August 5, 2013 (2013-08-05) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Media
Politics and elections
Science
Sports
Biogenesis baseball scandal
Article: Biogenesis baseball scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Thirteen Major League Baseball players are suspended for using performance enhancing drugs, as a result of the biogenesis baseball scandal. (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: CBS News headline: "Biogenesis scandal ranks among MLB's biggest in history." Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Drug scandal in a sport with a history of drug use. Besides which, the right time to post would be if the appeal fails. If we were to post now and the appeal were to succeed, we would be duty-bound to post that as well. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually baseball never had a player, especially a star like Alex Rodriguez being suspended such a long period of time (two years in this case) because of a drug/doping scandal. This is easily the biggest doping scandal to hit sports in general since Lance Armstrong which we posted, and probably rank among the top five ever. This has widespread implications in multiple sports, and should end the "doping era" in baseball. Support Secret 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, good suggestion. Although it's a sports item, an area where I think the bar should be held a little higher (along with most other entertainment-related noms), I think this easily meets that bar and will have a more meaningful impact than many of the routine sports items that we usually post. This is a huge deal for a sport that is several orders of magnitude more significant as an entity than swimming, for example, another currently-nommed sports item (and I'm not hating on swimming; that one should and probably will be posted). AP called it "baseball's most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- My opening remark was intended to be facetious (apologies if it didn't come across that way), although in my defence it was a fair comment. But A-Rod hasn't even stopped playing yet: this surely only meets the bar if he is actually suspended? Otherwise we have a handful of players who have pleaded guilty to doping missing less than a third of a season. Significant, but hardly earth-shattering. In cycling and athletics you generally get one or two years, yet the problem is still widespread, so I don't accept the premise that this will mark the end of drugs in baseball. And to reiterate, if this is posted and A-Rod suspension is overturned on appeal, we would surely then need to post that. It simply doesn't make sense to go now. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's an internal league matter, making what are essentially criminal allegations, without any of the protections of the criminal system, or liability for other parties like coaches and owners who would be subject to conspiracy charges were these real criminal proceedings. Imagine trading houses that knew of their traders' activities demanding they stop trading and forfeit thier salaries while the brokers keep their profits. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
RD:Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward
Article: Sandy Woodward (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Washington Post, The Province, ad-hoc-news.de
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Commanded the task force that recaptured the Falklands. This included the largest naval battles for a long time, possibly since WWII. Most military people never actually fight in a war (certainly over the period 1946-2001) so to be the commander of a successful significant campaign puts him clearly at the top of his field (even though I am sure we all wish his skills had never needed to be proven this way). --FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Grenada has 30 times the population of the Falklands, MacArthur's invasion of Korea falls during the period mentioned and is considered brilliant, not to mention the size involved, the first Gulf War, concluded in 30 days, is ignored, the target article has a whole three sentences on the Falklands era.... μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question I'm not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. AFAIUI in neither of the the invasion of Grenada nor the landing at Inchon was there a naval opposition, certainly not one of any note so there cannot have been any naval battles. The first Gulf War took place entirely on land so I am sure that there was not a naval battle there. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality grounds; would support upon improvement per nominator. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of, IMO significant, reactions. How does it look now? RL means that I have to stop now and won't be able to do any more for 24 hours. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Tuvalu Prime Minister
Articles: Prime Minister of Tuvalu (talk · history · tag) and Enele Sopoaga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Enele Sopoaga is elected Prime Minister of Tuvalu. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Enele Sopoaga is sworn in as Prime Minister of Tuvalu.
News source(s): Radio New Zealand International Island Business
Credits:
Both articles need updatingNominator's comments: This was nominated before but was closed as it was unsure if he was actually the new Prime Minister. Since he has been sworn in, it is appropriate to post this now when the articles are adequately updated to be on the main page. Andise1 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- A change in head of state is, but not head of government (Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of Tuvalu). 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Swimming World Championships redux
Articles: Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag) and Missy Franklin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The World Aquatics Championships conclude with the United States winning the most medals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The World Aquatics Championships conclude with Missy Franklin (pictured) winning six gold medals, the most ever by a female competitor.
