, and no sign of any re-wording. Isn't it good to know that In The News seems to be controlled by people who treat several centuries of Western scientific understanding of how to decide what should and should not be portrayed as new knowledge with such contempt - I thought that was something that profit-driven media did, and that non-profit Wikipedia was supposed to be ideally placed to counter-act - I guess it just goes to show how foolish I was :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Copying latest 3 posts from Errors Page, as per User Jayron's earlier suggestion of having the full discussion in one place:
 * The threshold for science stories is the publication of a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. That threshold has been crossed - a paper has indeed been published in the journal Ophthalmology. Of course it might turn out to be wrong, but as the first report of a discovery this is definitely the point when it is 'in the news'. I don't see the problem, especially as there's additional coverage in the article. 'Purported' would be a very bad word to insert because it implies that the conclusion is wrong. It violates the guideline at WP:ALLEGED. Oh and please don't make assumptions about the intentions of anyone involved in ITN (nobody actually 'controls' it), they're all good-faith volunteers who have real lives as well as monitoring WP:ERRORS. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SIGH: So it seems the situation is even worse than I feared - Wikipedia's own guidelines order us to throw out several centuries of sound scientific practice. And anybody who protests gets lectured on his alleged wickedness. By the way I didn't make any assumptions about the intentions of anybody. I pointed out that their behaviour was treating several centuries of scientific practice with contempt. I didn't say that was their intention - I doubt if it ever occurs to them that that is what they are doing. But in future I will try to remember to say 'treating with unwitting contempt'. And I didn't say any individual controls ITN, but it is in effect controlled by a group of admins who have the power to amend it, as distinct from ordinary plebs like me who don't have the power to amend it (if you can think of a better word than 'control' to describe that situation please feel free to do so). And as for WP:ALLEGED, until if and when that rule gets amended, this seems an ideal case for ignoring a rule under WP:IAR (one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia - ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving Wikipedia, as this rule clearly does in this case). 'Purported' does NOT imply the conclusion is wrong, it implies it might be wrong, and it is the very core of Science that a single uncorroborated paper might be wrong, and no proper scientist should object to this being pointed out, while all proper scientists (and concerned lay people) should strongly object to its being presented as if it's known to be correct, as we are doing here. Also I don't insist on 'purported' - some other word like 'claimed' or 'alleged' or 'reported' will also do, provided it makes clear that it is possible that the alleged discovery could turn out to be mistaken. The fact that the article itself does now correct the misleading impression created by the headline is an improvement, but the incorrect headline is still harmful, both because many people may only read the headline, and because it's also damaging for Wikipedia's credibility when those who go on to read the article realise that Wikipedia is using misleading headlines. But I've wasted too much time on this already, so I give up. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SIGH: Meanwhile, as this item is still in the news for tomorrow, it looks like we're in for at least another 24 hours of what I honestly see as a shameful and outrageous betrayal of both our scientific heritage, and of Wikipedia's duty to spread knowledge, not speculation misreported as fact, but I said I was giving up, so I'll leave it to someone else to fight on if they want to. Meanwhile I'm copying these latest posts to the proposals page, as User Jayron suggested the full debate needs to be in one place. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (For the sake of concision on the errors page, the above 2 postings by me in reply to Modest Genius have now been replaced on the errors page by a message saying they can now be found here) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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


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

[Posted] Jiroemon Kimura dies

 * Support for RD. If I remember, that's what we were talking about some months ago. --Tone 09:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. There was some discussion about a blurb before, but I don't think that's appropriate here, but the longest-lived man in history is certainly worth his name in RD. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't outright oppose a blurb, either. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, oppose RD along the same lines as the costa rican environmentalist. In this case the death is the news, the individual doesn't satisfy any of the ITN/DC on his own. --IP98 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. - which should also indicate the succession of the World's Oldest Person title to Misao Okawa. (altblurb suggested) --LukeSurlt c 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the others. A news item in itself, more than a usual death. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb Very rarely do you see someone live till 116... Rest in peace, Japanese stranger. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting the original blurb then. Not mentioning the new oldest person because we never post that. Kimura was special as the oldest verified man ever. --Tone 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support with blurb - I was firmly against posting Kimura's birthday, but this - sadly for him - is where the record is really set. I'd like to propose the death of the oldest person ever, by gender as an ITN/R item. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That won't happen for at least 4.5 years for men or 7 years for women, probably much longer. --LukeSurlt c 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being slapped by a trout labelled OTHERSTUFF, Poet Laureate of the UK is on the list, and occurs once a decade, and great comets are unpredictable and also on the same order, so the rarity isn't necessarily a problem. And it would provide justification for the arguments of "post the death, not the birthday/becoming the oldest man" MChesterMC (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment A decent pic would be good, eh? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still don't agree with having waited this long to post (I originally nominated when he became the oldest male), but nice to see this become full blurb. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good choice - a full blurb was the way to go here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (If we are getting into post-posting reviews) bad choice: not the longest lived person, and we don't split other record acheivements by sex. Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. If a woman set a new 100m record, it would be a shoo-in for ITN. We separate by gender when accomplishing a record is significantly easier for one gender than another. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Vidya Charan Shukla

 * Apparently a casualty of the 2013 Naxal attack in Darbha valley which was posted. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was injured in the Naxal attack, and was declared dead a bit later (he died as a result of his injuries from the attack). Since he died a while after the attack occurred, I think he is eligible to be in the recent deaths section. Andise1 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. If we posted Frank Lautenberg I don't see why we shouldn't post this, especially where this man died in an attack.  However, from what I can see he was not a sitting politician. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, we have the recent precedent of a long-serving US politician. This gentleman has also served his country for a very long time, and the circumstances leading to his death are notable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per HiLo48. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder whether the nom or others with the knowledge could explain his "significant contribution" to India or impact on it, or how he is a very important figure in Indian politics? I'm certainly open to the nomination, but need more information before I can be satisfied that he meets the death criteria. Neljack (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm unable to compare him to Frank Lautenberg because his article is a mess. WP:ITN/DC #1 applies here, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --IP98 (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable outside the attack, Lautenberg should not have been posted either. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your latter point, but he WAS posted, with a lot of enthusiastic support. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you intend by telling me the nom passed; if you are trying to get me to change or keep my vote it is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Turkish protests reach a new height

 * Support in principle, significant protests with widespread media attention. However, I think the event to highlight is the clearing of the square (with a more suitable blurb), and the article has a big load of tags on it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose in its current interpretation. The story is worth supporting but the blurb is far from being neutral, emphasizing that the police intervention was something unexpected and crucial for provoking backlash in the protests. Some may interpret it as the police have finally ejected the protesters and thus liberated the Taksim Square. Why not to use a blurb with such wording? Wikipedia should always present the facts as they really are in the most neutral way. In this case, it's a personal choice and a preference to decide whether to solidarize and support the protesters or to do something else, but not a fact that illustrates the neutral point of view and should be generally accepted. Please modify the blurb to reflect something different rather than promoting a cause from the protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sticky, this is an ongoing story and not really showing signs of letting up. Since we just posted this a few days ago and it recently rolled off, that's evidence a sticky would be worthwhile.  -- Jayron  32  01:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this one requires sticky and your definition for it is not correct. We usually use sticky to point out to an event or a story that would otherwise have multiple blurbs on the main page at the same time. The blurb documenting the protests is no more on the main page and thus a new blurb would perfectly replace it and won't make any mass report on a single event. In addition, there is only one nomination with scarce interest to renew the story and thereby no possibility for having many blurbs relating to the same story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The overall story is not new and has already been published. Individual events within the story would need to be exceptional to justify including it in ITN again. The suggested headline, besides not being NPOV, is arguably already out of date with the current focus of the story being on rallies in support of what is after all a democratically elected government (albeit one that non-Muslims and secularists like me, and probably most contributors here, might not much like). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Henry Cecil

 * Support. Was honored with a knighthood for his work, indicating he was very important in his field, also with numerous wins and recognition. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, I've done a bit to update the article to meet the expectations of the usual crowd, I think the whole article is in decent condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - If anyone can find a good picture of Henry Cecil, it may be worth adding to the article. Andise1 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing at Commons (I looked earlier). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per above.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Clearly one of the leading horse trainers ever, but I'm not convinced that training horses to run fast is a sufficiently notable profession for that to mean much. We can all think of dozens of famous actors, authors, scientists, politicians etc., but horse trainers? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He had a wide enough regard and notability to be mentioned in US news sources. Also mentioned in New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, and it is also being covered by Al Jazeera. Such wide coverage suggests high notability for the person, if not the profession. Readers not being aware of notable horse trainers would seem to be a reason to support this, given the news coverage, as they would then learn about this man. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is hard to rate as a foreigner, but I'd be surprised if this top news in Britain. A check of article stats shows very little reader interest compared to Banks, Sharpe or Williams--we'll see when it updred ates.  Again, it's hard to say, but a knighthood two years ago seems pro forma as well.  Willing to be convinced otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being on the front page is not one of the RD criteria- but even if it isn't top news in Britain, it is being covered in international sources. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 50% more hits the day he died than Sharpe. I'd say 30k hits is a demonstration of his notability.  It was top sport story on BBC News yesterday and again today.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly amongst the top news stories in Britain - his death was significant enough to be covered on the main BBC news bulletins on 11 June and was one of the leading stories on the BBC News website for most of the day.
 * Support I agree with the concern that "horse training" is not a sufficiently broad field, but he would seem to qualify as a very important figure in the field of horse racing (which is broad enough). Neljack (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD --Stephen 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Posted] ERT suspended

 * Oppose this will be one of many austerity measures, one the media will emphasize because it is about the media. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support a bigger result of austerity measure.s Wouldn't we post the bbc pclosing?Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Support. Apparently the Greek government had to rely upon the emergency powers clauses in the constitution to force this through, and only announced the policy the day before it's due to be shut down. That's a major move and one with significant implications for Greek democracy. However, the article has an NPOV tag and is pretty light for such a nominally major broadcaster. So I support on the proviso that the article is improved first. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support not one of your regular austerity measures, and transpires the company was making a profit, so this move is more politically motivated than economically driven. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the concerns of the NPOV tag? It was put on yesterday by user 46.177.44.205 (this IP's only edit). There is no associated talk page discussion. Without knowing what the NPOV concerns are, it's almost impossible to know whether they were justified or whether subsequent edits have satisfied the concerns. --LukeSurlt c 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can't see any problems, I suggest BOLDly removing the tag, with a suitable edit summary, and seeing if any other users add it back. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --LukeSurlt c 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above, plus the closure seems to be having a significant repercussions in Greece. --LukeSurlt c 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --Stephen 03:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull the radio and TV sections are totally unsourced, as is the timeline. Fact tags abound. I support this story, but the article is a mess. --IP98 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

E3 2013

 * Personally I'd prefer to post the opening, at the point where the article is in a decent shape. Currently orange-tagged however. --LukeSurlt c 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We never see auto shows (even though there have been some significant introductions) or any other trade shows being listed, so why should this. Even though it is significant itself, I don't see why electronic shows are that important, so therefore not significant enough for ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * E3 is like the only major show that the video game industry has with massive hardward and software announcements (there's others, but they have less predominance in weight). My understanding for the auto industry is that there are numerous shows throughout the year that one single show is not more important than others, and thus hard to qualify which limited # of shows are the key big events. If there was such a show, it could be argued for inclusion at ITN/R. --M ASEM  (t) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt the event is (by a retired videogamer) to the industry, so are you trying to say the Photokina and Nuremberg International Toy Fair are worthy of inclusion because they are one of the kind. Donnie Park (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, Geneva Motor Show a few months ago had as much publicity as this years E3 and I take you are a non-car person right. Donnie Park (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we cant include these, but as Thue points out below, video games are a significant economic section nowadays. This is why I think that if there is one major representative car show, that could be an ITN/R, since auto sales are also a significant economic chunk. On the other hand, toys? Not so much, but this shouldn't be to discourage those that want to get that into ITN/R, just that I think the barrier will be a lot higher. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You (Donnie Park) have already started a discussion to remove it from ITNR; that is the proper course of action to take if you are opposed to listing it, but as long as the article quality is sufficient, it will be posted in this case since it is currently ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well not if there's a consensus not to post it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I was being a bit kneejerk with the proposal, it applied to future nominations, plus as with the two consoles, weren't they already introduced without any picture of it nor any real details. Introductions like this is nothing uncommon, a bit like if Ferrari chose to bring out a press release introducing little details of their LaFerrari in late 2012 instead of unveiling it at the recent Geneva show. Donnie Park (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In the grand scheme of things, E3 is inconsequential to a company's economic performance, and video games are a niche interest anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not too sure that the phrase "niche interest" describes video games these days. Though I will say that E3 mostly caters to the more diehard gamers, nomination was mostly based on ITN/R. Tombo7791 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. In the UK fx, revenue from video games is bigger than music and DVD sales combined. Calling video games a niche interest is just plainly uninformed. Thue (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, so notability is not at issue here. A discussion has been started to remove it from ITNR, but until it is removed, it will be posted as long as article quality is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well not if there's a consensus not to post it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus to post (barring quality issues) already exists if the event is on ITNR. If it shouldn't be, the discussion to remove it is thataway. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? If opposed, this should not go to main page, regardless of ITN/R.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Accepted, though it would seem to render ITNR pointless if notability of an ITNR item can be opposed here despite being listed there. I thought the whole point of ITNR was to establish notability of recurring events to avoid debating it each time it comes up here. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why it's being discussed at ITNR.  The discussion is long overdue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and keep as ITNR. When it comes to software and hardware (arguably some of the hottest markets of the past years) it is the biggest show. Car shows such as the Geneva one should also be included as World Fairs have been posted in the past. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose regardless of its inclusion at ITN/R. There is nothing to report here other than "big trade show happened, around 100k people went".  Unless anything exceptional occurs in this (and similar trade show events like Geneva motor show, Farnborough Airshow [where the newspapers would have you believe $100 billion of deals are struck in five days]) then it's not news, it's a recurring trade show for people to sell their goods.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably, two new next-gen consoles were revealed, the first in over 5 years from these companies. That's a major facet of this, though I certainly wouldn't peacock that in the blurb. (Of course, intra-industry, there's a huge amount of wow-factors going on with Sony's vs MS's reveal of their products, but that's definitely not going on the front page). --M ASEM (t) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But they weren't really revealed at the show, were they? They were heavily publicised and discussed in the news way before this "show".  It would be like claiming that suddenly $100 billion of aircraft deals were made at the Farnborough airshow.  Nonsense, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The PS4 unit was actually revealed at the show for the first time (Though it was known to be coming). Still, most of the industry considers this to be the reveal of both units since they will now be able to get their hands on testing them. More importantly, final details on cost and specs were provided at this point, hence why its considered the proper reveal for the two. --M ASEM  (t) 17:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's exactly the point. We all knew about the Xbox 1 and the PS4, a few minor details were "revealed" at the show, standard "trade show" behaviour.  The blurb doesn't reflect that, the blurb is simply "trade show opens, some people will go".  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll point to my suggestion of a two-pronged test about the ITN-worthiness of these trade shows (both whether the show gets attention, and whether products/news revealed at the show get attention, on a regular basis). In this case, both are met - the start of E3 was well covered, and the PS4/Xbox One reveals have been major news, even if they aren't really reveals in the explicit sense. --M ASEM (t) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely believe that PS4/Xbone One were "revealed" then you really must change the blurb. Right now it's just "trade show starts".  So what?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it needs to be said, Support notability wise, we have no other coverage of video games (which are a big $$ industry and a significant form of culture) otherwise. --LukeSurlt c 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not disputing your position at all, but would you therefore support Farnborough Airshow (and Paris Air Show) as we don't have coverage of the aviation industry's top events (which is a big $$$ industry and also a significant form of culture) at ITN/R? And the Geneva Motor Show?  And the London Boat Show?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back, I'm starting to dislike the whole idea of having expositions on ITN unless they result in the introduction of some majorly important products (maybe the next gen consoles?). However, comparing the aeroplane and boat shows seems a bit of a stretch as they cater to a significantly small consumer base. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The aviation industry caters for a "significantly small consumer base"? Really?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, by consumer I mean the people who actually buy the products (i.e. airlines). Tombo7791 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we'll need to include those airshows I've mentioned? Paris?  Farnborough?  Because they "sell" $100bns at the show....  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking more along the lines of number of people who buy it, rather than "revenue". Anyways, I agree with you that the expos should all be scrapped from ITNR. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replying to TRM: I was going more along the lines of culture. We have a cluster of ITN/R events for film (Oscars etc.). Video games are effectively equivalent in popularity, so it seems sensible to give them at least one ITN/R posting a year. --LukeSurlt c 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to support such thing for videogames if there is one single award that is taken as seriously as the Oscars, if there is one but there is a cluster of them that is not. BTW, the last ITN for videogames IIRC was for CoD: Black Ops almost three years ago and that was in regards to sales record. Donnie Park (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to TRM I believe the correct response here is: Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. You may remember this argument as it was used previously. Granted you've initiated the removal process at ITN/R, but in this instance, your notability oppose must be disregarded, following your own previously expressed reasoning. --IP98 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to orange tag on article and the fact that it is almost completely unsourced. Plus it should not be listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose After reading the above comments I'm genuinely sitting on the fence, but based on Formerip's reasons above I oppose on those grounds. CaptRik (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it ITNR? Conversely we don't post the political summit that ISs ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending cleanup per WP:ITN/P #1 and #3, and support adding to ITN/R. Complaints about it being just another event are rubbish. Try opposing a football match as "big football game took place, ball was kicked into net, 80k people attended". Video games are a niche the same way horse racing is. I would also support big air shows, big auto shows, I-CES, and the rest. Why not? Are we worried that the bus fire might not stay up for 6 days?? --IP98 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I support this item if it gets updated. It is widely covered in non-specialised press. There has been calls to disregard the procedure regarding ITNR on this item. I'll just note here, as I did in the ITNR discussion, that notability supporters will be (and are if you compare the numbers with the ITNR discussion) underrepresented in this discussion as such !votes are "pointless" on discussions of ITNR items. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's the whole point isn't it, if an item is rejected by the community here, it's irrelevant that it's at ITN/R. Worse, it's indicative that ITN/R isn't quite right.  Your note about lack of supporters needs evidence.  The same people !vote here each and every time, with the odd exception.  I'd be half-interested in listing it if we posted this kind of thing after the conference has closed so we're not just providing a free advertising service to this trade fair.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident from the numbers of supports here and opposes at the ITNR discussion. "The same people !vote here (...)" is indicative of this being as much a local consensus as ITNR. I think ITNR should aim for higher participation numbers by using RFCs or other methods as it is not time-limited. Sadly, this is not the case, and ITNC and ITNR conflicting leads to problems. "Luckily", the article won't get updated so looks like we get another year to get our act together. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nomination re-opened due to premature closure by myself; see my talk page.  Spencer T♦ C 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably with the show over, the nom would have to reflect on the public unveiling (read: not announcement but basically the point that most non-tech major news outlets covered these) of the next-gen consoles Xbox One and PlayStation 4, the E3 aspect now being subsidary to that. I would argue (as I've been watching them but not overly-active in editing) that these have been sufficiently updated to reflect all the specific details that came out from E3. I would be concerned with blurb wording to make it seem like a promo, so another potential main target is History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (which is also updated), and rewrite as "The Xbox One and PlayStation 4, two of the next generation of video game consoles, are publicly detailed at E3 2013". (or something like that, which puts the idea more on being the technology improvement than the promotional aspect). --M ASEM (t) 15:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Shenzhou 10