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
Both articles need updatingNominator's comments: This was sort of nominated below, but was nominated too soon (Franklin tying the record), so the discussion focused on the wrong things (IMO). I am re-nominating it now that the event is complete on the basis of the championships themselves, not on Franklin's record. We post the WCs of many sports less popular than swimming, so I feel we should post swimming as well. This year's event is especially notable in part b/c of Franklin's record, but I'll leave it up to the community as to whether or not to mention her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support posting the championship in some form. This also goes for the upcoming athletics championship. Together with gymnastics they are the most popular Olympic sports. None of them have ITNR items as far as I can see. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support definitly for itn. major sporting event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support either blurb, but with a mild preference for the alt. The most medals by a single competitor is not something that happens routinely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (restored Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC), not sure how it got lost but it did)
- Oppose - at present there is zero prose on the actual event, will support once updated. LGA talk 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose posting until the prose is there. I *support* the story, it arguably should be ITNR, but it must not be railroaded through without the sort of update we would expect of non-sporting articles. No objection to the current blurb, although I don't see grounds for Missy Franklin to be bolded. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Afghan - Pak floods
Article: 2013 Afghanistan–Pakistan floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: More than 160 people killed in flash floods across Afghanistan and Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Article is in stub, need to expand. --Gfosankar (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
RD:Art Donovan
Article: Art Donovan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Five time pro-bowl selection and Hall of Fame American football player who remained well-known long after his playing days due to his appearance on numerous TV shows. Defensive players are rarely well known, so I think its safe to say Donovan was one of the best at his position ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see any evidence that he was one of the best at his position (and I'm not sure that would be enough--one of the best defensive players ever maybe). I just did a search of 'Best defensive NFL players of all time' and I came across this link at Yahoo sports which ranks the 10 best ever and doesn't include Donovan. This list at the Bleacher Report doesn't rank him in teh top 25.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Johnsemlak's compelling evidence of him not being that highly regarded by those who know about such things. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. The latter list cited by Johnsemlak is a list of defensive players since 1965; Donovan played until 1961. Both lists are just the opinions of the writers of the lists. He is a Hall of Famer with other achievements that ThaddeusB mentions which meet the "notable in their field" criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per 331dot. Pro Football Hall of Fame is a much better indicator of significance in his field than Bleacher Report, which is a terrible website that I delete references from whenever I see one, or Yahoo Sports, which isn't much better. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose 331Dot is right that these are just oppinions, but there is no way he can be said to have been influential in his field as far as playing style, etc. Compare Joe Namatah who was revild by mant during his time precisely because of the influence he had on the sport, and ask whether today's players resemble Namath or Donovan. Donovan's TV presence simply followed from his beening able to speak articulately, not his skill at tackling TV producers. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Lab-grown burger
Article: In vitro meat (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The world's first hamburger made using laboratory-grown meat is presented and eaten at a press conference in London. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: The biggest step forward in food since the invention of the onion. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The target article is a shambles, written mostly in disjoint sentences, with material duplicated in various places (e.g., the PETA prize). Where it's not hagiographic it's POV-laden and where it's not POV-laden it's pure speculation. Might be easier to start over with a new article, but this "burger" is apparently unpalatable and the press event is a press event. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I assume this is the first time lab produced meat has been eaten. The blurb should make that clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Dutch lab has been making announcements since 2009. I don't believe we have any independent sources. I find it extremely hard to believe they will actually be risking a live first tasting Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- This has been widely reported in the news sources I frequent. That said, it is clearly a publicity stunt (they've tested and eaten a few less lavishly prepared pieces of "meat" already with fewer camera's pointing at them) so its debatable whether anything particularly significant actually occurred today. --LukeSurl 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- "First" is always going to be a bit of a wooden lie with a story like this. If we were posting Elvis's first live performance in 36 years (or however long), we would be discounting him singing in the shower and the fact that he is likely to have rehearsed. As far as I can tell, this is the first time lab-grown meat has been eaten by non-scientists or in public and also the first time it has been prepared so that it tastes like a commercially viable product rather than a gimmick. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Overall I am neutral on this item. --LukeSurl 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Leaning support. I acknowledge all of the concerns above, but the progress of in vitro meat is to food what putting a human on Mars is to space exploration. By no means the holy grail, but as big a leap as we have ever taken. Although I'm mindful of straying into an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style line of reasoning, it is fair to say that this is a bigger milestone for food than the launch of a random orbital spaceflight is for space exploration. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's also the most expensive burger ever made at £200,000. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support if a good update occurs - the press is treating this as a historic first, so that should be good enough for us. "First" will almost always be debatable in the context of true innovation, as noted above, but that is insufficient reason to deny a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
-
- My point is that I oppose this nomination as a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Article is now updated (not by me, although I've given it a bit of a short back and sides).
- The "commercial stunt" aspect of this is really what makes it historic, I think, not a limiter on its significance. If you think about it, the basic technology (cultivating animal tissue in vitro) has been around since the 1990s. The technological bridge between that and saying you've produced meat is really just a few seconds in the microwave and a nice Chianti. In vitro tissue was first eaten a decade ago - a tiny morsel of frog, although it apparently tasted nothing like frog. The step forward today is producing enough tissue with enough similarity to natural meat so that it can undertake (and pass) a taste-test. So it's a culinary/commercial milestone, rather than a strictly scientific one. But it's pretty massive as a proof-of-concept.