 * Support Absolutely, as soon as the article is updated as necessary. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. Tombo7791 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article could use some information on the projects the mission will be doing. The article is entirely about the people on the mission and makes it seem like the purpose of the mission was to put a woman in space. What's more important is what the mission is about. For example, is it a resupply mission or are there experiments going to be completed?  Spencer T♦ C 14:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a section about mission objectives. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't the main actual aims of the launch a) to test docking and extended mission length in preparation for a space station and b) the propaganda gimmick of having a female taikonaut broadcast a school lesson from space (at enormous expense)? Oh and support per ITNR. Article needs some copyediting - much of it reads like it's been auto-translated. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to do some copyediting to clean this up.  Spencer T♦ C 01:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - INT/R aside, this is an interesting story in the news. The additional material helps the article. Jus  da  fax   19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and ready per ITN/R. It's too bad the Soyuz article never got the same attention. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated and quite obviously ready. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] Update: PRISM Boundless Informant

 * Support and suggest we include the Verizon data mining, which was revealed the day before the domestic PRISM spying--although I don't know the target article. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - no harm in updating the blurb. I think a BOLD admin could go ahead and do it using normal admin discretion since it wouldn't be new item.  In case its needed, count me as a support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This will update and enhance the blurb. Jus  da  fax   07:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of the map, we can use the logo. It is in PD. The current image has been on for a couple of days already. --Tone 09:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, the logo is better than the map. Good call. Jus  da  fax   21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please change "have revealed" to "reveal". Not sure if only the proposer is allowed to change the proposal or if anyone may.  Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections have been offered, so I'm updating the blurb. No picture though, as there are now newer stories with pics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Edward Snowden PRISM

 * Opposed (And removed the ITN/R claim in good faith). PRISM's existance was news. This was a followup, and we can expect a lot of similar stories as this falls out that aren't ITN worthy. (Also, isn't this BLP1E problems?) --16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose we already have PRISM featured. Maybe after his trial, and then only maybe. Suggest speedy close before the NSA asks FISA for a subpoena to find out if I liked M&M's on FaceBook. (of course, after the arrest they'll be able to enter my cheek swabbed DNA into a national database, but who cares about that, right?). --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Close? an update's fine, but two blurbs? μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being wanted is not enough; at a bare minimum he should be taken into custody before even considering posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Tony Awards

 * Vanya etc is currently was on the main page (on 10 June) as one of the bolded items in a Tony Awards DYK, by the way. BencherliteTalk 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the wikilinks on Best Play and Best Musical? That detailed info can be found from the Tony Awards link. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per ITN/R and it seems 2013 Tony Awards is adequate. Altblurb suggested. LukeSurlt c 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Marking ready - on ITNR, updated, and the article is sufficient (albeit rather boring). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Syria sticky

 * Support have proposed this myself repeatedly. The "we're winning" comment is, of course, troubling in the extreme.  But the sticky rationale is correct regardless of which killers one supports. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Syria is the most significant hot conflict in the world right now. (what is with the "We're winning!"?) Thue (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral if the war lasts another two years, is that how long the sticky lasts? Also, the proposed article is an orange tagged POV massive lumbering mess. I don't think it's of suitable quality to be indefinitely featured on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This can never proceed while the conspicuously non-neutral, POV "We're winning" is part of the proposer's comments. Even though it was displayed in small print, it's by far the most dramatic and obvious part of the nomination. What on earth is it doing there? [PS:I don't even know who "we" are, and don't care.] HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was able to shrug and ignore it. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per IP98, the sticky wouldn't be helpful. If something significant happens in Syria, just nominate it for ITN.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Iain Banks

 * Support and I was just about to clean up the section regarding the Quarry push date when Luke got to that. --M ASEM (t) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, although I also think the "writing career" section could be expanded. He spent quite a lot of his life writing. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I came here to make the same nomination. Exactly the sort of person the RD section is for. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious. Per above.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  17:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The awards section is misleading, since all but four are nominations. I wouldn't say top of his field, either, but notable in two fields and a premature demise; there will be readership interest. Marking ready given update and 6-0 support. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. I assume that I should post it to the front of RD, and use a comma (as I have done)? Thue (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally a nonbreaking space followed by an en-dash followed by a non-breaking space. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thue (talk)
 * Post-post support article is of good quality and a prominent fiction writer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 French Open

 * Obvious support. What sort of prose update do we need? --LukeSurlt c 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomination moved to June 9 section. --LukeSurlt c 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the most BORING grand slam final since at least 1 started to watch tennis. Nevertheless, perhaps mention Nadal's record-breaking stature as the most single grand slams by anyone.Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on lack of significant prose update to any potential article target. Neither the main event article, nor the event-specific articles, contain any reasonably-complete synopsis of the championship match, which would be nice given that we're posting the results of the championship match.  Of course, once someone who cares actually makes that improvement to some article(s), I would change my vote to the strongest possible support.  -- Jayron  32  21:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to full Support for the blurb with the "men's singles" and "women's singles" bolded, per recent updates. -- Jayron  32  06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose removing wikilinks from words "tennis", "men's singles" and "women's singles". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? -- Jayron  32  18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They're unnecessary and there are too many links. People can find them through the French open link. Otherwise we're featuring 3 events. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question what is the best way to do the update (synopsis of the final)? It seems to me, there should be one in men's singles final and one in women's single final. That would then bold those two links and de-bold the main article.  Other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)
 * That would make sense. There's plenty of source text out there describing the details of the final match, game for game.  We should be able to put something into each of the men's single and women's singles articles then bold those.  -- Jayron  32  23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated/ready - I have updated both singles articles beyond the minimum standard and have updated the bolding of the main blurb to reflect the update locations. The blurb should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Balls to the wall! -- Jayron  32  06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original blurb at it contains links to the prose updates. --LukeSurlt c 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting the original blurb. Shall we add a photo of one of the winners? --Tone 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This one at commons of Serena Williams is quite good. It's actually her at Roland Garros this year. --LukeSurlt c 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Belmont Stakes

 * Weak oppose. The Triple Crown was not at stake, reducing its notability.  Looking through some of the archives I don't believe it has been posted in the past, just as a point of information. Closest we came was proposing posting the withdrawal of a potential Triple Crown Winner last year. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose based on article quality, would change to full support if article was expanded with a full race synopsis. A major horse race, regardless of whether or not the Triple Crown was at stake, especially if we had a really good article to highlight on the main page.  As we really don't, I can't really support posting this yet.  Get it up to snuff, and I'd support this.  -- Jayron  32  03:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The listed attendance at this year's race was 47,562, while the attendance at past Belmonts where the Triple Crown is involved is anywhere from 85,000 (last year when there was almost a Triple Crown attempt) to over 120,000 (Smarty Jones' attempt). It was over 94,000 in 2008. The notability of this race is heavily dependent on the Triple Crown. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support diversity of sports events. And its not "minor"Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a particularly high importance event, and horse racing already has 3 stories per year on WP:ITNR. I think that's plenty for a not-especially-popular 'sport'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] San Onofre Nuclear Plant closes

 * Oppose Nothing unusual about 50 year old installations being decommissioned. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would disagree that there is "nothing unusual" about a nuclear power plant closing, as the number of them is relatively small, but I'm not really seeing the worldwide implications of this.  There are still nuclear power plants being proposed and under construction in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support per WP:ITN/P #3. Closing a nuclear power plant is rare, much less common than an auto-parts factory closure (or a vehicular fatality). There are a number of older facilities still operating, so this premature closure is also interesting. There is no requirement for "worldwide implications" either, and many of the stories posted fail that category as well. What I am wondering is if it will be decommissioned in place or if it will be dismantled and disposed. The latter is very rare. --IP98 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand worldwide implications is not a requirement, but it was cited as the rationale for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm sure this is significant on a local level, but I can't see how its particularly unusual, given that elsewhere in the world whole countries are phasing out nuclear power. It's relatively rare in the sense that there are not that many nuclear power stations in the world but, in the long run, the decommissioning rate is 100%. Google is not finding any international coverage at all AFAICT. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose not significant on a global scale. The nomination statement about "worldwide implications" is completely false.  <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - From the provided AP/ABC link that some here apparently did not trouble to read: "Federal investigators last year concluded that a botched computer analysis resulted in design flaws that were largely to blame for the heavy tube wear. Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group, said the mistake raises broad questions for an industry that regularly relies on computer tools. "That has larger importance, especially for new reactors," Lyman said. That indicates a world wide problem, yes? Note to Hot Stop: HS, at this rate your !votes here will be automatically discounted by a majority of posting admins as utterly worthless. "Completely false?" Do your homework. Jus  da  fax   17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself, that was completely unnecessary. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The cursing and personal comments are unnecessary, but the "worldwide implications" claim is bizarre, and the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a leftist front group--if their expert Lyman has credentials and on-site access let's hear about it. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Come off it. Labelling a commentator's political views as leftist is not a helpful contribution here. (Has Senator McCarthy returned?) Discuss the science, not the scientists. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. They call themselves advocates, and they advocate left-wing causes.  My pointing out they are an advocacy group and not just a scientist union is quite helpful to those unfamiliar with them.   The burden is on Jusdafax to give us Lyman's credentials. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. When a writer describes someone as leftist, and thinks it helps, that tells me a lot more about the writer than the subject. (But I won't post here again.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Guess which statement comes from HiLo, and which the UCS:
 * "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here"
 * "turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems"
 * μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I call on one of our many admins to administer a warning to HS, who started this by calling me a liar with "completely false" and now sees fit to use major profanity when his attack !vote is rigorously questioned. Any accountability here? Jus  da  fax   17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a local issue. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Princess Madeleine marries

 * Oppose. She is not currently the direct heir to the throne, so any significance of this event is limited. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The story has received international coverage (see this from New Zealand for example), but we need to wait until it happens. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Source: Reuters". It is very easy for news outlets anywhere in the world to pretty much copy-and-paste wire reports. If the posting of such reports are considered "international coverage" then this is a very low bar. --LukeSurlt c 13:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it is some sort of automatic feed, copy-and-pasting a wire report still requires someone at the news outlet to decide if an event is important enough to its readers to warrant being posted. It's still coverage, whether it is from an outlet's own reporters or not. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but considering they've already paid their fee for the wire service, the only thing such an outlet is expending is a few pixels of space on their website (that they're probably keen to fill anyhow) and half an hour of a subeditor's time. Ultimately there are dozens of wire stories daily that gain "international coverage" because of this, hence why our using such a metric for a notability assessment needs to be more qualified. [Note, this is a general point. I have no particular opinion on this nomination] --LukeSurlt c 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose could DYK the wedding if it's notable in itself. μηδείς (talk)
 * Oppose she's too far down the line of succession. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hot Stop. -- Ե րևանցի talk  20:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - nominated at DYK if it doesn't go ITN Chris857 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support posted William and hes not idirect heir to the throne. No need for anglo biasLihaas (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give a diff for that, Lihaas? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * William is a direct heir to the throne; he is second in line after his father and that is extremely unlikely to change. This Princess is fourth in line and that could change if those above her have children. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a diff for the posting, not whether he's heir apparent. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I was responding to Lihass. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] China bus fire

 * Stub created. --LukeSurlt c 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 *  Oppose , though futile as always, to what really is a tragic but totally ordinary vehicular incident. There is no minimum number of deaths for notability, and I refuse to react purely to body count. --IP98 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that a bus fire is an "ordinary vehicular incident"? Andise1 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The one in Pakistan killed 15 children. Won't someone please think of the children! We posted a bush crash in china, one in Africa, another one in (India?). Buses seem like death traps. I was tempted to make a pointy nom for the limo fire tragedy but I really thought we were over bleeding hearts traffic accident stories here. --IP98 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb as a murder/suicide. --IP98 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - A tragedy, but unless this has wider impact, this is basically a violation of NOTNEWS, and NEVENT, and as such, ITN. Yes, it's being widely covered because it is a large loss of life, but that's it - there's no indication of enduring notability. --M ASEM (t) 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to excuse me but unless you have a crystal ball you can not know about this events enduring notability, it happened today for godsake.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's why we shouldn't even have an article on it, per NEVENT. Events need to show enduring notability before articles are to be created. And as all the sources are saying, there was a bus fire, people couldn't get out, they died. Tragic, but what else from an encyclopedic point of view could this be about? --M ASEM  (t) 00:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose tragic but not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Let me be blunt - we virtually always post disasters with a death toll this high, and it would undoubtedly get posted if it happened in the US, UK or another Western country. That is for good reason - disaster that kill scores of people need no further notability than that. They are regarded as highly notable and get media attention because we place a high value on human life. That some people here get sick of them is irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have done so, but I believe we need to raise the bar drastically on fires and accidents which don't include buildings or people or other entities who are already notable. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Death toll does not equate to notability. Accidents happen. They may affect a large number of people with little recourse to fix. We are not a newspaper (that's Wikinews' job), we're an encyclopedia and ITN needs to reflect stories that will stay in the encyclopedia, not on what the media is widely reporting. --M ASEM (t) 06:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as it seems to have been a criminal/terrorist act. But that needs confirmation. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears to have been a criminal attack according to multiple news sources: ABC Reuters. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The ABC source is saying this was an act of suicide, similar to a 2009 incident. Extremely difficult to qualify as an enduring news topic that needs its own article, much less an ITN here. (it would be far difficult if it was terrorism related but that seems far from the case here.) --M ASEM  (t) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a multiple homicide than it is a substantially different and probably more notable entity than a large accident. My suspicion is that there won't be enough information in English-language sources (we seem to so far have two wire reports, which have pretty much been exhausted for information) to create a sufficiently substantial article, but we can see how this progresses. --LukeSurlt c 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, if it's truly a mass killing (along the lines of Aurora, CO), then I could support it. --IP98 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been a murder-suicide. Article has been updated. LukeSurlt c 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb should mention it is a suspected crime, but I don't like the form of the current alt-blurb. Naming an otherwise non-notable individual in the blurb seems out of place, and secondly it states for definite what is currently a (well-founded) suspicion. Suggest: "47 people are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China, including the suspected arsonist."
 * Regardless, I'm not sure there is sufficient detail in English-language sources yet to form a sufficiently in-depth article to warrant posting. This may change of course. --LukeSurlt c 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What does it matter what language the sources are in, unless we think someone is falsifying what they say? I have used plenty of sources in at least Russian, German, French, Spanish, and Catalan (and even Vietnamese) to reference articles that have been posted to ITN and RD.  There is always Google Translate to confirm the bare facts and gist of a story. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that such sources are potentially useful, just that someone will need to be multilingual to find and use them (any Chinese speakers here?). At this stage we are looking for more detailed facts than Google translate is likely to elucidate. --LukeSurlt c 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to modify the alt-blurb I proposed as necessary, as long as it makes clear this was a deliberate act of violence and not mechanical failure or human error. --IP98 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. --LukeSurlt c 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with it, but would prefer "47 people, including the suspected perpetrator, are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China.". Personally I don't think we need to link to arsonist in the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If this turns out to be a murder-suicide, then absolute support. I'm supporting otherwise, though, because the death toll is quite high. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. Danger High voltage! 22:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] PRISM

 * Comment - 'Is alleged to' is no basis for an ITN posting (in my opinion). We either need some proof, or a massively reliable/notable source for the allegation. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex is right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the US confirmed the existence of a electronic data surveillance program called PRISM while also alleging that the newspaper reports contained many inaccuracies. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be reworded to say something like "google, apple, etc strongy deny complicity in the NSA program of information gathering". I don't like to give the tinfoil hatted folks any ammo, but the various newpaper sources seem to be pushing this pretty hard, and even suggest that the denials are 'forced denials' as part of the contract signed. EdwardLane (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, through can use some rewording. I'd suggest "NSA is accused of". --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose US companies comply with US government request to provide information? All the companies have denied providing a "back door", but openly admit cooperation with investigations. Auto-harvest your email == no. Exploited defects in tech company servers == no. This thing seems a lot less sinister after actually reading the article. --IP98 (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support having a list of who sent an email to who for everybody is huge for privacy, even if you don't have the email contents, and is actually very sinister. While it is not confirmed by NSA (duh), it seems to be validated enough for all the big newspapers to run with the story, which should make it also good enough for us. Thue (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're wondering about the international reach, this story is making waves in the UK media too (partly because it was the Guardian who revealed it). --LukeSurlt c 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is the top news item of the day on several print, broadcast, and internet sources, and the article is in decent shape. -- Jayron  32  14:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support But I would focus the blurb on the fact that the program was publicly revealed, and not so much pointing fingers at the firms involved, given that not all of them have made clear statements as to the nature of their involvement, or at least call them "major Internet communications companies" instead of by name. (They're listed in the article.). --M ASEM (t) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the story is gettin widespread attention. And considering the Guardian broke the story, I'd say it is also garnering international interest. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop  14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose My opposition is based on the ultimate fact that this program seems to be legal under US law. Horrifying to many people around the world, yes but the American people voted their leaders into office and by extension voted this into law.  There has been no question of illegality (that I can see) with their usage of the data just general upset that it is happening.  I do concede that it is gathering international attention in the news. CaptRik (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Legal" but, as most are arguing, likely unconstitutional (most expect this will be at SCOTUS soon enough). Lawmakers pass bills into law all the time but that doesn't make them all constitutional, and if done in secret, no way for the voters to react to this. The mere existence of a giant program with this much data collection is what is causing the international coverage of this, and likely going to be a major news item in the weeks to come as. --M ASEM  (t) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive me, I don't understand how something can be legal but unconstitutional (I'm not American). If it's likely to become a major news story, should we be considering it now? CaptRik (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Congress and the President can sign bills into law, making them "legal" as part of the US Code of Laws, but there's no point where the law is reviewed against the Constitution and established principles from the Supreme Court. Laws are supposed to be written with the Constitution in mind, but because its a very complex system, some can get missed, while others are done based on various interpretations of the Constitution. Thus this is why the US has the court system, as part of the checks and balances, as to review such laws if they are within bounds of the Constitution. For this, that likely won't be the case for one to two years, so I'm sure this will be in the news much later as well, but right now, the existence of this program is what is groundbreaking; the next few weeks will likely be spin from all sides to try to downplay it, but that's all talking heads and not so much ITN, hence now is the right time for this story. --M ASEM  (t) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * UK government apparently had access to the Prism data too according to ABC anyway. Not sure that would be legal here, at least an unwarranted breach of privacy if they used it on UK citizens I think EdwardLane (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, perhaps merge w/yesrterday's verizon story? NYT saying admin has lost all credibility seems newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that could reasonably be in the blurb too EdwardLane (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment just for information, this article has been nominated at DYK. (In other words, if we don't post this the best we can, it'll still appear on the main page in whatever form the DYKers decide). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsure on the question of whether to post, but please can we have a blurb that does not assume that everyone knows what "NSA" and "PRISM" are. Some context is required and, particularly, an indication of what country the story relates to. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a comment I don't think we know was PRISM actually stands for. We know its an initialism, but I've not seen a source to spell it out. (NSA of course should be expanded). --M ASEM (t) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily mean "spell out the acronym". We can refer to "the hedgehog inflation device PRISM", or whatever would be more appropriate. Formerip (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, perhaps add phone records story per Medeis . --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * possible altblurbUnited States National Security Agency accused of using an electronic surveillance program PRISM to mine into the personal data held by many major tech companies.
 * also found this related article but I can't figure out how to add that to the blurb Verizon_Communications EdwardLane (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Verizon story is mentioned in the PRISM article. We could pipelink telephone in the blurb, but on further thought I don't think mentioning companies in the blurb will work. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Altblurb Leaks reveal the top-secret  US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting domestic phone and internet communications  even absent suspected crimes.  μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little too loaded with emotional language. It may be better to say "It is reported that the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM program collected information about many phone and internet communications".  -- Jayron  32  18:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because it wasn't reported, it was leaked. It is also only relevant because of the domestic and non-criminal context--there's nothing controversial about collection of criminal or international data according to US law.  The proposed blurb would be like reporting a bank robbery as people walking out of a bank with a withdrawal.  The NYT described the Verizon portion of this as the Administration having lost all credibility.  My blurb is less "emotional" than that--it expresses the essential facts in an objective manner. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't reported? How did we find out about it then?  Wow.  It must have transmitted itself spontaneously to all of our brains if it wasn't reported!  -- Jayron  32  18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis is right, it was leaked. There's a difference, as I'm sure you're aware Jayron.  No need for the hyperbole.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The two things are not mutually exclusive. It was definitely reported. All across the front of the Guardian, for one thing. Formerip (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per FormerIP, no one leaked the information to me. Saying it was reported is not incorrect.  I learned about it because it was reported. -- Jayron  32  19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it unexpected that one has to explain the difference between the government itself reporting something openly and a leaked government secret being reported by the press. I have added some sources (left and right) on the leak and a m prepared to do so on the top secret and without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed parts if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in summary, it was "leaked". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I ever said it wasn't leaked. Medeis is the one who said it wasn't reported.  It can have been leaked and reported.  If it had been leaked and never reported, we'd still not know about it.  I'm still confused why the word "reported" is so offensive... -- Jayron  32  19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reported is correct, since it was "reported" by two newspapers. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop  19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those two papers the Guardian ("Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA"), and the Washington Post ("NSA leak: Source believes exposure, consequences inevitable"), are calling it a leak.
 * Medeis, as others have suggested, your phrasing appears to spin the story in the direction of "PRISM is bad". If the US Government were writing blurbs, I imagine they might spin it as something like: "Criminal leaks undermine the ability of the PRISM data surveillance network to protect the US from terrorism".  Both that version and your version are speaking with a pretty obvious POV.  For the purposes of ITN, I think we need a more neutral phrasing.  Jayron's suggestion, though quite bland, does have the advantage of not appearing judgmental.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Jayron  32  19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The story here is the leak, not that reporters reported the leak. we don't say that "It is reported there is a hurricane"; we say there is a hurricane.  We don't say that it is reported that according to a leak 9to the Guardian and the Wash. Post)"; we say "according to a leak".  Had the government reported this in the first place it wouldn't be a story. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Then let's say "Leaks reveal the US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting information about phone and internet communications." -- Jayron  32  4:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * We could leave out top secret, but not warrantless or its equivalent, otherwise the response to the blurb is "So what?" I restored my original nesting sequence because my two comments were not related and were in response to two separate issues
 * How about "Leaks reveal the US National Security Agency's PRISM program is collecting information about domestic phone and internet communications without warrants"? μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaks from the U.S. National Security Agency reveal the PRISM program of (warrantless) domestic telephone and internet surveillance. --LukeSurlt c 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that I thought there were warrants of a sort; I thought they did go to the FISA courts and request and receive explicit permission for the surveillance. I see where you are going here, but warrantless implies they did so without any authorization; part of the story seems to be that there was a secret authorization.  At least, that's my understanding of this.  -- Jayron  32  21:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also a potential issue with "domestic". The Director of National Intelligence emphasized that programs authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States".  It appears, that PRISM is intended to target the information on US servers of foreign nationals and their contacts.  It is the latter part where it gets ugly, since if the reporting is accurate, then as they target foreigners they also catch large swaths information about US citizens who happen to have indirect associations with targeted foreigners.  The separate Verizon story is a bit different since that appears to involve all domestic communications.  However, PRISM (at least according to the US Gov) still aims primarily to target foreigners.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post this, but see the discussion on the blurb is still on-going. The blurb I was going to post was:
 * "The US National Security Agency's PRISM programe is revealed to surveil user data from major technology companies."
 * -- RA (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the need to neutralize the blurb, but it feels that there's nothing gripping about this particularly if you're not in the US. Just as a suggestion, would a blurb that mentions the reaction from civil liberties groups (perhaps even a quote) remain neutral enough while stressing why this is an ITN item? --M ASEM  (t) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to "sex up" the story any more. The story is of interest of all users of Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, DropBox and Facebook services irrespective of where they come from. -- RA (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Where this is "gripping" is irrelevant: see the guidlines above on national relevance with which we are all familiar. That it is gripping is quite clear, although we can clarify for those unfamiliar with English common law and the US Constitution on the subject.  Read the Fourth Amendment on the issue at hand:
 * The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 * And read the editorial of the New York Times which twice endorsed Obama for election:"'President Obama’s Dragnet' By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers.... Those reassurances have never been persuasive.... The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act...was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers. Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system...."
 * μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When will it be posted? It's 8 June now. New worl (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read There is no deadline. In the mean time, we'll be working out a well-written blurb to make sure we get it right.  Right and later is better than wrong and now.  -- Jayron  32  01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This should have been posted by now, regardless of the issue of the best blurb. ...I am not interested in half a dead baby. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I support a speedy posting also. I'd like the Verizon phone records story in the blurb also, but if it can't be figured out soon let's post what we have on PRISM. Get it moving, please. Jus  da  fax   05:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as an important, world-changing news story (in the sense that people will behave differently online). Perhaps the phone snooping revelation could be added?  Abductive  (reasoning) 05:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is the above really true? If it is there's a lot of fools out there. I began using email in 1989. We were told back then to regard an email as being as private as a postcard. When did people begin to think they had privacy on the Internet? If this is posted the blurb should read "Fools around the world finally realise that the Internet isn't private!" HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted using the blurb I was going to post with last night. -- RA (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd better fix it. Right now it says "...is revealed as is revealed as..." HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me. But fixed now. -- RA (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Endorse This is simply monumental news. The consequences of the revelations are huge. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And what, pray, are those huge consequences? HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing? Thought so. No reason to post really. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting the supreme court authorizes collection of DNA from anyone in police custody and it's "yawn, boring, USA is behind the times", but Facebook responds to a court order to surrender your friends list and it's "OMFG post this tyranny right now". Comedy. --IP98 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Date: Why is this filed under June 5 in the template? --LukeSurlt c 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the revelation, as reported in the article, happened on 5 June. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not give a June 5 date: "PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013". The in the article for  mistakenly had a June 5 date marked - I have corrected this. --LukeSurlt c 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article says, "Disclosure of the Prism program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers." Please "correct" back, and place blurb illustrated at head of template.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaked to the Guardian on Wednesday, reported by the Guardian on Thursday. This being made known to the public is the story. --LukeSurlt c 23:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The act featured in the blurb is that it was revealed. It was revealed on Wednesday.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By that logic, if it took the Guardian a week to prepare the story it would have been "stale" and unable to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that had been the case, then we could have build a blurb around a different event: made public or allegations published. But they didn't delay, we don't have those actions as the key event of the blurb, and your point is moot.  It is simply untrue to state that the revelation occurred on 6 June. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vehemently Oppose as written. Please see main page errors. I appreciate you all are trying to work out the wording but you left me with nonsense. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award

 * Support if the article is updated sufficiently to meet the criteria. -- RA (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically we need someone who has read the book to do a plot summary! -LukeSurlt c 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A four sentence article is most certainly not sufficient to meet the minimum article quality standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. Anyone read it? Also there's a lot of reviews and stuff one can find by googling "City of Bohane". I may do some work on this tomorrow if I can. --LukeSurlt c 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I started the stub - I've not read the book (yet!) and have only ever started a handful (half-a-dozen at most) stubs on books so I'm probably no good at expanding I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support can we bold Kevin Barry (author) instead? It's a bit longer, and might be easier to expand. --IP98 (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready - I have expanded City of Bohane significantly, so it is ready to be posted. I also tweaked the blurb a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Esther Williams

 * Support Iconic hollywood star of the 1940s and 1950s. Evidence of newsworthiness of her death is clear in the depth and number of unique obits in reliable news sources.  -- Jayron  32  17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, famous actress. (I only switched "updated" to no because the lead was discussing her in present tense, I've since fixed that, and made a number of other minor edits). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, okay; I had to remove a copy-paste from the AP story to update in the body, but hadn't reviewed the lead. --M ASEM (t) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, we're nearly there on the update, as Medeis is now on station. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe. The LA Times stub says a real obit will follow.  She seems to have outlived everyone she worked with, so comments aren't coming on heavy. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unqualified Support huge star, had her own genre to herself, inspiration to generations of women. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The update is just under snuff, but I am working on it. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support, as above. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Had never heard of her but after reading the very good article I agree with the nom. CaptRik (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated as of this edit, five sentences and seven refs. μηδείς (talk)
 * And I dusted Medeis' refs up so we don't have stinky bare URLs. All good in the hood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am marking this ready as we have six supports, two strong, a clean update, and no opposes. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work TRM, Medeis.  Spencer T♦ C 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My mother has recounted at least a dozen times over the years how she used to walk home from school, backwards, pretending to be Williams doing the backstroke. So, if I didn't get this posted.... μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tom Sharpe