- Incidentally, not that it's very important, this is a university project, rather than a corporate one. It doesn't even appear to have a corporate sponsor, which makes it less "corporate" than almost all science. Formerip (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the fact that this is just a stunt is what makes it not just a stunt? I am glad you found the source on the artificial meat from the 90's. I looked but couldn't. The bottom line is we have people reproducing work from the 90's, but in the form of American fast food, given the $300,000 in grant money they got to do so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that Christopher Columbus was sponsored by the Crown of Castile does not change the fact that he increased European awareness of the New World. The fact that the space race primarily happened because of the intense political and ideological rivalry between East and West does not lessen the achievement of Yuri Gagarin going around in a large circle, or of Neil Armstrong's small step. And it's the same story here. The way of invalidating the supporting arguments here is surely to refute the culinary and/or scientific achievement, rather than to play up the fact that a sum of money equivalent to second or third prize in the lottery was involved. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
August 4
| Portal:Current events/2013 August 4
|
|
August 4, 2013 (2013-08-04) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Politics and elections
Embassy Closings / Terror Threat
Article: No article specified
Blurb: The United States closes 22 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa due to intelligence of an Al-Qaeda attack, while Canada closes its embassy in Bangladesh and Britain, France and Germany close their embassy in Yemen amid terror threats. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (CNN) (Toronto Sun)
Credits:
--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do we have an article on ostriches? We do have one on cheese eating surrender monkeys, quite ironically. This should go up some how if we can get a target article. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Doctor Who
Articles: Peter Capaldi (talk · history · tag) and Doctor Who (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Peter Capaldi is announced as the actor to play the Twelfth Doctor in Doctor Who (Post)
Alternative blurb: Peter Capaldi is announced as the next actor to play The Doctor in Doctor Who
News source(s): BBC; The Globe and Mail; NY Times; Brisbane Times; Irish Times; India Today
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Quite big entertainment news. Apart from Bond, no other role gets this much media attention. --LukeSurl 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Big entertainment news, but not big news news. I doubt that we would post the selection of a new James Bond actor either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support (subject to update) Would appear to be in the news, judging by the 5 mins that ABC Breakfast has just given to this. LGA talk 20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Seriously? A casting decision for a television show? How is this a "significant development" in world events? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral. I actually think this is fine for ITN, but the precedent it would set, the pointy follow-up nominations etc is probably not worth it. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like it for its uniqueness... all entertainment news we ever post is awards, film festivals and more awards. You will not get a new doctor every year... and to comment on FormerIP's concern, being afraid of future moron's may not be the greatest reason to not post it -- Ashish-g55 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
-
- You must not really know what Doctor who is or the influence it can have over British audience to call this stupid. My point is we do not really ever post TV related news and this definitely has worldwide interest. Just because its a topic that we dont post regularly doesnt make it stupid -- Ashish-g55 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the show. It's long running, but just a television show. Who they cast for the part does not matter relative to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- please read guidelines above and refrain from opposing/supporting without providing a reason for it. "absolutely not" is not a reason -- Ashish-g55 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - There is unusually broad interest in this item. The speculation about the new Doctor was mainstream news here in the U.S., and the level of editing activity on Peter Capaldi indicates that this news is something that many Misplaced Pages users are very interested in. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- What that says is that our editors are 50% under 22 years of age and 87% male. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ding ding ding! This nomination is an example of systematic bias at work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not those editors' fault that other socioeconomic groups aren't as numerous in editing the Capaldi article. Their views are not irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I thought about this, and had the initial thought that it was a mere casting decision- but as the nom suggests, a very small handful of roles (such as James Bond) have heavy interest in them and are covered by mainstream media (not just entertainment news). I think this rises to that level Part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to stories "in the news" if they are sufficiently covered and of wide interest- and I think this qualifies. It also doesn't hurt to have a variety of stories in ITN. As such, I support. I think any precedent here is limited; I think the number of similar roles can be counted on one hand, or close to it. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support The longest running sci-fi TV show of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Twelfth Doctor is not a very good article yet. It may be better to link to Doctor (Doctor Who) instead (see alt blurb). --LukeSurl 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Doctor Who and James Bond are clearly exceptional casting news in terms of cultural impact. I cannot think of a third example of similar, for lack of a better term, "importance". As this prefix search seems to agree. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. I'm as much of a science fiction fan as anybody but this is way below our notability standards. A permanent cancellation of the show would be notable. This is fancruft, and is far less notable than many stories we do not post. Also, I think some leeway would be given to above opposes who simply wrote 'absolutely not' or something similar. This shouldn't require discussion. I'd even be bold enough to nominate this as a SNOW close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are no grounds here whatsoever for a SNOW close; given the support it clearly has at least a chance of success. The suggestion is, frankly, outrageous. Your opposition boils down to I don't like it as what is notable is determined by consensus. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see "I don't like it", I see "why are we discussing this?" because it falls far short of the significance required for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The supporters of this would seem to disagree. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not 'I don't like it'. I do like the subject material, even if I'm a trekkie. The matter is this falls way short of our notability guidelines and I think that's plainly obvious. If SNOW isn't teh appropriate policy (I don't see why not--there's a snowball's chance this can meet the notability guidelines), then perhaps IAR is the right policy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you are citing IAR then you need to establish how dismissing the views of those who support this and ignoring any potential consensus that this is notable is somehow beneficial to Misplaced Pages. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- IAR is Ignore all Rules. As i see it supporters are ignoring a few rules to try and get this story onto ITN in benefit of the encyclopedia. So how in the world is IAR going to be invoked to keep it out of ITN lol. what rule would we be ignoring... consensus? -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Which rules are being ignored by supporters? 331dot (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Added comment--teh blurb is a classic example of systemic bias--the overwhelming majority of people in the world have no idea who the 12th doctor is. And I'd strongly contest teh notion that Dr Who is anywhere near James Bond on global notability. If Dr Who get's a big blockbuster movie franchise, then I'd consider that thought.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just to add on the "James Bond" thing, if Daniel Craig gets replaced and someone else is cast as Bond, I would oppose that nomination too. James Bond is far more culturally significant than Doctor Who, and still not ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. I'm not going to be bold enough to close this via WP:SNOW but if a third or forth editor agrees I hope they do so. This is really beyond ridiculous that this is getting this much discussion. A little broader perspective is required here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some people would think a royal baby getting attention was also ridiculous... infact i think that was more ridiculous than this, however consensus was to post and hence it was posted. Suggesting SNOW close for something with heavy support is taking the discussion in a wrong direction. You should oppose if you feel so since thats what ITN/C is for, however this discussion right here about snow close is frankly the only ridiculous thing here -- Ashish-g55 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree with a SNOW close (and really, the royal birth, as stupid as it was, did relate to the British monarchy, so it's a lot more relevant to "news" than this"), but with all of the opposition that has been raised, I'd be disappointed if an admin found anything other than "no consensus to post". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, a little perspective that this is no ordinary TV show. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- A sci-fi show, that, if I'm reading the page correctly, wasn't broadcast outside of the UK until 2005. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, my bad, has been broadcast out of the UK longer than that. But still this nomination is built on a UK-bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes well I disagree with you on that 331dot, and I even like doctor who quite much if you think that is relevant. SeraV (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. When this gets posted, we should deliberately not replace the photo of Robert Mugabe with one of Peter Capaldi, just to see how many confused people post at ERRORS. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Just a niche interest, in no way significant enough as world news. Beerest355 Talk 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose A new actor on a TV show is not worthy of being mentioned on ITN at all.--Giants27(T|C) 01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't generally post pop culture stuff of this ilk. Major award winners, deaths of significant actors are probably fine. But actors getting roles, even iconic ones, fall well below common standards here. --Jayron32 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just how much money is involved in all of this? –HTD 04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Light-hearted Support. Dr Who is an icon and British institution, which marks this as an important appointment, more so than a number of appointments of prime ministers of island states. Arguably more important and impactful than the expected (re-)election of a tin-pot dictator. -- Ohc ¿que pasa? 06:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Featured on BBC homepage, front pages of the Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc etc. It might be pop culture news, but it is exceptional pop culture news. Plus, Capaldi's page here on Misplaced Pages got 431,325 visits yesterday - yes, nearly half a million - so people want to know about him. So why not put it in the news where they can find it easily? 86.133.51.86 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Posted. Most everyone agrees that it is in the news, with the main opposition coming from the perspective that it is not a significant enough event. Even among the opposition I see mentions that this is an iconic role above and beyond the significance of a usual casting, and so after sitting here weighing it all I find that there is consensus enough to post. Ks0stm 08:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- You've gotta be kidding me (i.e. strong oppose). How did you think this was consensus enough to post? Please remove. Casting decisions do not even reflect actual time spent acting. Teply (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought there was consensus enough to post because there was (I gave a short explanation of my analysis in my posing comment). If consensus swings in the opposite direction rather rapidly I'll be more than happy to remove, but as it stands it stays. Ks0stm 08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have undone the posting of this item, has no consensus so far. If there are other formalities to do in such an unposting, please let me know. No objection to this getting reposted if it actually does get consensus, but let's wait until then... Fram (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't really exist at ITN for this sort of situation. The decisions are basically binary (post or don't post) with no latitude for compromise. We don't have the luxury of time for the "grind down opposition by attrition" form of "consensus" that exists elsewhere on the wiki. Controversial items have to be decided one way or another and those who object have to just have to deal with decisions not going their way from time to time. --LukeSurl 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the posting admin claimed consensus (which seems to be lacking though), and Misplaced Pages:In the news/Administrator instructions starts with: "Make sure the item has consensus for posting at WP:ITN/C." (bolding in original). Determining consensus doesn't mean that the decision can't be binary, but it does mean that in more unclear situations ("no consensus" discussions like this one so far), one group will be unhappy. Anyway, the page I linked to above continues with " If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old." I see no reason not to do just that in this case. Fram (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I nominated this for DYK, my suggestion is that we wait until Christmas, when he starts, to put this up. Matty.007
- I believe that, according to DYK rules, it's not eligible because the article has already been posted to ITN, even though only for half an hour. See 1(e) of the eligibility criteria. -- tariqabjotu 09:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that would fall under IAR. It's purely because it was posted at ITN with Twelfth Doctor bolded rather than Peter Capaldi that technically make it fall foul of the criteria; assuming the article meets all other DYK criteria I think the ~ 30 minute appearance is neither here nor there. Pedro : Chat 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we shall see. But I have seen someone from DYK mention this precise point here when someone suggested a pulled article be nominated at DYK instead. -- tariqabjotu 10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, if this doesn't get posted to ITN now, it's certainly not going to be posted at Christmas. -- tariqabjotu 09:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think there's this DYK "rule" where the articles have to be "recent" at the time of posting. This article can't be possibly new by December. And unless it is posted again at ITN, this can no longer be posted at DYK, which screwed any chance of this article getting on the Main Page. –HTD 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- In the DYK queue you're allowed to delay the submission for a calendarically meaningful release. Beyond that, DYK has become rather absurdly bureaucratic over the last few years. The intended purpose of DYK is to bring public attention to new articles, even if they're not quite polished. You can probably bend a rule or two there if you're persuasive enough. As much as I oppose this for ITN, I don't see any significant problems for DYK. Teply (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- AFAIK, there's some rule that disallows a potential blurb languishing at the queues for a long period of time. In any case, an argument is to post this at DYK now (or after it is approved). –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe Matt was suggesting putting it on ITN, not DYK, at Christmas. -- tariqabjotu 10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Restore the posting. The admin's decision to post was sound; most (not all) of the opposes boil down to IDONTLIKEIT and even a lot of those concede this is a unique, iconic role/situation. It is being covered by mainstream news in several countries, it is clearly "in the news", whether we disagree with the merits of them doing so or not. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Twelfth Doctor has been improved and would probably be the better bold article now. --LukeSurl 10:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news. Warden (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Come on guys, this is a british-american-centric matter. I mean Dr Who casting is definitly NOT of world interest. Had this been a series of any other country than the US or the UK every single one of you would have said Oppose.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
-
- This show is not all that important in those 49 other countries, it is just another tv show. Fairly good one certainly. Who plays next doctor does not get that much interest outside UK. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey at least the Glee dude who died stayed in the news for a week in my neck of the woods. This? Zip. –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- ABC Breakfast news had this second only to the election. LGA talk 11:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Not if the article on said hypothetical series established that it had been on (with one interruption) since 1961 and the role was as iconic as a James Bond. If you can find such a comparable role, I would be happy to support it. Objections about an item relating to a single country are not valid(see top of page). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ireland, Australia, and India are hardly "british-american". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- How is this American? -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, how is this American? The Deadly Assassin (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The phrase you are looking for is "exclusively angliloquent." μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Is that what you're going off of? An episode that took place in New York? Is this also French too because there was an episode in Paris? I don't watch this show and know very little about it, but if that's the closest connection to the U.S., that's really pushing it. Unless we're going with Sex and the City 2 being an Emirati film. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- One doesn't always know what one's looking for, by Jove. But if I find it, I'll certainly pass it on to "the management". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ultimately, to claim this is some kind of jingoistic nomination is flawed. Doctor Who has been running for decades, it's popular in all corners of the globe. I have no real interest in whether this is posted at ITN or not, but it's a good test of how defensive various nationalities become when it comes to something as straight-forward as this. It's made massive news across the world (for whatever reason, you can consider it like the royal baby if you find it hard to envisage), and, after all, if it has consensus to post here, it should be posted, regardless of criteria etc (see Cory Monteith). Oftentimes, Misplaced Pages is critiqued for not going with modern popular culture. Perhaps this is an example of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say, a lot of the opposes have had some strange notions. The show's been syndicated world-wide since the 70's and earlier, with lost episodes being retrieved from tapes sent overseas for viewing. I started watching it in the US in 1978, not 2005. That being said, this is a casting decision for a TV show. Posting this would be like posting Tim Tebow being traded to the Cowboys. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of. The difference being Tebow won't be cast again and again, in different guises, over a 50-year period, and have a worldwide popularity. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pull I can't believe this was posted with 50/50 support. Had my suggestion it is only fit for DYK been counted it would have been under %50. Now it is not even eligible for DYK, brilliant! We have a continuing serious problem with admin prerogative. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well at least we had some chance to comment on it, unlike Glee guy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you're still on that? -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, check out precedent. You set it. No going back now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The "precedent" is a self-fulfilling prophecy you manufactured. No one is forcing you to bring it up in every nomination, especially ones beyond comparison. It has no relevance to this nomination whatsoever, but you choose to raise it here twice (once in response to, again, an irrelevant comment) to rile me and hopefully attract more of my critics to join you in your game. Pathetic. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The precedent is one you made of your own volition. Pathetic is correct. A shame you didn't think about it before you set the precedent itself. Now deal with the consequences. Popular culture is now ready to go, with little discussion. This is as notable, if not more so, than the death of a Glee actor. You know that. I'm not here to attract any more of your critics, you're doing a marvellous job of that yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- TRM, as you well know Misplaced Pages doesn't work based on a "precedence" system. First, mistakes can and do happen. Second, consensus can change. You repeatedly bringing up a posting you disagreed with in unrelated topics is very much not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, it clearly does work on precedents, if it didn't, it'd be unique. Secondly, are you suggesting Tariq's posting was a mistake? Thirdly, there was no consensus (other than the rapid fanboy ex-criteria supports) for the Glee kid. I'm afraid the stall has been set out that certain posting admins apply different criteria to those agreed at ITN. Your tacit acceptance of such is very much not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am neither approving or disapproving of Tariq's posting - I am disapproving of your repeatedly bringing it up to make a point. Doing so serves only to turn ITN into a battleground. The posting of an unexpected death of one person is not going to decide any other ITN nomination ever, especially not ones that aren't even RD noms. Every situation is unique and even if they were not we are under absolutely no obligation to respect precedent. This isn't a court of law. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question' how did pulling (as in posting and removing) this make the encyclopedia any better? Pulling items should be done only if there was major consensus against posting... i see about 50/50. Im ok with waiting for consensus if its that unclear and then posting but really pulling just makes ITN and[REDACTED] in general look bad. A normal person viewing the main page doesnt know what goes on in background... -- Ashish-g55 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - It would be an encyclopedic embarrassment to post about a new actor in a television show, especially given the number of much worthier national and international topics that never make ITN. If this project truly is an encyclopedia, then the proper criteria to judge whether something should be included ITN isn't merely the popularity of the topic in Western media. Even the discovery of a new ant species is more noteworthy on an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry to be "that guy", but if something this trivial to most of the world is posted when topics like the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, the US Voting Rights Act being struck down, or the dismissal of the Tuvalu Prime Minister are ignored, we might as well be honest with readers about Misplaced Pages's content priorities and redirect the Main Page to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree some people seem to think that we must get as many page views as possible by posting these popular culture pieces, like some sort of common tabloid paper. Frankly I find it annoying. SeraV (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is probably an ITN eventually on Doctor Who, but that it likely when the BBC offically say they've concluded the complete series (ignoring side media), and thus hallmarking the end of the longest-run scripted shows on television anywhere. But that's not this point. I would be quick not to have ITN dismiss anything pop culture (we run sports stories all the time, and that's pop culture too), but we have to be more selective about it. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the final end of the entire Dr Who series is notable for mention at ITN absolutely. But a cast change even if it is Dr Who himself is at best "national news of national interest".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of not having this particular item to be posted and I agree it should have been pulled, though I will point out that the show has a wide international audience and not really restricted to a national story as claimed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's been 24 hours, every timezone has had a chance to chip-in here. Let's make a decision and then move on --LukeSurl 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A decision about a casting change in a TV show for ITN? Give me a break. Nsk92 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Posted After much consideration, I believe that there is consensus for this to be posted. Unlike several people above stated, consensus is based on policy based, or in this case, reasonable arguments which many of the support commentators had. CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE COUNT Many of the oppose votes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT simply because is a television show and not a bus accident or a election. There is a few comments above that this might lead to a slippery slope which I took into consideration, however Masem is correct that we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture. Note I never seen a Doctor Who episode in my life, and wouldn't care less about the show. I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here. Thanks Secret 00:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
New species of cavefish
Articles: Cavefish (talk · history · tag) and Typhleotris mararybe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A new species of cavefish, Typhleotris mararybe, is discovered in Madagascar. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Not sure how notable this is but I thought it might be notable enough for ITN (even though some people are not huge on new species stories). Andise1 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately cavefish redirects to Amblyopsidae, an unrelated family of cave-dwelling fish from the United States. There is no article on cave fish! So to be posted an article on Typhleotris mararybe would have to be
created expanded (and perhaps one on fish who live in caves). As for ITN-worthiness, there are 150-170 known species of cave-dwelling fish in the world, a nice low number and roughly the same as the number of described lemur species, so finding one more is rather significant. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cavefish should probably be turned into a dab page. Any idea what other taxon(s) are commonly referred to as "cave fish" besides Amblyopsidae? Obviously there is at least one, but it is not immediately apparent to me what level of classification Typhleotris mararybe and related cave fish share in common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I decided to make cave fish as dab page and leave cavefish as a redirect. Still looking for an answer to my question above if anyone has any insight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cave fish evolve from whatever surface species there happen to be in the area, so there is no connection (other than they are all freshwater, as far as I know). I have other stuff to do irl but I'm thinking about this situation. Abductive (reasoning) 15:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yah, I should have been more clear... The linked article implies there is some relationship between this fish and the otehr cave fish mentioned (which is not all by any means). The question is not what all cave-dwelling fish have in common but what taxons are commonly called "cavefish". Please review/expand/fix the cave fish dab page if you get a chance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, unfortunately, as I have begun the article it seems the fish was described in 2012, meaning this nom is stale. No idea why it is hitting the lay press now. Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stale per Abductive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
August 3