 * Question. Which of the RD criteria does he meet? 331dot (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Not mentioned in Satire, so it's hard for me to consider him at the top of his field as a satirical author (like Joseph Heller, for example).  Spencer T♦ C 13:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of a weird oppose. There seems to be only one living writer mentioned in that section. Are you saying that no-one else should be considered for RD? Formerip (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. My rule of thumb test for notability in a certain field (especially for a person I'm not familiar with) is to see how their mentioned in Wikipedia coverage of that field. Although it has worked well in the past (especially with musicians), this rule clearly falls short here and I've struck my oppose.  Spencer T♦ C 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Sure, seems worthwhile. DOing some Google News searches, I'm seeing long enough obits to justify this being a recognizable name in the news. -- Jayron  32  17:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, a well-known English comic novelist. Bob talk 17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as Jayron and Bob point out, newsworthy, especially for just two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - article probably meets the absolute minimum standard for an update, but another sentence or two on his death wouldn't hurt. Also not mandatory, but it would nice to have a proper lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Porterhouse Blue is indeed well-known, but I'm not convinced that Sharpe is "widely regarded as a very important figure" in literature. Important, sure; very important, doubtful. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to agree, was he a best seller, or an awardee? The obits I have read said his friends found him funny and generous. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there are 101 members of Category:English satirists, and 1,085 members of Category:English novelists. What distinguishes him? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I too must oppose, per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am marking this to clarify my leaning, but I'd be willing to change my vote. I realize it is very difficult to show why an author, rather than someone known on the TV or Film (sports, politician, etc.) is ITNworthy. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Before the rise of Terry Pratchett, Sharpe was probably our foremost living comic/satirical novelist here in the UK. His work has been reprinted, adapted, etc. It certainly seemed ubiquitous in my youth. I'm not a fan myself, but it would be hard to argue that he's not highly significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The critical response section I think highlights how he satisfies ITN/DC #2. Article is referenced and in fine shape. --IP98 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in a better shape than when this was nominated; as IP98 points out meets DC#2 - received prominent coverage on BBC. Pedro : Chat  14:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if this had two more referenced sentences about comments on his passing there would be no stopping this. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If no-one else tries, I'll see what I can do this evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at it, expanded the lead a little, fixed the clunky refs, and added a couple more sentences. What do you think?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support certainly notable enough, and the article is in good shape now. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ready (note, should be posted as oldest item on RD) two-one support and updated. μηδείς (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Ruairi O Bradaigh

 * Comment Ruairi Obradaigh was once the president of Sinn Féin. He was also a former IRA chief of staff. According to The Irish Times, Ruari was "a 80-year-old described by successor as a ’towering figure'". BBC says, "Veteran Irish republican and former president of Sinn Féin, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, has died aged 80. The Guardian refers to Ruairi as "One of Irish republicanism's most longstanding hardliners". Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly a very important figure in Irish history and the Troubles. Neljack (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - O Bradaigh was the founder of Republican Sinn Fein, a splinter group linked to the Continuity IRA. I don't think he's that significant over all. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was also President of Sinn Fein and an IRA leader, before the split. Neljack (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The proposer's first/main point is that he was the founder, which he was not. Hard to judge the impact of his death when you can't even get straight what it is he's supposed to be notable for. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support founder or not == irrelevant. President of Sinn Féin for 13 years during the troubles. There are several large unreferenced paragraphs in the body. --IP98 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weakly and unenthusiastically support. The article needs flagging for such issues as use of unreliable sources, and failure to mention relevant facts like RSF's negligable electoral support, etc... (But I'm not sufficiently enthusiastic to want to write and defend those flags myself). And the proposer was mistaken when originally describing him as founding Sinn Fein, and raises seeming irrelevancies such as him being described as a 'towering figure' by his successor (unnamed by the proposer, perhaps because almost nobody has ever heard of Des Dalton, his successor as RSF President, although, for all I know or care, he might instead be referring to Gerry Adams, his successor as President of Provisional Sinn Fein, and the latest member of the long list of 'betrayers of the Republic' in the eyes of hardliners like O'Bradaigh). Consequently it would be helpful to see the proposed wording before being any firmer in my support. It would also seem rather weirdly parochial to me if his death is deemed notable while that of China's Chen Xitong (see discussion on him below) is not. But the fact remains that O'Bradaigh was an important figure in the emergence of Provisional Sinn Fein and Provisional IRA in 1969-1970, and thus in the deaths of about 3,500 Irish and British people in The Troubles over the next 30 years or so (deaths of which perhaps half are directly attributable to the Provisional IRA). Thus unfortunately he seems notable, even though, at least in my view, Ireland and Britain might well have been slightly happier places if he had never been born (we can't be sure - the Provos would probably have come into existence anyway without his help, but much the same - 'if he didn't do it, somebody else probably would have' - can presumably be said about many (and perhaps most) 'notable' people).
 * Initial suggested wording (please improve and shorten as you see fit):
 * Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, hardline Irish Republican leader, and an important figure in the emergence of the Provisional IRA in 1969-1970, which killed approximately half of about 3,500 Irish and British people killed in the Northern Ireland Troubles over subsequent decades.
 * Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry about wrongly stating that Ruairi was the founder of Sinn Fein. I nominated this death while doing a few other things so I must not have been fully paying attention when I wrote my comment above. I corrected my statement in my above comment. Andise1 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've amended my contributions in the light of your amendment. And by the way, my apologies for probably being somewhat over the top in my criticism. Do you happen to know whether the 'towering figure' comment is by Dunlop or Adams or somebody else? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for RD based on the coverage noted above and what I can find in news searches. He's being given attention by the news in that there are reasonable-length obituaries.  Seems to be evidence the news considers his death noteworthy by that.  -- Jayron  32  17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is problematic, as mentioned, and presents a wall of text lacking subheads making some sections unclear and overlong. Not in office at time of death, not shown to be terribly important, and walking away in '86 seems more about retaining power than actually founding anything. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right that nothing he did in 1986 makes him genuinely notable. Any case for his notability seemingly rests on what he did (along with others) in 1969-1970. And somebody would probably need to at least add Multiple Issues flags to the article before the proposal can be accepted. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Prime Minister of Pakistan

 * Support Important and notable event of Pakistan and Asia! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 05:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The election of head of government of a major sovereign nation seems rather notable; WP:ITN/R includes head of state for countries like Pakistan, but in this case, it appears the head of government is a more prominent figure, even if indirectly elected. (I don't quite understand why ITN/R would prefer one over the other in general; which is more notable depends on the individual country and the method of election obviously differs.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the comments of User:2001:db8. Also a peaceful and democratic transfer of power in Pakistan is a rare thing, and the country is over in a precarious position at the present time and thus of international interest. Neljack (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The election has already been covered on ITN. --LukeSurlt c 07:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was about the results of the general election. The Prime Minister gets elected after the general election takes place.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is normal for government formation occurs a little time after elections, and we don't post that. The elections that ITN covers are ones where the electorate votes, rather than these votes by elected representatives. This seems more of a procedural step following Sharif's party's victory - he's effectively been "prime minister elect" since the election. --LukeSurlt c 09:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While Nawaz wasn't "prime minister elect" as his party did not win a(n absolute) majority of seats, the election of the prime minister occurred right after the election and there was no long and drawn out negotiations as in what happened in the Netherlands so in cases like this ITN usually doesn't post who becomes the prime minister. – H T  D  09:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know many people here oppose posting government formations, but to my mind they are of similar notability to elections where no party has won a majority: the election determines the composition of the Parliament, but then government formation negotiations are required to determine the composition of the government. Unless one doesn't regard the composition of the government as important, it would seem that the government formation should qualify too where no party has won an election majority. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Has ITN posted the Italian government formation lately? The result there can be a good precedent to this one, although that was still longer than this one. – H T  D  11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose we posted the (sham) "election" of the Chinese premiere by their national assembly, even after posting his installation as dictator by the politburo. That was a mistake. Most commonly, the leader of the party or coalition with the most votes becomes the Prime Minister. Pretty standard parliamentary fare, actually. We don't post the Canadian PM when appointed by the governor general, nor the US president when elected by the electoral college, so there is really no reason to post this. --IP98 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose foregone conclusion, no double dipping. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose one post per election is enough except in the rare cases (e.g. Italy) where there is a hung government and the selection of a prime minister changes the balance of power. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP98 <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop  02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Former Slovenian PM convicted of corruption

 * Support Former head of government being convicted of corruption is certainly sufficiently newsworthy. Neljack (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Needs updating. I can't tell how major this is from the article or provided ref. You state that it's "probably the largest case ... in the last 20 years", but I can't see that from the article or the ref. If that can be validly supported and shown to be notable, then it could make sense to include this, but without, it's just another corrupt politician without specific notability. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a sitting head, not a shocking or very notable type of crime for a politician. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per Neljack and 331dot. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since 331dot is "per Neljack", does that make this SupportQLS=Neljack+(Neljack<suP>2 ) ?


 * Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - quite notable, also I added the jail sentence to an alternative blurb, think it's worthy of mention.--Avala (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not terribly clear. One is convicted of an offence, and sentenced to prison time. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Updated now. Marking ready (since I nominated it, I will not post myself). To back the notability, Janša was ousted as a PM a couple of months ago and a substantial number of politicians in Slovenia claim that the trial was politically motivated. Also, if the verdict holds the appeal, this will be the highest-ranking politician in the country being convicted. There's also a photo available. --Tone 08:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted a slightly modified version of the altblurb, cleaned up for clarity and grammar. I did not link the Patria case article because it is not updated, and some of the material there directly contradicts the current news. -- Jayron  32  14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * "Everyone is innocent until the sentence is final, said the Assembly for the Republic, a right-leaning outfit with close ties to Janša." [ source]
 * I don't know whether this is related to the comment to which you've referred. On my talk page and in the message above, you stated that the concept is separate from any appeals, but news articles (including one that you added to the article as a source) explain the opposite.
 * My understanding is that Janša has been formally convicted by a court of law and plans to appeal the ruling. This doesn't mean that the verdict is tentative or unofficial.  It means that it could be overturned by a higher court (assuming that one agrees to hear an appeal, which isn't guaranteed).  Unless I'm overlooking some fundamental difference between the Slovenian legal system and others in which appeals are possible, this seems like a typical criminal conviction.  —David Levy 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The ITN item states a) he has been convicted and b) he has been sentenced to two years in prison. Both these points are borne out by the sources, and are a fair reflection of what has happened. The blurb says nothing about whether he is actually guilty of the crimes, or whether appeals are possible. As David Levy says above, appeals are a normal part of legal procedure. The fact that they are possible does not change the facts that Jansa has a) been convicted and b) been sentenced, which is what the ITN blurb reports. There's no need to modify it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I find it disturbing that an administrator would unilaterally remove a story from T:ITN without proper discussion, especially when they had not previously been involved in ITN. That was clearly inappropriate use of the admin tools. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * We routinely post ITN items about high-ranking politicians being convicted of major crimes. Such convictions are routinely appealed.
 * You claimed that a different process was ongoing (and seemed to state that the original trial was not actually complete). This, evidently, is not so.  Janša has been convicted and intends to file an appeal with a higher court.  (If his conviction were to be overturned, I believe that this event would be suitable for inclusion in ITN.)
 * I find it disconcerting that an administrator could be ignorant of the fact that editing a fully protected page involves an admin tool. I know that you're aware of the page's protection, as you mentioned it on my talk page (in the context of your expectation that it would cascade to the Commons image that you transcluded).  —David Levy 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The case is not complete as the defendant can and will file an appeal. Therefore, this is not a final judgement yet and the blurb should not give the impression that it is. What I have had in mind is that editing a protected page doesn't mean I used an admin tool. The sentence: "That was clearly inappropriate use of the admin tools." is therefore incorrect. Of course I know that only admins can edit a fully protected page, however I don't regard this as a tool. --Eleassar my talk 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote that you "seemed to state that the original trial was not actually complete" (emphasis added).
 * Janša has been convicted and sentenced. His ability to appeal (and possibly have the conviction overturned) doesn't change that.
 * I don't see how it does. We're simply stating that Janša has been convicted and sentenced.  As discussed above, it's common for an appeal to follow.
 * I'm baffled as to what you do regard as an admin tool and what distinction you're drawing. —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it does. We're simply stating that Janša has been convicted and sentenced.  As discussed above, it's common for an appeal to follow.
 * I'm baffled as to what you do regard as an admin tool and what distinction you're drawing. —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to what you do regard as an admin tool and what distinction you're drawing. —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The blurb gives the impression that it is something final, because it doesn't state which court did sentence him. In fact it states (by ommission): he has been convicted and sentenced (and that is just it). If a visitor reads the article he will find out that it doesn't tell an important fact: the case is far from concluded. Many visitors will not read the article. A passing reader would therefore have no reason to think otherwise than "just another corrupt politician". I personally think this may be true, however firmly believe that the principles of the BLP policy should be followed as much as it is possible. Janša has been convicted and sentenced, but this may turn out to be unimportant in the long run, and therefore reporting about it is sensational and brings negative publicity to the man who should still be considered innocent.. As to the distinction, you don't need a special page or a special button to edit protected pages. --Eleassar my talk 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the blurb implies that the decision is final. As discussed above, it's extremely common (in many countries) for an appeal to follow a conviction and sentencing, which we routinely report at this stage.  As Modest Genius noted, we aren't deeming Janša guilty.  We're referring to a factual occurrence widely reported around the world.
 * I also disagree that "this may turn out to be unimportant in the long run". Based upon the articles that I've read, Janša's supporters and detractors agree that his conviction is a major embarrassment (for different reasons, of course).  Even if overturned, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be forgotten or considered minor.
 * I agree, however, that it would be irresponsible to ignore such an outcome at ITN. I would support the inclusion of an item about his conviction being overturned, assuming that the article is updated properly.
 * The absence of "a special page or a special button to edit protected pages" is immaterial. The assertion was that you misused a nonstandard ability that you possess because you're an administrator.  But I don't wish to belabor this point.  —David Levy 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It would be less misleading to state that the conviction is subject to appeal. But as discussed above, this is nothing out of the ordinary.  What's special about this case?  —David Levy 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what the ITN section is for, "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". Convictions of high-ranking politicians are often posted, even if the ruling is later overturned. Actually, I believe we always post the first-level verdicts in such cases. I see you've added some more content to the article which I find good and explainatory. Other than that, I hope my update reflected that the verdict was not final yet and that the opinions of the people differed a lot regarding the case. Regarding the discussion at the Slovene WP page, that one is whether to include the event on the list of historical anniversaries, which is a completely different thing. Regarding the blurb changes, if changed, it would be better to say "in the first level" or something like this. --Tone 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the reference, we posted the conviction of Ivo Sanader last year when it was the first-level verdict as well. (Former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader is sentenced to 10 years in prison for corruption.) (Coincidently, I was the posting admin but the consensus has been reached without my contribution). --Tone 13:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Do you mean that we should wait until no further appeals are possible? —David Levy 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On second thought, probably this would not make sense. However, the least that can be done (in such cases) is to write it clearly in the article that the judgement is not final and that the guy remains presumed innocent. --Eleassar my talk 20:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The presumption of innocence isn't a typical element of a first-level conviction. When you introduced this topic, I searched for reliable English-language sources of such a claim and found only the aforementioned statement by "a right-leaning outfit with close ties to Janša".  I also viewed a machine translation of this article (which you've cited), but the relevant portions were barely comprehensible (due to poor translation).  —David Levy 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case it is and it should had been written in the article before the item was published on the Main Page. If you think my translation is incorrect or you are not sure, please point it out at the talk page of the corresponding article. On the other hand, you may ask Tone who also speaks Slovene. See also here (Article 27 of the Slovene Constitution). I guess that the Slovene Constitution is not so special to be the only one including such a clause, therefore it would make sense to verify this in the future in similar cases before such a blurb appears on the Main Page. (By the way, thanks for having removed the duplicated text yesterday. My computer crashed just when I wanted to save the page without it, so I was not able to remove it myself.) --Eleassar my talk 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing that link, which is very helpful. The question is whether this constitutes a material distinction.  (In other words, should it affect how/whether we report a high-ranking politician's first-level criminal conviction at ITN?)  —David Levy 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Archicebus

 * Support Was thinking to nominate it myself. The article is already in a good shape. --Tone 05:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb is currently a fragment. Andise1 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to nominate this after having a chance to expand the article. Thankfully, it seems I didn't have to.  I have suggested a more coherent altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alt blurb. I was falling asleep last night when I nominated this.  (I'm just glad I didn't have to go through the DYK process in that condition!)  My only comment is that the specimen is the oldest known skeleton.  There are highly fragmentary (and very debatable) fossils that are slightly older.  Hopefully when I get home tonight I'll have time to mention them in the article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. The altblurb reads to me as if this is an extant, living primate. --LukeSurlt c 11:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support A new oldest-known primate fossil seems rather notable. As a primate, I support the inclusion of a new discovery about our earliest ancestors. (Prefer alternate blurb, or perhaps modified further.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious support, but the blurb definitely needs re-working. Reads horribly and is a fragment.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  10:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The oldest known primate claim in the article is unreferenced (it needs a reference at the location of the statement), and this fact is only listed in the "Etymology" section (the "oldest known primate" should probably be mentioned in the lead).  Spencer T♦ C 13:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready meets update requirement and universal support so far. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Kandahar massacre

 * Support The Kandahar massacre seems to be an important enough event for this to be notable, compared to other similar events; one of the unfortunately more-notable events by our U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This appears to have been one of the most-covered individual incidents related to the war, and an actual conviction for one individual accused of so many deaths does seem notable enough to include. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question What makes this "final"? Someone pleading guilty is obviously a major step, but proceedings will obviously continue. And guilt pleas aren't always final anyway. People have been known to plead guilty for many reasons, not all of them to do with actual guilt. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Final" is in quotes because, yes it is not technically over - there will be a sentencing phase in August. However, that is just to decide between life in prison w/parole or w/o parole.  It's a military trial, so it doesn't work quite like a civil trial.  This is essentially the verdict stage (which is normally when we'd post a trial that we deemed worth posting) - the plea can't be withdrawn or anything like that.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This was an event with international implications, and his guilty plea is sure to be big in Afghanistan as well as around the world. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume "Sargent" is supposed to be "Sergeant", though do correct me if it's an Americanism that I'm not aware of! Neljack (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be indeed be "Sergeant" in the U.S., referring to rank. The only exception I can think of is Sargent Shriver, a proper name (and perhaps the source of occasional confusion.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 07:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected --LukeSurlt c 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The case isn't over yet. I'd recommend waiting until he's actually sentenced.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  10:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. Seems to be the point in the case of peak media interest. --LukeSurlt c 11:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose spree killers being convicted are rarely ITN candidates. We didn't do one when the guy who shot the judge and congressman took a plea, either - and no doubt we won't when there's a conviction in the theater killings - did we even do one for the conviction or sentence for the guy who killed dozens in Norway? is there a POV being pushed? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the basis for this claim is, but in fact the verdict phase is precisely what we normally post in high profile trials. I am not aware of any specific "spree killer" that wasn't posted, but I'm sure some haven't been nominated.  I would be extremely surprised if the Aurora conviction is not posted.  No POV is being pushed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been marked ready for >36 hours (when the !vote was 4-1, now 4-2 with fairly weak opposition). I guess this is going to be another nom that dies only because no admin looked at it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are plenty of people convicted of ethnic cleansing/war crimes we have not posted. This pea-deal needs a better rationale, doesn't it? μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Chen Xitong

 * Oppose The article says, without source, that Chen was notable as a loyal follower of Deng Xiaoping (and a good student) and served as a scapegoat for Tian An Men. It is written almost as if it were a PRC press release as regards to POV, and in very poor English to boot.  (It needs at least three orange tags.)  I am clueless as to the rationale here, Chen not being of any grand importance, and neither a leader or even dictatorial suppressor of the student revolt. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a good, out-of-the blue, unreferenced sample sentence: "It was later revealed that Chen's embezzlement was a relatively low amount in comparison to other corrupted cadres who embezzled much more but were left unscathed in the so-called anti-corruption campaigns." μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And sorry to lay this on so thick, but the article says he died on the 2nd, not the 5th. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He died Sunday, but it wasn't announced until today, so the article is right on that point. No dispute from me on the article's very poor shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not involved with the actual Tien An Men events other than being named as a scapegoat. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support His status as a former mayor of the capital of one of the world's two most important countries is notable, his scapegoating is notable, and his death is thus also notable, as the New York Times correctly recognises. The fact that our article is a bad article is regretable, but the faults of the article are clearly flagged in the many notices at its start, and readers are entitled to see Wikipedia as it is, warts and all - otherwise we're in some ways worse censorers than the PRC, since unlike them we can't claim that we honestly believe that our censorship of our warts is necessary to prevent the millions of deaths that may occur in China if ending censorship were to lead to yet another Chinese revolution. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No one would ever have heard of him if not for Tian An Men. He has no notability beyond that and its repercussions. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'No one' seems a strange and even rather disturbing way to describe a significant fraction of over a billion Chinese. Some of them may even look up English Wikipedia when they have the chance. The omission may even remind some of them of what they were taught at school about Western contempt for Chinese people ('Dogs and Chinese not allowed in this park', etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent the day of June 4 1989 canoeing the Delaware river in upstate New York with a graduate student from China whom I will not name and whose father died during the cultural revolution and who wept all day long and part of it in my arms. So you can drop the silly,if not pernicious, claims of bias.  Nevertheless, had the massacre not occurred, I am quite sure Chen's name would be unknown by 99% of Chinese. Regardless of that, the article is a huge mess, and if you want it posted it could use your attention. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if what I wrote upset you. But I have not the slightest intention of trying to fix the article (except perhaps to spell out who Jiang Zemin actually is - see below), since I would be completely unable to fix it (though putting it on In The News will greatly improve the chances of others fixing it). But despite its faults and inevitable questions over its reliability (which quite likely also apply to anything from so-called reliable sources about Chinese politics), I found it to be one of the most interesting and informative things I have read on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) in quite some time, and I strongly recommend it to anybody else who like me is vaguely interested in China, but poorly informed about it. And since it states that he was on the Politburo and a rival to Deng's successor Jiang Zemin, it makes him significantly more notable than I had first realised (in US and world terms he would thus arguably be roughly equivalent to Bill Clinton's opponent Bob Dole), and for reasons which have seemingly little or nothing to do with Tien An Men (though even if he were only notable because of Tien An Men that does not seem a particularly good reason for not mentioning him). Once again, I regret if what I wrote upset you, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that you intended no disrespect to Chinese people, but that does not alter the fact that what you wrote came across as rather disrespectful, even though that was not your intention. Regardless of how traumatic has been your personal history (whose relevance here is not particularly clear to me, except to suggest that your emotions may well be clouding your judgment on the issue, especially regarding the notability of a man who was seemingly at least in some small part responsible for a massacre that traumatised you), if only 1% of Chinese had heard of him (which is academic since clearly far more now have), that would still be more than twice the population of my own country, and, unless I'm also 'silly' for not regarding my own people as 'no one' too, I stand over every word of the 'silly' things I supposedly wrote in my previous post. However I've wasted enough time on this discussion, so please feel free to have the last word if you wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing I said was silly was claiming my opposition to the article being posted was based on bias. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article does not reasonably cover any rationale for including this. There is no indication of why this individual was notable, past being a former mayor of a large city removed on corruption charges 18 years ago. (And in a country where the political and legal climate is very different than most English-speaking countries, thus especially needing additional rationale.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It already stated he was a member of the Politburo, effectively a member of the government of one of the most important countries on Earth, and that he was a rival to Jiang Zemin. It now also spells out that his rival Jiang Zemin was China's ruler. That seems rather notable to me. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Earlier I suggested that as a defeated rival of former President Jiang Jemin, in world terms he was roughly comparable to Bill Clinton's opponent Bob Dole. But in many ways this understates his notability. After all, Bob Dole is not arguably at least partly responsible for a notorious massacre, was not jailed under Bill Clinton and then released early under George W Bush, was never mayor of his country's capital, and was not part of an unelected government that ruled over more than a billion people (and so on...). The fact that most of us have heard of Dole but not of Chen is itself rather interesting, and arguably the sort of thing that Wikipedia ought to be doing its bit to try to remedy (but presumably isn't going to try, judging by the views being expressed by most people here). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support pending cleanup per WP:ITN/P #3 and WP:ITN/DC #1, having had a significant impact on the region. --IP98 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I still oppose this as not notable enough, but the article is in much better shape, although still not quite good enough. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we dated this at the date of death (and I believe we should), which is June 2, this would probably be already "aged off" the template; [the Turkey item, being ongoing, is somewhat ill-defined on its date] .--LukeSurlt c 20:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of al-Qusayr

 * Comment This would certainly be sufficiently notable, but I don't think Syrian state television is a reliable source. We need independent confirmation. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see Reuters quote a rebel statement confirming their withdrawal from the town. If that's true, I will support. Neljack (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC article linked above says "Syrian pro-government forces have taken full control of the strategic town of Qusair, state TV and the rebels say."  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support once updated. Per nom. Quote from article "[t]he battle has been described as a decisive one, which will determine the outcome of the war."  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question almost every Syria article I see refers to "Rebel activists". It seems highly POV, these rebels are soldiers fighting against another army. I'm thinking to orange tag the article unless someone can tell me why I'm wrong. --IP98 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have edited out the two instances of that phrase in this article. --LukeSurlt c 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, with Syrian Civil War articles, given the real-world situation, we're going to have to accept a fairly high degree of latitude with PERFECTION. There's a lot of information, and a lot of it is partisan in origin. I suspect it will be about a year after the conflict ends before this suite of articles will be decently cleaned up. LukeSurlt c 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still 15 occurrences of "activist" in there, as "opposition activist", or as "activists". Your second point is totally valid. --IP98 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support important update in the Syrian civil war. --IP98 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support came here to nominate it to. Looks like the war is nearly won. Govt reports o winning and opposite of withdrawal by each party. Perhaps add after a surprise night time raid.
 * In the early days of the article I worked on it and changed the title. But have not seen the current state of update to comment on that.Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I think the blurb should say "government forces retake the strategic town of Al-Qusayr." Towns change hands all the time in this war, but this one is very important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than a small mention in the infobox, the article currently is not updated.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * --IP98 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see two lines under in "Seventeenth day" section and it was hard to find.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Jairo Maro

 * Consider DYK if its a new articleLihaas (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak support I don't really read Spanish all that well, so I don't know how to search through sources which may be covering this, but the above stories show barely enough depth for me to give this a weak support on the coverage; the article is in decent shape and I can't find any obvious faults with it. I would drop the weak from my support if we could be shown some Spanish language sources which cover this in sufficient depth.  While I don't read Spanish all that well, I think I could get the gist of how well this is being covered if shown those sources.  If we could get something like that, maybe major national news sources in Costa Rica or something like that, that would be very helpful in helping make up my mind more definitively on this.  -- Jayron  32  19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. La Nación has at least 5 stories on it (including the lead story at current, 3 days later):   Relevant Google News search:  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Changing to full support.  -- Jayron  32  19:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this looks interesting, a primary rationale of "we don't post enough non-US/UK stuff" isn't very swaying. While I actually agree with that point, it should serve to post fewer US-centric stories, not post more stories from other areas that don't seem particularly notable. Unfortunately, I don't find the death of one person over a semi-routine issue all that notable. Maybe I'm biased from over-reliance on coverage by English-language sources, but I don't think "sea-turtle-protecting environmentalist murdered in California" would be notable enough either, without some sort of larger reason to include it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't actually post very many US-centric items. Spend a lot of time debating them to death, sure, but most don't get posted. That wasn't the rationale - the rationale is that it is getting a lot of press coverage (which doesn't happen to be in English).  And I don't think opposing worthy items is the way to combat bias - the way to combat bias is to nominate items from other cultures.  No where in the ITN rules does it say "a story must cause some sort of immediately obviously long-time effect on an international level", nor should it.  Indeed, the vast majority of what we post only has importance because we (or the media) decide it does... The reason this murder is important is because the media has decided its important.  Is the Pistorius case inherently important?  No, it is important because the media decided it is important.  The same rationale applies here. The fact that it is Spanish media instead of English media, should not matter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point does make sense, and indeed I haven't seen too many US-centric items posted; though it seems to lean in that direction somewhat. (And ITN/C does seem to do a decent job of rejecting a lot of them; I'm a bit new at actually participating in ITN/C vs just seeing what gets posted on the main page.) But my point stands, as for one single environmentalist being killed for his cause. I'm not convinced by the "lots of media coverage" angle; I haven't seen any rationale for why the English-language press coverage actually makes this notable, past being one of many stories that our media occasionally does latch onto a bit. There's obviously a bit of WP:OR to contend with as far as whether a story is newsworthy just due to its coverage in English-language sources, which was more my point; just because something got picked up by certain press doesn't necessarily make it notable. A more compelling argument would be links to major Spanish outlets covering this as a major story, I suppose, and demonstrating why it's a major story of any true significance, past just that certain media outlets deemed it so without necessarily stating why. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The UN has now released a statement about the murder: . The US embassy did so previously.  The story remains at the top of Costa Rican media 5 days later.  La Nacion has now written about 10 stories on it.  CRHoy has 15 stories.  The CR government started talks with environmental groups today "to stop the environmental delinquency" of the gov't with Maro's death as the stimulus for talks. .  All of that should provide strong evidence this is no ordinary murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with qualification. After reading the sources (unfortunately, I don't have the time to look at them in depth), I think it may make sense to include this...if you can validly describe the notability of the talks with environmental groups in the blurb, if they did indeed rise to a level of notability as great as the murder, which would then seem to require both to be covered together. E.g., "After Jairo Mora Sandoval is murdered protecting leatherback sea turtle nests, the Costa Rican government [restarted/opened its first/opened/whatever is factual but notable enough] [groundbreaking/significant/whatever] talks with environmental groups." I don't know if this is actually the case, but your only other rationale is that lots of outlets are covering it. My broad interpretation of WP:ITND is that a fairly not-that-well-known field like turtle-nest protection doesn't meet point 2 (because then anyone in any minor field would be eligible; and I don't see that he was seen as important enough in the field of environmentalism itself to be considered for inclusion on that merit), thus one of the other two criteria need to be met. Environmental talks are the only thing you've mentioned along those lines (other than some general reactions that apply to many deaths), but there could be other reasons of notability to support that of the alleged murder. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to June 4 (the date reform talks begin) for further discussion as per User:2001:db8. The Spanish coverage of this latest development (which I am still working on adding to the article) suggests a number of agreements were reached today and that the gov't will fast track the legislation.  I will also note that Costa Rica's economy is highly dependent on ecotourism which is part of the reason why this is such a big deal in CR.  So we now have a murder that is leading to legislation directly impacting one the primary industries of a nation.  Seems pretty significant to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A good article that covers this in reasonable detail and documents its impact well. It has clearly attraction international attention, as the UN and Whie House statements indicate. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Neljack just above. Good story with global implications as sea turtle populations are declining worldwide. Jus  da  fax   07:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Strong oppose blurb First the police haven't officially said it was poachers, it's his boss who said it. Second, even if it were poachers, it's a fairly routine (tragic but routine) murder. The only difference between Mora and Tim Samaras is that Samaras was killed by his work and Mora was killed (probably) doing his work. No blurb needed. --IP98 (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This person is not notable in himself to be listed at RD. The death is notable, which would require a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A full blurb is what is proposed. As I said in the nomination " An RD listing wouldn't make any sense to me since the murder is the story, so consider the nomination full blurb or nothing."  --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think a full blurb would be an actual mistake in the way saying the Hula frog was "identified" as a living fossil is. But I think the murder is less notable than most of our nominations.  You can put me at weak oppose to a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the challenge with this item and Tim Samaras is that the notability comes from the death and individual combined: that either on their own (man killed by poachers or environmental activist dies) would never stand a chance. On the other hand, it is a death story in the end. Politicians, athletes, actors and musicians, all much better known, are "relegated" to RD. I stated my position above, but I don't think the supports are wrong either. This is a rare case where the old ITN/DC rules don't quite work, and the lack of RD rules make it hard to decide if this is a fit. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is in no way problematic. The matter was discussed during the various nominations for RD, and the conclusion was that when it is not just a death but a murder or unexpected death the matter would be treated as a newsworthy event in itself with a full blurb.  RD is not more fundamental than ITN itself.  Deaths like these should be nominated for full blurbs, not for RD as if that's an easier hurdle. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This parallels my own reasoning to call for a full blurb explaining the event. I also oppose it as a RD without a blurb, but would support it with an appropriate blurb per my previous comments. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting. There is a consensus to post and it seems to be against the RD. Since the article is strong, full blurb. Also, the Alt blurb is better since we're posting this now. --Tone 05:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Hula painted frog

 * Support pending update  The BBC reports "Tests have revealed". I followed the link to the nature article but I don't have a subscription. The article should cover why it took 2 years from the first re-discovery to the declaration of a living fossil. --IP98 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although not a complete solution to your comment, I've updated the article to at least have the 2013 news story about the re-discovery being published CaptRik (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a species rediscovered, after being previously classified as extinct, satisfies WP:ITN/P #3 --IP98 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Seems this little frog joins a fairly exclusive group of living fossils. Interesting story. CaptRik (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, it's not a living fossil. Living fossil means it has no close relatives. This frog has many living relatives in its genus, Discoglossus. The story on this frog is that it was thought to have gone extinct back in 1996, until a specimen was collected in 2011. And such findings are common (thankfully). Abductive  (reasoning) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, the BBC and Nature Communications are wrong, and you're right. Silly me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to it is mistakenly classified as Discoglossus but is actually Latonia hence it being a living fossil. CaptRik (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read the story. Yes, it is was thought extinct and then recovered, but that's not the present story.  The new finding is that the frog is NOT actually related to the Discoglossus genus but rather to the Latonia (genus), for which no other living examples are known, and hence it is a living fossil.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article says Discoglossus nigriventer. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So we fix it, right? Or are the BBC and Nature magazine incorrect?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are incorrect. Don't believe the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so "Abductive" is a RS but the BBC and Nature aren't? You think a lot of yourself! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to be bold and change the article but I don't know enough about the classifications to know if it's simply a genus change so I haven't risked getting it wrong. CaptRik (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are some problems: The genus Latonia is a sister to Discoglossus; . Latonia is known from only 15,000 years ago. Living fossils, according to the Wikipedia article, have no close living relatives and none so recent. Also, morphologically they are supposed to be odd or primitive, such as the Coelacanth or Ginkgo biloba. Quoting from Wikipedia: A subtle difference is sometimes made between a "living fossil" and a "Lazarus taxon". A Lazarus taxon is a taxon (either one species or a group of species) that suddenly reappears, either in the fossil record or in nature (i.e. as if the fossil had "come to life again"), while a living fossil is a species that (seemingly) has not changed during its very long lifetime (i.e. as if the fossil species has always lived). The mean species turnover time (the time a species lasts before it is replaced) varies widely among the phyla, but averages about 2–3 million years. So, a living species that was thought to be extinct (e.g. the coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae) could be called a Lazarus taxon instead of a living fossil. Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record some 80 million years ago (upper Cretaceous). Of course, species do not just appear out of thin air, so all living Lazarus species (excluding disappearing and reappearing red list species) are nonetheless considered living fossils, if it can be shown they are not Elvis taxa. Note that "(excluding disappearing and reappearing red list species)" was not added by me. :) Abductive  (reasoning) 20:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix them. You claim to be more reliable than the BBC and Nature, so please ensure our encyclopedia is accurate.  Otherwise, why would you be here?  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the living fossil article is correct, and you and the BBC are not. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Nature and the National Geographic? (And shedloads of other prominent RSs).  Wow, Abductive, you're incredible!  (and for your information, I just cited reliable sources, so it's nothing to do with whether "I'm correct" or not... please).  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The authors (who have a COI) can claim that it is a living fossil, but according to the consensus among scientists, it does not meet the definition. All the other sources are blindly following the authors; as it typical with science reporters they don't know their ass from their elbows. Now, if you like I can find secondary sources that will show that science reporters often are wrong. 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Abductive is correct, this is not a living fossil. There are three suborders within the frog order, Archaeobatrachia, Mesobatrachia, and Neobatrachia, similar in taxonomic distance to that between iguanas, monitors and snakes, although that is a huge simplification. The Hula frog belongs to the least derived group, the Archaeobatrachia.  But that doesn't make it a living fossil any more than a among the primates a lemur that was thought to have gone extinct being rediscovered would make it a living fossil.  It has other living relations within the same family, the way humans have living chimp and gorilla relatives within the ape family or the giant panda has other bear relatives within the bear family.  This is far, far less distinct than the difference between the Ginko or the Coelocanth and their closest relatives, which were distinct from their closest living relatives since long before the dinosaurs went extinct. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Taxonomic ranks are often misleading as regards evolutionary distance. All of superfamily Hominoidea (e.g. humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons) are closer to each other than this frog is to all other living frogs.  Similarly, all living members of family Ursidae (e.g. giant pandas and other bears), are also more closely related to each other than this frog is to other living frogs.  The fact that Latonia was merely labeled as a different genus is side effect of the morphological similarity to other frogs, but it is not a fair indicator of the genetic distance or time since last common ancestor.  Yes, this frog is not as unusual as a Ginko or Coelocanth, but it's also not as similar as discovering a gorilla or a panda bear.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A very rare event; an area of news we don't have often. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not remotely rare. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's why it's third story on the BBC News website right now. Not rare at all.  Heh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is fairly common for species thought to have gone extinct have been found a few years later. This frog is not the Coelacanth, it was last seen in 1955. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It can't be too common if the BBC deems it important enough to be a top story. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lazarus taxon. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is the right timing in ITN for this type of discovery (on paper publication), and a rar scientific topic. --M ASEM (t) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty obvious. Rare and important event.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm The main blurb is not in the article and is vehemently objected to by Abductive. The altblurb would make us look silly - the species was rediscovered 1.5+ years ago and the discovery was previously announced.  Surely there is another angle we can use in a blurb? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to posting this, but all abductive's points above are correct. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The peer reviewed study in Nature Communications labels this a living fossil on the basis that the split between Latonia and Discoglossus occurred approximately 32 million years ago.  That's not as old as a Ginko or a Coelacanth.  Nor is it as surprising to find a living member of this genus since fossils were known that are only ~15,000 years old.  Even so, it is still remarkable to find a single extant species that is the only known remnant of a split that occurred tens of millions of years ago, and that's why the authors labeled this a living fossil.  Obviously, I trust the experts in the field and journal editors' judgment about when to apply the label "living fossil" more than I do the arguments offered by Abductive / Medeis.  It's a remarkable find.  Of course, the value of this as "news" is still pretty low, but as a diversion from our typical content I think it serves nicely.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt BlurbIt still remains that the Coelacanth is the only living member of its subclass, having split off from the lung fish in the Devonian over 360 million years ago and the Ginko is the only member of its phylum, or division, while this frog has living relatives so close they were mistaken as co-generic and are still in the same family. An accurate description of the claim made in the article would be "The newly rediscovered Hula painted frog is assigned to the heretofore fossil genus Latonia" which is a bit esoteric.  Given the animal was uncontroversially the first amphibian to have been declared extinct, a much better neutral and to most people meaningful blurb would be
 * The first living amphibian ever declared extinct, the Hula painted frog, is discovered alive in Israel. μηδείς (talk) 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * I Support this blurb if it is true. Is it really the first living amphibian ever declared extinct? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's actually much sexier, and totally uncontroversial: "In fact, the Hula painted frog was the first amphibian to officially be declared extinct" -NatGeo. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb The rediscovery of the first amphibian to be declared extinct certainly seems sufficiently notable. Neljack (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Extinct amphibians already lists 29 species, what about them? Brandmeistertalk   11:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Alt Blurb 3: The rediscovered Hula painted frog, previously thought extinct, is identified as a living fossil. The actual news is that this is a living fossil, i.e. the only extant member of a group of frogs that diverged from all other living groups of frogs roughly 30 million years ago.  By itself, the rediscovery of this species is not new.  The rediscovery was reported and included in the article back in 2011.  Hence the blurb suggested by Medeis and Abductive above doesn't seem appropriate.  If we want the blurb to actually report new facts then we need to say that scientists have identified this a "living fossil".  Dragons flight (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the rediscovery was published in 2011 then the story is stale, and all we have is a living animal being reassigned to another genus within the same family. That's hardly news.  Neither is there any agreed upon definition that would allow it to be officially identified as a living fossil.  This is basically us falling for a sensationalist headline the media fell for. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting Alt 3. --Tone 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have the frog picture, unless there is a better one from Syria. --Tone 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support frog picture. The Syria article has no images in it. --IP98 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the similar coloration of the frog and its surroundings, the photograph doesn't work well at 100px. —David Levy 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @ User:Tone; The ultimate source of the term "living fossil" is the authors in Nature Communications. All other uses stem from this one instance. Nature Communications own "Aims and scope" page says it uses a "...streamlined peer-review system, together with the support of an Editorial Advisory Panel, allows a team of independent editors to make rapid and fair publication decisions. Prompt dissemination..." and that it "encourages submissions in fields that aren't represented by a dedicated Nature research journal; for example developmental biology, plant sciences, microbiology, ecology and evolution, palaeontology and astronomy. The editors particularly welcome submissions from cross-disciplinary fields, including biophysics, bioengineering, chemical physics and environmental science, although no area is excluded from consideration. In all cases, papers published in Nature Communications will be of high quality, without necessarily having the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals." What this means is that the "peer review" is weak (due to review being done by generalist editors) and sacrifices are made for haste/speed of publication. So it is possible that the term "living fossil" was not properly vetted. Now, one has to weigh the one usage by the authors of the paper (a primary source, and an unreliable/COI one at that) versus the scientific consensus on what differentiates a living fossil from a Lazarus taxon. Regardless if the species was assigned to the wrong genus, it was never a fossil--it was alive in 1955. On that basis alone is is not like the Laotian rock rat or any of the other taxa known from the fossil record and then found to have a living descendant millions of years later. To top it off, the Hula painted frog is so similar to many other living frogs that it fooled experts into classifying it into a closely related genus. So, what has happened here on Wikipedia is use of a primary source, which is okay unless challenged. I am challenging the primary source, and therefore it falls to other users to look at the secondary sourcing. Now, the secondary scientific sourcing on this species is non-existent, but the body of secondary sourcing on what constitutes a "living fossil" is not in favor of the primary source. Accordingly, it is safer to drop "living fossil" from the blurb and perhaps call it a "Lazarus taxon". Abductive  (reasoning) 23:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To other editors: Please note that Abductive has taken to removing the claim of being a "living fossil" from the Hula painted frog article in order to replace the judgment of the peer reviewed literature with his own point of view. I reverted him.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note; this claim that the species is a living fossil is sourced to a primary source, which I am challenging per WP:PSTS. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Deacon Jones for RD

 * Support for RD. I think his article explains well why Jones is important to the sport of American football (and his honors, such as induction into several different Hall of Fames and other awards), and his importance is also corroborated by other articles as well such as quarterback sack.  Spencer T♦ C 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD no problems with just two words being added to RD for this chap who certainly appears to be iconic within the NFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Big time sporting star – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the honors list referenced and more than one sentence about his death before I can support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the death section as best as I can without straying into too much hagiography. Will work on the honors section presently.  -- Jayron  32  18:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now also referenced everything I could in the "Honors" section, and removed a few awards I could find no record of outside of Jones's own personal website. -- Jayron  32  19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Article now has my full support - subject was clearly at the top of his field by any reasonable definition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Absolutely. Well-known athlete who was at the top of his profession.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per reasons given by others. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged as [ready]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Came to support, but seems like consensus is unannonimous to post, so doing it now. Secret account 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Central European Floods

 * Support. In Passau, the all time record set in the year 1501 was almost broken (12.89 meters now, 13 meters in 1501). Count Iblis (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support As notable as the tornado story posted last week. CaptRik (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Article's in good shape, story is in the news. Check and check. -- Jayron  32  14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - has anyone seen an estimate of total damages? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet, but this story says that Angela Merkel has set aside 100m euros (£78m; $130m) in emergency aid.  CaptRik (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Czech prime minister announced yesterday that the goverment will release 4 billion CZK (€ 155m, £ 133m, $ 203m) from the state reserves . --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE "widespread damage" is more than the vague rejection of such things as Boko Haram. What damage? Was it landmark? Or was it just a seasonal storm? And this is NOT rare in Europe, occurring at least every 2 years.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, "widespread damage" is in my opinion totally OK for a short blurb, the extent of damage should be elaborated in the article ... and an event of this extent is not so common in Europe (Historic High Water: Passau Suffers Worst Flood in 500 Years (Spiegel Online)), more than 19,000 people were evacuated in the Czech Rep. (as of 5 June 2013) . --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Major continent-spanning disaster and accompanying news story. Lihaas, there's no need to shout, and this discussion has nothing whatever to do with Boko Haram. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Major developing disaster with decent media coverage every day. One may say that it's not unusual for the beginning of June, but floods with such damages and casualities have not been seen for years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. This was huge. Feel free to modify the blurb. --Tone 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Maryland v. King

 * Oppose The news articles don't make the case that this is a landmark decision, they seem to largely confirm existing practices at police departments around the United States rather than indicate a major change of policy and procedure. The case is important in the sense that it does give legitimacy to existing practices, but the U.S. Supreme Court telling law enforcement "Keep up what you're already doing" doesn't seem all that big of a deal. -- Jayron  32  03:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like a fairly significant decision, but courts around the world render scores of important decisions every year, so I think it would need to be a bit more important than this to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certain it is more important than Novartis v. Union of India & Others, which was posted. In fairness, that post was probably a mistake and generated some complaints after it was posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Why? I think Novartis is a very significant decision. Neljack (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A central privacy issue, and what happens in US is often important to set the tone in the world. 80.85.100.14 (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually all the academic evidence indicates that the US Supreme Court is not very influential overseas. If this was the Canadian or the British Supreme Court, you would have a point. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Huge Supreme Court 5-4 decision that legitimizes DNA harvesting of people unconvicted of any crime. Fascinating issue in the news. Article obviously needs work with a reaction section and more prose overall, but I think this is ITN-blurb worthy. Thanks for nominating.  Jus  da  fax   07:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's really not such a huge thing. It's a logical extension of fingerprinting laws. And suggesting that it's special precisely because it's in the US really is at risk of pushing US-centrism a bit far. Does anyone know the legal situation in any other country? That's a serious question. If it's already done elsewhere, it makes this even less of a biggie. If not, maybe I'll change my thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; only confirms what was done already. 5-4 is also a close vote that might mean this gets narrowed or struck down in the future(as with Miranda v. Arizona).  331dot (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The US is indeed well behind the curve on this issue. It ceased to be a major controversy a long time ago in Britain for example, with the last minor ruling coming a good few years ago now. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but the article will require substantial expansion. A major shift in police powers in the USA. --IP98 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Utterly non-controversial when you think about it, especially since other countries are leagues ahead of the US in this regard. And doesn't "DNA harvesting" imply something more sinister or dystopian than what is actually being done here? Soylent Green comes to mind.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's news worthy that outsiders have said "other countries are leagues ahead of the US" and "The US is indeed well behind the curve", when the dissenting opinion suggests this is a regressive decision. --IP98 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny how the US merely "catching up" with the times is a reason to oppose, but Andorra catching up (on income tax) is a reason to support. And I assure everyone that the ruling is decidedly not "non-controversial" within the US. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think changing taxation laws is comparable with legal issues. Countries, territories etc are entitled to charge tax however they see fit, taxes go up and down.  This story, unless I'm mistaken, is about a technology originally discovered in 1869, then modelled in 1951.  A lot of the world has already adopted the approach, the USA is behind on this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't really "in the news" here in the U.S. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd have to strongly disagree with you, Hot Stop. This story is at the top of the front page of the Los Angeles Times today, Tuesday June 4, just for starters, so your statement of fact is simply not true . Your opposing rationale, to be as polite as possible, carries zero weight, and I challenge you to do better in your ITN !voting. As it stands, your judgement and indeed overall credibility in my eyes is badly damaged. Jus  da  fax   04:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. It's not in the news enough to justify putting on ITN.  This case didn't receive the attention of the DOMA/Prop 8 cases, or the Obamacare ruling last spring.  <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   04:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Frank Lautenberg - Recent death

 * I'd support for RD, but the article has an orange tag that needs fixing. Otherwise, it is a really good article (excepting that one tagged section) and would be fine to highlight on the main page, news is certainly covering the story from what I am seeing.  Fix up the problem, and I'll bold that support.  -- Jayron  32  14:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added enough sources to that section to remove the orange tag. More sources would certainly still be helpful in improving the article quality. I'll keep working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Looks good.  -- Jayron  32  15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So.... are we into posting every US Senator that dies in office now? – H T  D  15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't just "every US Senator"; wrote significant legislation, last WWII vet in the body which represents a fundamental generational shift in the Senate. Inouye was posted as a long-serving senator/politician(had represented Hawaii in Congress since they got statehood) and a Medal of Honor winner.   That said, I'm not convinced "every US Senator" that dies in office wouldn't be worthy of posting, as it is a somewhat rare event.  We're also not talking about a full blurb here. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @HTD, yes, we should. There are only one hundred members of the upper chamber of the most powerful country in the world. That makes each one's death significant, at least for an RD. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't. If he is one of 100, he is not in a sufficiently "high-ranking office of power at the time of death" so DC1 not met, and if DC2 is being claimed, there is no time bar on being " widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", so you would be claiming that every senator, past or present, would be equally eligible.  The notion that it is "only" RD mention has been repeatedly defeated as an attitude: the threshold and requirement that ITN/DC is met should not be any lower than it was pre RD.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your notion that "widely regarded as a very important figure" means the absolute top in the world has also been defeated. In practice, consensus is quite clear that people will accept a somewhat lower standard now than before RD was implemented.  Saying over and over again "but the wording of the policy hasn't changed" is not helpful - policy is determined by practice (i.e. it's descriptive), not the other way around (i.e. not prescriptive). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to be at the absolute top of their field to be notable in it. Being 1 of a 100 out of 300 million Americans seems notable to me. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So "being American" is a field of expertise now??? Kevin McE (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and I didn't suggest that it was, but if becoming something that only a hundred out of 300 million people can be at one time and have a lengthy, successful career in doing it isn't near the top of a field, then what is? Again, one doesn't have to be at the absolute top of a field (in this case, politics) to be notable in it. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for RD. per nominator's reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. He was in office for 28 years and drafted significant legislation. There are only 100 US Senators and very few die in office, so deaths of sitting Senators aren't a frequent occurrence. Also, deaths of Senators can affect the balance of power in the Senate. Lautenberg he is a Democrat, and his death means that the Governor of New Jersey, who is a Republican, will appoint a replacement (probably a Republican) to serve for the next 1-1/2 years. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Infrequent is not one of the death criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor is is prohibited from being taken into account as part of the consideration of its merits. 331dot (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for RD, unsure about full blurb. Per Orlady. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose surprised this was even nominated given the opposition when Spector was nominated. Lautenberg would have died in retirement had his fellow senator Bob Toricelli withdrawn in disgrace.  Sponsor of anti-smoking legislation does not make one the top of one's field. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the claim that a sitting U.S. Senator isn't at the top if his field is insane, and yet somehow par for the course around here. The Arlen Specter comparison falls flat because at the time of his death there was no death ticker on ITN. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The top of a field for US politics is president. How can 100 people in one nation be simultaneously and equally at the top of a single field? How many people are to be included to spread the equivalent rank globally?  And our general understanding is that 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field' is not dependent on current involvement (or we would not have all the long retired figures that we have in RD), so this would have to be applied to every current or previous senator or holder of an equivalent role in another country.  Way beyond what was intended.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there other 100-member bodies that act for 300 million people? 331dot (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno if the 24-member Senate of the Philippines, a country of 100 million people that speaks English, is a good enough comparison... – H T  D  11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for RD, oppose full blurb. A U.S. Senator dying in office, especially one where his seat will change parties is significant, but not enough for a full blurb. If he had been/was President or VP, he would qualify for a full blurb IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - the orange tag (more cittations needed) will have to be addressed before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the nomination says he's the oldest and final WWII veteran, presumably that's "oldest and final American WWII veteran"? There are many, many vets from WWII still alive in the UK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was the last WWII vet in the U.S. Senate. --LukeSurlt c 21:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, oppose full blurb - per above supports, which make a good case. Jus  da  fax   21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most supporters aren't very clear about which death criterion they are supporting under, so I will consider the potentially relevant ones in turn. Firstly, was Lautenberg "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death"? While I have a more liberal interpretation of this criterion than, I suspect, most people (many seem to virtually restrict it to heads of government, whereas I would regard, for instance, a Cabinet minister as meeting it), I don't this just being a member of a legislature meets it. If any member of any national legislature qualified, that would just be too much. Secondly, did he have a significant impact on, or make a significant contribution to, the US? Of course, significance is a highly elastic standard, but I think we need to impose a reasonably high threshold here or else all sorts of politicians etc will qualify. Lautenberg seems to have been a fairly important Senator, but I would only regard the most important ones as meeting this requirement: the likes of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye. Thirdly, was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? I will happily admit that he was an important figure in US politics, but there are lots of important figure in that field, and I'm not persuaded that he qualifies as a "very important figure". Neljack (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think being a member of a national legislature automatically qualifies one to be listed at RD. Much like Neljack notes above, we need to have some sort of threshold so that RD isn't flooded with thousands of politicians, and I don't think that Lautenberg reaches that "very important figure" threshold". Canuck 89 (have words with me)  23:24, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be more skeptical of posting a deceased member of the US House as there are 435 of them, but there are just 100 Senators for 300 million Americans. If someone can become one of those 100 and have a lengthy career, it should be notable. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support members of a national legislatures don't have domestic awards ceremonies to prop them up (unlike actors and directors). What he did have was six terms in Senate, so that's one thing. It's not like every former politician would be eligible. The drinking age and smoking bans are both items which had a direct impact on society. The article is very thorough, well sourced and laid out. It's certainly good enough for a few characters of space on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull interesting this has been posted after a mere nine hours, even though it is true various editors who opposed Arlen Specter's nomination as just an old politician are supporting this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:ITN. Yes, I opposed Specter but supported this one. I'm trying to be more supportive of items (except football, ugh). Barring a time machine, there is nothing I can do about my Specter !vote. --IP98 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If people opposed one senator and supported another, that would tend to undermine the opposition argument that posting one senator automatically makes every senator RD worthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's intentionally misleading to compare this with Specter. As I said earlier there was no death ticker when Specter died. He was also not on office at the time of his death.  But go ahead and keep making the assertion. <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This demand to pull is based on the assertion that the only possible reason for opposing the posting of one senator's death and the decision not to post another MUST be based on politics. That seems a rather narrow and pointed idea, and speaks more to the person who made the assertion than it does to anyone who commented in either or both discussions.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a lot of "information" in this article which isn't referenced. I know it's now longer a BLP, but shouldn't we still be making sure main page listings are properly referenced?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I only see about 4-5 citation needed tags in the whole article, it is mostly thoroughly referenced, and none of the cn tags are for statements I would find particularly contentious or negative about the person in question. A cn tag here or there normally doesn't hold up an ITN item, so long as the bulk of the article is well referenced, and the cn tags are not for particularly contentious statements.  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two entirely unreferenced sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. -- Jayron  32  20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] China 2013 Jilin Baoyuanfeng poultry plant fire

 * Support under general principles for a disater of this magnitude. I've created a stub. If another article has already been created please merge. LukeSurlt c 08:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is in a good state, BBC is reporting 112 dead and rising. EdwardLane (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Once the article is good to go, it certainly warrants posting.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  11:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though I'm clearly in the minority, I just don't see the significance here. It's a fire. It has a high death toll because of lax safety and enforcement, but all it has is death toll. The 2013 Savar building collapse was an exceptional catastrophe, but this isn't. It's a fire, and the fire doors were locked, so a bunch of people died. The TV is talking about it because the TV likes to talk about dead bodies. --IP98 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the page needs to move to Jilin Baoyuanfeng poultry plant fire per WP:TITLEFORMAT (or similar) (maybe 2013 Jilin Baoyuanfeng poultry plant fire). It's a stub, so move or re-create and redirect? --IP98 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Newsworthy event based on coverage in news sources, however I cannot support a 40-word stub on the main page. If the article can be expanded to a few paragraphs, I'll give this my full support.  -- Jayron  32  14:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article is small, but no longer a stub. Reporting of the event seems to be fairly limited, possibly because of the fairly remote location. LukeSurlt c 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says the plant employed 1200 people, with 120 dead, 60 injured and 100 escaped. The numbers don't totally make sense. Or maybe the shifts were uneven. It would be nice to know how many people were actually inside. --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CBC estimated 350 people on site at the time of the fire, this has been added to the article. I'm guessing the discrepancy with the 1200 figure is due to shifts (the fire occurred at 6 a.m. local time), and the discrepancy with the dead and injured toll means the official death toll is likely to rise. --LukeSurlt c 21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support based on expansion. Looks fine now.  -- Jayron  32  21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why a disaster that has killed more than a hundred people needs to have some extra significance. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 100 is the magic number? --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you before, there is no magic number of deaths, so I suggest you stop flogging this dead horse. If you don't regard a hundred lives ended as sufficiently important, I don't know what I can say to you to convince you otherwise. But I think you will find you are in a minority. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Massive industrial disaster; clear relevance and importance, and widely reported. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready marking ready. Strong support to post. Article meets the minimum. No tags, good sources. There are two "At least"s in a row, so maybe a copyedit is needed, but that shouldn't keep it from going up. --IP98 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Tim Samaras

 * Oppose full blurb, Support RD. This man was not a figure with worldwide notability/influence in world affairs and name recognition, (like Margaret Thatcher who got a blurb).  I would support a listing in RD as someone notable in the field of storm chasing, since he seems to have been the first death of someone in his field while performing his job. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per 331dot. Clearly notable for his specific field and the TV is certainly known outside of the USA as several series have been in UK tv too.  Unusual newsworthy death in my opinion. CaptRik (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Tim Samaras for RD or a full blurb mentioning all three storm chasers killed by the tornado. As has been said, they are the first ever recorded deaths of storm chasers while actively pursuing a tornado, and it came as an extreme shock to the entire meteotological community because Tim Samaras' team was well known for being careful and safety minded. Tim Samaras on his own is notable for recent deaths, as he was certainly one of the top in his field. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, oppose blurb. I'm surprised this is the first recorded death of a storm chaser, considering they, you know, chase major storms. It's been widely reported and deserves posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Jayron  32  14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there are too reasons why a death could get a full blurb. The first is a super duper notable person, like Thatcher.  The second is where the death is part of a larger story and/or itself is exceptional.  Clearly, a full blurb was suggested here on the second basis, not the first.  Perhaps people should consider "upgrading" to full blurb to feature the Oklahoma storm (which had some support for posting on its own)/the deaths of other TWISTEX members. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the above comments, there is consensus against a full blurb. -- Jayron  32  15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, but some commenters seem to be under the impression that only super notable people get full blurbs, which is incorrect. That is why I asked people to reconsider a full blurb. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Upgrade to full blurb It is the mode of death that is notable here, Samaras would never have been listed on his own merits. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - the storm's overall death toll was raised to 14 today, closer to the level of deaths that a natural disaster "needs" to get posted on its own. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Post hoc oppose and vehement oppose to full blurb. If such minor and restricted fields as making documentaries about a specific weather phenomenon is considered to fit the definition of DC2, then DC2 is seriously in need of changing. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DC2 states "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". It says nothing about judgements about a field being "major" or "minor".  What is a "minor" field to you might be "major" to others(such as those in Tornado Alley).  If you don't think the field of storm chasing (which isn't just about making documentaries, but about scientific research) is broad enough, then what broader field did this man belong to, that he isn't notable enough in?  The point of this is to direct people to articles about subjects that are in the news, not just to list the tip-top elite people of this planet.(which is what full blurbs are for) 331dot (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Mandawuy Yunupingu

 * Support Massive inspiration to two generations of Aboriginal kids. Died before his time, this being emblematic of the problems facing his people. Great musician. Political stirrer. A name known to just about every adult Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support when updated - legendary in Australia, was coming here to nominate this. I would even support a full blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I've never heard of this person, but he seems to be notable, given the Australian of the Year award and reaching #1 on the Australian charts for 5 months. Being (one of the few?) Aboriginal Australians to meet those goals also seems particularly notable, as is recognition of his death by Julia Gillard. Needs a good blurb to convey all those aspects of notability; I'd also support a full blurb. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Very important figure whose death is getting wide international coverage, but doesn't quite meet the very high threshold I apply for full blurbs. Neljack (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Very wide coverage, obviously. I'm not from Australia and I knew "Treaty". Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - to anyone looking for some editing to do, this article definitely needs some TLC before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - As Thaddeus notes, the article needs work. Jus  da  fax   11:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD only; I don't think this situation rises to the level of a full blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone unfamiliar with Yothu Yindi's work wants to check it out, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIrU3ofTEQ. It's a political song, as that page will tell you, but it's a damn good song at the same time. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Perfect candidate for RD. CaptRik (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I'd have already posted this if the article were sufficient. If someone could get some expansion of the article done, this can go up given the support based on newsworthiness.  -- Jayron  32  14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it appears this will die on the vine unless someone steps up and improves the article soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main issue seems to be the resolution of the orange citations needed tag. If someone can fix that, I can put this up.  -- Jayron  32  18:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be improved, posting to RD. --Tone 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New Palestinian PM

 * Support The choice of Prime Minister has international ramifications, including on the Israel-Palestine conflict.Stilbes (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Awaiting article expansion before I can support. This is a story which should be on ITN, but the article as yet is a three sentence stub.  A decent biographical sketch on who he is and how he got elected and what he's done up till now would be quite nice before putting this up for people to read.  People will want to click through to the article for more information, and right now it doesn't say anything more than the blurb does!  -- Jayron  32  19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question He's the factional prime minister of a non-sovereign territory? μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I too am confused. I assume the blurb is supposed to mean he is a member of the Fatah political party & the was selected as the (only) prime minister, but that's not what it says at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as well. Is him being the Fatah Prime Minister the notable part? I honestly don't know the situation very well. The blurb and the articles don't explain the significance, and does not properly differentiate between the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas; it perhaps gives undue status to the Palestinian National Authority, perhaps? (Just editing the blurb and article might help with this...thus not outright opposing it at the moment.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority is a very poor article and doesn't even start to explain the necessary detail regarding this position (i.e. the factional disputes). As this article will probably be of as much interest to readers as Rami Hamdallah it needs significant work before any posting. --LukeSurlt c 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Andorra to introduce income tax

 * Have they told the archbishop yet? Anyway, when is the best time for posting it? 85.167.109.26 (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (in principle, pending update) as it received in depth coverage on, and currently tops, my public broadcaster's website. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Taxation in Andorra would need to be the primary article, not Andorra. This article is currently a stub, and would need to be substantially expanded (with recent developments and more of the general situation). LukeSurlt c 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, maybe there's not much point in a fork article that is a stub, and the contents should be merged back to the parent article. Formerip (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Economy of Andorra would probably be the "parent" article, with Andorra as the "grandparent". I would oppose posting this as a bold link to Andorra. There isn't scope for sufficient depth in the top-level article about the country as a whole for this to be a useful encyclopedia article regarding this news story. --LukeSurlt c 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent nomination! Introduction of income tax in a country for the first time in its history has very big importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is the update I'm judging? I'd like to read what is written in Wikipedia that we're going to be promoting on the front page, and the Andorra article is far too long to find information about this.  What section is this in?  If there's another article, that'd be good too, but we need something in Wikipedia to read to decide if it is something to put up on the main page... -- Jayron  32  18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider adding the election article as a non-bold link as this was twhat the election was aboutLihaas (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support when properly updated. Interesting and eye catching ITN. I've modified the blurb to include an extra link. -- RA (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Luke that Taxation in Andorra should be updated and linked to as the bold item if this is to be posted. (Obviously said article need work.)  This item is about as local interest as they get.  I'm fine with that, as I'd like to see a more inclusive ITN, but I find it extremely ironic that some would support an item affecting only Andorra (population 85,000) while opposing an item affecting only the United States (population 316,000,000).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes to tax policy in tax havens do have international implications. And in any case, I'm not sure of the relevance of the comparison to the US: I (and I suspect most people here) would unhesitatingly support a nomination if the US abolished income tax, or if (counterfactually) it didn't have income tax and then introduced it. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An income tax would presumably only affect those who actually live/work there, but that's not really the point... Health care reform, by far the most sweeping legislation passed in the US in a decade, was vehemently opposed by some. For some reason the "only important to one country" opposes only seem to come up on US items. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the BBC article notes, the EU has been pressing Andorra to do this to help combat tax evasion, so I stand by my statement about it having international implications. Neljack (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have some reservations about posting an item affecting a country so small -- when the city I live in (pop. 100,000) passes a property tax increase in the fall, will it be posted? Anyway, we should at least wait until the tax is approved.  <font face="Arial"> Hot Stop   01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on the basis that we should not pre-empt the decision of the Andorran legislature. It might reject the bill. I suggest this be renominated if the bill is passed. I'm not convinced that FormerIP's point about Hollande being head of state is very relevant: if David Cameron told Queen Elizabeth II that he was going to introduce major changes to British tax policy, would we post that before Parliament had passed the bill? Neljack (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Neljack. I would support this if Andorra had indeed passed such legislation, but it is not notable that it has just been announced. When and if it does pass, we should post it at that point. Even if it seems very likely to pass (it's hard to tell from the sources), that's still not enough to justify not waiting until it's actually law. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Let's wait until it is actually passed before posting it. Great story for ITN, but a little too soon.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  11:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting until it is passed- they could still change their mind. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] FC Bayern Munich treble

 * Weak oppose According to what I saw, it's the seventh time a team has done this. Being the first time it's a German team isn't that noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SuportFCBM is stadisticaly a machine of win (something weird in a sport that have a lot of ties), what is need to win a treble, the seventh time is still scarcity --Feroang (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be a weak support if not for the quality of the article. There's about 30 words of prose.  And it's in the wrong tense.  A full synopsis of the game would be necessary before we even begin to consider putting this on the main page.  -- Jayron  32  04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, the altblurb links to an article, 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season with better prose, but still needs some cleanup if I'm going to lend support to this. There's an entire section and a half that consists of variations on the sentence "Bayern faced Mainz 05 on 15 September...Bayern faced Valencia on 19 September..." with nothing else.  The rest of that article looks to be in really good shape, so if someone could get on fixing that bit up by putting some actual prose in there, it would really look great on the main page; but if that isn't done, and the article is left in the current state it is in, I don't see this as something we would be proud of showing to the world.  Make those fixes, and I will put my full support behind this.  -- Jayron  32  00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although this is quite an achievement, I believe the ITN bar for this type of achievements was set a couple of years ago when Barcelona won 6 titles in a single season. Potentially support if they win one or more titles later. --Tone 06:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support As Thaddeus says, football is the world's most popular sport. I'm not really a fan, but given that remarkable popularity I think we should post more stories about it. Winning the treble is a rare and highly notable achievement. (As an aside, just in case anyone is confused, I assume Thaddeus means the Bundesliga when he says the "Bundlingsa".) Neljack (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Rare and notable achievement. As the postable achievement is the sum of the season, I think 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season is the important link. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose far from rare, Internazionale did it in '09, Barcelona the year before that. Looking at the Treble (association football) article it's clear that this has happened somewhere roughly once a year for the last 10 years or so. Nothing special about this first beyond it being in Germany. We have record breakings on ITN/R, so it would need to be a record number of cups in a season to get my support. --IP98 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support only the seventh European treble since 1966, a truly rare occurrence, we have more European Cup winners since then. The BM season article seems pretty much up to scratch, and is more relevant to this ITN item than the DFB-Pokal final (whose article needs significant work), so I'd plump for the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support famous first.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator, very important record in history of association football. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a new record. Just matching an existing one, that's been matched many times before. Others have done better. This is not a standout. (I can see that it is to some fans of the game, but it's simply not.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely rare event and one that is very important in association football.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  11:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging from the page view stats it seems that this was more of a ordinary day, as the day of the UCL final had tons more views. Not that page view stats are an indicator of reader interest... – H T  D  16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready - article (2013 DFB-Pokal Final) has now been updated and there appears to be a consensus to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on balance. I can sort of see the argument for oppose on this, but I think it meets our requirements. very big news in at least one country, of interest internationally. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. In global domestic football, the traditional continental treble (first rank continental cup, first rank domestic cup, top domestic league) is as good as it gets. It's not a 'record', it's an acheivement. The highest achievement. Nobody really knows why it's happened more often these last few years, but frankly in terms of it still being seen as an acheivement, nobody really cares. Nobody in football really cares about 'records' like Barcelona's 6 trophies in a season, because they by necessity will always include less important domestic trophies, or FIFA's glorified friendlies, just to make up the numbers. None of those on their own are more notable than the 3 trophies that make up the treble. let alone the treble itself. In pure 'record' terms, if a club wins 4 or 5 trophies in a season without winning the treble, nobody would even treat that as being a higher achievement than the treble itself. Having said all that, anyone who thinks a continental treble is hugely significant to both a club or football in general, but something like Gibraltar joining UEFA really isn't all that important, is on extremely shaky ground. Only one of those things for example leads to a significant permanent change in the fortunes, stature and profile of the actual team. While the treble is notable this year, it won't make Bayern any richer, more famous or even change who they will be playing next year. They get nothing for doing it except the prestige of a place in the history books. To get close to an event as significant as Gibraltar joining UEFA (something ITN dismissed as a 'foregone conclusion'), Bayern would have to be permanently expelled from the Bundesliga itself, ironically meaning they could never win the treble ever again. And even then it would be less significant for other obvious reasons such as the differences between club and international football, and the fact that, as far as I know, there's no notable dispute in UEFA/FIFA over whether Bayern should be allowed to represent Munich in European football. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you won't let that dead horse go unbeaten, will you? -- Jayron  32  13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Jean Stapleton, RD

 * Oppose She seems to have been an important actor with a distinguished career, but I don't see that she qualifies as being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in acting (or in any of stage, TV or film acting, if you want to consider them separately). I believe we post too many actors, basically because they are well-known. Just because they may be a household name (in their own country) doesn't mean they are a very important figure in their field. I am open to being convinced otherwise about Stapleton though, if people can provide details of her influence and impact. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To help you as a foreigner judge her impact beyond her awards and record five-year run on the top-rated US TV show (not just sit-com) you might consider her article's averaged over 500 hits a day random month even though she hasn't been on TV since 2001. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Elsewhere I've been having discussions about how we can balance posts from cultures with large populations with those from places with many fewer people. Would you be impressed by someone with 33 hits a day, but from Australia? It's hard to know if I should be impressed with your number.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Depending on the field I'd be glad to publish an American with only 33 hits a day. In this case the nom is one of the few remaining grand old dames of TV, only Betty White and Angela Lansbury in competition, and both more sure to get support recently active and as an early British film star. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - 3 best actress Emmys and 2 best actress Golden Globes implies "top of her field" (during the 1970s, but notability is permanent). An article on her death is the number one viewed news story today in the US according to Google News. Update is good, but body of article could use a few more refs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question The Golden Globes are unsourced in her article. Were they both for All in the Family too, just as her Emmys were all for that show? It was obviously a popular show. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They're mentioned in NY largest daily http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/jean-stapleton-edith-bunker-family-dies-90-article-1.1360732 μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I've added that to her article as a reference. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 5 wins are for All in the Family. She also had 7 other Emmy noms (5 for All, 1 for Eleanor, First Lady of the World, 1 for Grace Under Fire) and 7 other GG noms (5 for All, 1 for Eleanor and 1 for Fire in the Dark).  All and Eleanor are lead roles, the others are supporting others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I've never understood the significance of nominations. In most situations where people are nominated, elections etc, anyone can be nominated or can nominate themselves. It certainly doesn't make someone notable. I guess it somehow does for these awards? HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of a nomination is that someone else has to name you. You can apply for certain games or scholarships on your own.  Being nominated means someone else (in these cases, a limited set of elite peers) has named you. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A nomination means you were top 5 (or 4 or some other number depending on the award) in that year. The way these work is eligible voters (usually 1000 or so people in the industry) get a list of all eligible actors, shows, etc. and vote for "up to 5" people/shows they think deserve the award.  The field is cut to the top 5 vote recipients which become the "nominees" and a second round of ballets is sent out to determine the winner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support News sources are giving this a lot of attention, so Wikipedia should too. Article and update are adequate.  -- Jayron  32  04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per other supports. Iconic in the role of the good natured "dingbat" who married Archie Bunker. Jus  da  fax   05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm an American, I love All in the Family, but I don't support this. It is the show, and not she, that is the item of massive cultural significance. She hasn't had a huge impact; indeed, she has been practically invisible since the show went off the air. I highly doubt we would be having this discussion if we were talking about someone who won a few BAFTAs in the 1970s and didn't do much of consequence thereafter. If this does pass, I will remember it when Liz Torres (Teresa Betancourt on All in the Family) dies. She, after all, has actually had a cultural impact as a Puerto Rican-American woman who has been in mainstream television programming since the '70, helping pave the way for the Rosie Perezes and Victoria Justices of the world. -Rrius (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Won five awards (three Emmys, two Golden Globes), lengthy career wide coverage- this knocked the recent round of Oklahoma storms off the top of NBC News for a bit(and is still on the front page as of this moment)  Liz Torres has not won any awards for her work so I'm not sure how that would be a similar situation- but should be judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The amount of media coverage is not the be all, end all. The question is whether she is "widely recognized as a very important figure". Her death is significant because of the show she was on, not because she herself was important. As for Torres, you are quite wrong. In addition to her Emmy and Golden Globe nominations, she won awards from Latino organizations for her work, underscoring my point about why she actually does have some significance. I'm not saying she should be listed, but if Stapleton is, then she most certainly should be. In any event, Stapleton is known almost exclusively in the US, and in decreasing numbers as you move down from 50 years of age. News sites posting "That lady from that show you used to watch just died" is not enough to imbue here her with wide recognition as a very important figure. -Rrius (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: How do you establish that she's widely recognized? Answer: The level of media coverage... -- Jayron  32  18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While not the be all, end all, this is "In The News", hence media coverage is important. Award nominations are just that- nominations- and Latino-based awards are certainly relevant but do not have as wide a base as more general awards. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I struggle to see her as "widely regarded as very important". Important, probably, but not extraordinarily important. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, well updated, approx two to one consensus to post. μηδείς (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged for weak (IMDB) sources--they have been replaced with published periodicals. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work (although I had to replace each of the refs with correct templates), but on examination, plenty of unreferenced material in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented out rather than fully deleting some material. Claims that she appeared in a certain episode can be refered to that episode as a primary source, so I have made sure they are named and dated so they can be verified by the original work. For GEW. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for RD, Medeis has done some good work on the refs I've asked for, there are some which are a moot point, but nothing that should stop this being at least on the RD ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to recent deaths. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Ruler of the World wins the Epsom Derby

 * Support (assuming good update) - the first Derby was run in 1780, this is 234th "edition". This is the pre-eminent horse-racing event in the world, the Kentucky Derby (for instance) wouldn't be called the Kentucky Derby if it wasn't for this race.  (It would be called the Kentucky Bunbury for those who care about history).  If you know of a "derby" between your club and another, it's because of this event.  Okay, there's no article (yet), but the support is in principle. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as far as notability goes. I'm assuming the redlink will disappear reasonably soon as we have articles for all races since 1986. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Withholding support pending an article to judge, but this seems like a significant sporting event (never heard of it myself, but I don't really follow horse racing) but a quick google search and run through the relevant articles at Wikipedia easily establishes this as a prestigious event. Once a decent-length article is written with good references, and a relatively complete synopsis of the event, I would support this.  -- Jayron  32  23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article on the 2013 Epsom Derby is now up. Hope this helps.  Tigerboy1966  23:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It's a stub with some charts.  A fuller synopsis of the race would be useful, along with some background etc.  The first source used in the article has three screenfuls of honest-to-goodness prose, so there's got to be more to say about this race somewhere in the world. -- Jayron  32  00:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Updating my vote to full Support given that the article has been sufficiently expanded. -- Jayron  32  23:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This is not "the pre-eminent horse racing event in the world". It's maybe the fifth or sixth biggest event in the British horse racing calendar. And I guess I need to be consistent, having opposed the spelling bee nomination as being important only in its own back yard. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose My opinions on the blood sport of horse racing aside, It's obvious this is not in the same league as the Kentucky Derby or Grand National and is tier2 sport. --85.211.122.225 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this Derby hadn't existed for over 200 years, you wouldn't even have the Kentucky Derby....!! Presumably you already know that the use of the word "Derby" in this context and in matches of all sports around the world is derived from this very race?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Question How much cultural impact does this race have in Great Britain? Do large amounts of people look forward to it each year?  Or is in viewed as a second tier event?  (FormerIP seems to indicate it is the latter) I get that it is very old, but that doesn't automatically make it highly relevant today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no horse expert, but I'm pretty sure the three big events in the UK would be the Grand National, Royal Ascot and the Cheltenham Festival. After that, I think the Epsom Derby comes in a group also including the St. Leger Stakes, the Oaks Stakes, the 2,000 Guineas Stakes, the 1,000 Guineas Stakes. The concept of tiers doesn't really apply, though, since these are all really just independent races. Formerip (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, by "tier" I meant informally in terms of interest/assign prestige. Obviously, horse racign has no formal tier structure in the way football does, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the International Cataloguing Standards Committee, UK is the "Part I" countries, all group races is opening worldwide freely. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In UK, Epsom Derby broadcast right are protected by UK government, must be free aired, as same as Olympic Games, Grand National and FIFA World Cup. (source) Also the race is aired in worldwide who watch horseracing. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a source showing strong international viewing figures would make this a stronger contender. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reported internationally, e.g. CNN or Yahoo Singapore, or Bloomberg or New Zealand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Neutral a totally unsourced section reference this as part of the Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing, but since the Grand National is already ITN/R, and the Grand National is part of the triple crown, it's plenty good enough. --IP98 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your English here at all, the bold article is not the one you've linked. Are you suggesting that all articles in the blurb or linked from those articles in the blurb now need to be fully referenced?  Ideally, of course, but practically...?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing to search for signs of prominence for this race. It's there, but that whole section is unsourced so I don't know if it's factual or just some drive-by opinion. I'm switching to Neutral though, because even though the Grand National is richer, this is the richest flat race (the other being a jump race), but won't support because the Grand National is already on ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being a once-prominent race doesn't make it a forever-prominent race. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's true, but it's over 200 years old, and there'd be no Kentucky Derby without it. How many international sporting events have run over 200 times annually?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Horse racing is ancient, going back thousands of years. The Kentucky Derby would probably exist regardless of the Epsom Derby - it would just be called something else.  I suggest you focus on other arguments. Do you dispute FormerIP's assessment that the event is viewed as (at best) 4th most important horse race in the UK?--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the point, but as yet, there still hasn't been much work done to expand the article. There's approximately 50 words of organized prose in this article as of right now, and as I've noted above, there's far more to say on this topic.  It would be very helpful to have a full article, rather than 50 words and some charts and tables, to work with here.  -- Jayron  32  20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right, you and ThaddeusB have made such quick edits, once again in joint opposition. Purely a coincidence I'm sure.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I supported this nomination. Just sayin'.  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and you and Thaddeus make edits two minutes apart once again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't opposed. I've asked a question to try and properly understand the importance (or lack their of) of this race in a cultural that I am not a part of.  Not sure why trying to understand someone else's POV is offensive...  If you think Jayron & I are the same person, WP:SPI is over there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I never said that! Just keep collaborating!  Well done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of conspiratorial nonsense is highly unproductive, and not helpful to your cause, but I guess it is more exciting than simply answering my question. --21:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep on collaborating, and don't forget to sign it.......! None of this has been helpful to your "cause", it's all been noted. Now move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (I typed an extra tilde, big deal.) For the record you and I often post only 2 minutes apart as well.  Maybe its a 3-way collaboration! --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note... updated my vote above based on recent expansion of article. -- Jayron  32  00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to no one disputing the "5th or 6th" most important horse race within the UK claim. To post the 5th most important horse race when no other country gets more than 1 and the US's 2nd or 3rd most popular sporting events (NCAA football and NCAA basketball) are routinely rejected would, as my esteemed colleague put it be "just too great of a disparity". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now neutral since the claim has been disputed (thanks Tigerboy). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral/comment Sorry I'm not familiar with the workings of ITN, but I do know a lot about horse racing and have written more than 500 WP articles on the topic. I can assure you that the claim that the Derby is the fifth or sixth most important horse race in the UK is incorrect. It is the most famous and important British flat race and second only to the Grand National among all British races in terms of public interest.  Tigerboy1966   21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly aggree, but I very much doubt that there's less public interest in Ascot/Cheltenham. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. This was a close call. The question of whether the race generally is sufficiently notable remains unresolved, but this particular running had an exceptionally noteworthy outcome.  That tips the scales.  —David Levy 01:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Chester Vase connection, that's hardly notable. It's a factoid at best. Noteworthy outcomes in the Derby would be a record time, or the fact that this was the fist time in years that the winner came from outside the top 3 favourites, or the various reasons why the the standout favourite came last. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The information's inclusion in both the article's lead and the ITN blurb seems to reflect disagreement with this assertion. —David Levy 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Epsom Derby is considered one of (if not the) top races in the global sport because thoroughbred breeders since time immemorial have been aiming for one thing - an Epsom Derby winner. It's the perfect test of speed and stamina, and as such has become a defining race in any entrant's career/worth, with the consequent importance to both breeders and owners. This is why it has epithets like 'blue riband of turf'. And on any objective measure you care to use, in terms of wider cultural significance it ranks at least equal with the other top British meetings - the national, Ascot and Cheltenham. The tragedy of ITN is that you don't need to be an expert to realise any of this, it's all deducable by the non-expert using logic and readily available facts/sources. Every single oppose in here could have been struck out based on my suggested strikeout rule, and therefore the item could have been posted days ago because it is anything but a close call in real terms. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Comment which article is being nominated? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 17 deaths from heat in a country of more than 3 million doesn't sound that significant.  Maybe it's just the tip of the iceberg or something like that, but we'd need evidence first.  Compare, for example, to a heat wave like the 1995 Chicago heat wave that killed 750 people in 5 days from a somewhat smaller population.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - 17 people dying of "extreme" heat in a country that has a hot climate is not important news, as tragic as it is. --85.211.121.145 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No article to evaluate (and I would question whether this situation merits its own article, let alone an ITN nomination).  As stated by others, not yet at high enough scale of casualties given the situation to be posted. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)