| Portal:Current events/2013 August 3
|
|
August 3, 2013 (2013-08-03) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
- A man crashes his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Venice Beach, California, U.S., injuring eleven people and killing one. The driver fled the scene and was being sought by authorities, but later turned himself in. (CNN) (CBS Los Angeles)
Law and crime
- 16-year-old Hannah Anderson was abducted after cheerleading practice from Sweetwater High School in National City, California. The suspect was later identified by authorities as 40-year-old James Lee DiMaggio, owner of a home in Boulevard, California. The bodies of her mother Christina and brother Ethan Anderson and the family's dog, Cali, were found in DiMaggio's burned home. DiMaggio was later killed by FBI agents during a shootout at the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho, where he had been camping with Hannah Anderson. (Los Angeles Times)
Politics and elections
Sport
West Germany systematic doping
Article: Doping in sport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A study reveals that West Germany had a government-funded, systematic doping program. (Post)
News source(s): Original from sueddeutsche.de and Google translation
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Revelation of a large scale doping program. Covered in my local paper (non-German) as well (e.g. this article). --88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wait - right now this is unsubstantiated allegations by a newspaper about an unpublished government report. If the story proves to be accepted as plausible when the report is published then of course this is huge news. However, it is probably too soon for ITN given the extraordinary nature of the claims (no athlete or official has ever come forward with such allegation before as far as I know; keeping such a large scale conspiracy quite for 40 years is improbable to say the least). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and we aren't there yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Huffington post article
John Palmer
Article: John Palmer (TV journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, CNN, CBS News
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Nothing in the RD line currently so I thought I'd nominate this; journalist with a long career and several awards, including two Emmys and the Merriman Smith Memorial Award for excellence in presidential journalism(was the first broadcast journalist to receive that award). I believe that suggests he was notable in his field. --331dot (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing personal, but this guy was on the C-end of the B-list, and he was on air during the time I actually watched broadcast news. There won't be a single iconic clip or accomplishment on youtube or elsewhere to demonstrate his influence, notability, or markworthiness. μηδείς (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- How many "B-list" people have won two emmys? 331dot (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that someone be recently notable in their field. I also would disagree with that contention, given the many comments from current journalists that have been mentioned in the media. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Super Rugby
Article: 2013 Super Rugby Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In rugby union, Chiefs defeat Brumbies to win the Super Rugby championship for the second consecutive season. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN Scrum, Stuff.co.nz, BBC
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. 61.245.25.7 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since we don't really care about page views here, this is hardly relevant. SeraV (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please drop the silly nicknames from the blurb and tell us where these teams are really from. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those are their names. We can't decide to call them something else. We could say Hamilton-based Chiefs (rugby union), and Canberra-based Brumbies, but I think it's pointless. - Shudde 07:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it pointless? Are you saying that these teams don't really represent anybody or anywhere? Are they just the playthings of some rich bastards who just buy the best players? (Like Manchester United?) If they don't represent anywhere, what does this even prove? And why should we post it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Chiefs represent Bay of Plenty, Counties Manukau, King Country, Thames Valley and Waikato – that might be a little verbose for ITN. Why don't you click the Chiefs article rather than just asking questions? This information is in there. They are based in Hamilton, but do play outside of the city sometimes. So Hamilton-based is accurate, but it paints an incomplete picture. I'm happy leaving the blurb as is. You offered no suggestions, just a complaint (that you didn't like the names). -- Shudde 07:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strewth, these teams are from different countries! Surely that's worth a mention? Or is this a refreshing acknowledgement that many modern sports teams are just collections of players bought by a wealthy person or consortium to play together to satisfy a TV audience, and don't represent anything at all? Should we follow that lead for all professional sports? Leave out the localities? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Has been updated. On ITNR. - Shudde 07:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Posted I omitted the city names because they're not part of the team names and I don't feel they add much to the blurb. It's also unlikely people will know where "Hamilton" is without having to click on the link to the city name. -- tariqabjotu 08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Fonterra recall
Article: 2013 Fonterra recall (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dairy producer Fonterra announces a large recall of products potentially infected with botulism-causing bacteria across seven countries. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NY Times
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's largest exporter of dairy products. The recall of this scale - big enough to attract attention in multiple countries that aren't directly effected - is quite rare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Our food-recall category seems a bit scattershot, but the Peanut Corporation of America recall accompanied 9 deaths, almost 1,000 salmonella cases, and did an estimated US $1,000,000,000.00 in damage. The 2008 Irish pork crisis did an estimated Euro 100,000,000.00 in damages and may have shortened the lifespan of the average Irishman by a year (i.e., 20% of the population by five years). μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article itself is not objectionable, but almost every other sentence needs some sort of attention. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- So you think this is not news if no-one has got sick or died? I can similarly argue that if we post this it might stop some people from buying or using affected products. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Which is an entirely invalid reason to post (or will we start posting Tornado warnings and nutrtional adviceto save lives?) and as worded "so you think" amounts to a personal attack. Try assuming good faith and focussing on the topic--not motives and editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is not very good reason either to oppose just because there are no victims in cases like this. And well if hot stop took that as a personal attack he can tell me and I apologise. It certainly wasn't meant as one, and since he agreed that that was his argument your opinion about this just seems petty. How about you try assuming good faith before you start throwing around accusations. SeraV (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my argument at this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- China banned the import of powdered milk products from NZ+Australia today. 90% of China's imports come from NZ. Its unclear how long teh ban will last, but say it is one month - that amounts to $140 million of lost sales for NZ/$140 million of product China needs to find a new source for. I'd say that is a pretty significant effect above and beyond the recall itself. Russia which wasn't even part of the recall is also blocking Fonterra imports temporarily. There are ways to measure impact besides deaths. Here it seems the problem was found before much product got into the hands of consumers, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose A 1,000 toms sound like a lot without any frame of reference but some quick checks show it is a fairly small quantity. A 1,000 toms is roughly equivalent to 1 million kg (long tons are a little more, short tons a little less, and 1,000 tonnes are exactly 1,000,000 kg). This compares to 1.3 billion tons of production for New Zealand in 2007 (as shown by Dairy farming in New Zealand), of which Fonterra controls ~94.8%. The math is a little rough due to rounding in the available numbers, but the recall volume works out to a little less than 30% of a single day's average volume for the company. This in turn could be caused by problems with one day worth of production at one of the company's four processing facilities. --Allen3 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not only that, but the 1,000 tons are diluted product. It is actually only 42 tons of whey protein, not 1,000, compared to the 1.3 billion total tons of milk solids. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Shanghai Tower
Article: Shanghai Tower (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Shanghai Tower, the tallest Chinese structure of any kind, tops out. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Shanghai Tower, the world's second tallest building, tops out.
News source(s): Xinhua, China News, BBC
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Also the structural completion of the world's first trio of supertall skyscrapers. May modify the blurb accordingly to serve as a hook. --GotR 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - It's more than twice as tall as The Shard, which was on ITN last year. The blurb should probably also mention that it's the second tallest building in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support but the blurb should simply state that it is the second tallest building in the world. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support and agree on blurb that says second tallest in world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question. So is the tallest or the second tallest? I think that makes a big difference to whether it should be posted. A new worlds-tallest-building seems to come along regularly enough that even that might be questionable, without us starting to post just any really tall building. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- When completed, it will be the second-tallest building. I don't, however, see the need to stick to superlatives. For one thing, the Burj Khalifa set a very high mark; Shanghai Tower is about three-quarters the height of Burj Khalifa, and it will still be the second-tallest building in the world. It took more than twenty-five years for the Sears Tower to be surpassed, and it wasn't much taller than other buildings at the time. Among buildings currently under construction, only one -- Kingdom Tower -- is taller than the Burj Khalifa. It won't be completed until at least 2019, if it's completed at all. (We also have Sky City, which China hopes to be constructed in less than a year next year, but I'll believe it when I see it.) So, second-tallest building is about the best feat in this field we can expect for awhile. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment To the above, despite reports in the media, it's not the second-tallest building in the world until it's completed and habitable (see the last two pages of this document). And I believe that's generally why we wait until the building is open for business, not topped out. That's what happened with The Shard and the Burj Khalifa (although I believe we may also posted the latter when it became the world's tallest structure during construction), and what seemed to be the consensus for One World Trade Center. -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- The second-tallest building in the world is obviously notable enough for ITN, but since the topping out height isn't a record, we should probably wait for completion of the building as we usually do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:TOSOON Come back when it is finished and open (as with the The Shard) we don't post construction milestones. LGA talk 23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- oppose tallest only in 1 country and also per LGA.Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- An alt. blurb has already been suggested to make it about the world in general, but the fact that it only deals with one country (the most populated in the world) is not relevant: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Talking robot in space
Article: Kirobo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The first talking robot astronaut, Kirobo, is launched into space. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: The first talking robot astronaut is launched into space. Andise1 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Missy Franklin and Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships
Articles: Missy Franklin (talk · history · tag) and Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal at the World Aquatics Championships in swimming at the age of 18. (Post)
News source(s): The Globe and Mail Chicago Tribune
Credits:
Both articles need updatingNominator's comments: Since the World Aquatics Championships is not on ITN/R, I may as well nominate this. A fifth medal in a single world championships is a record equalling amount or do we wait until she gets her sixth. I do not know what is in store for her for the final day tomorrow but if she breaks the record, then I will put more weight to it. --Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm game. It is a record achievement at a major world championship event. It should be "Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal...", however. Resolute 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support now - The World Aquatics should be ITN/R and I was planning on nominating it at the conclusion. Even ignoring that, the record makes this year especially notable and should be posted now (it can be adjusted if things change - I assume she will swim the 4×100 m medley relay which the US has a good chance to win). I would leave off "at age 18" though as that is of little importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note - Event article would need a significant prose update. Franklin's article is sort of updated, but the new section is completely unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- oppose individual mentions but support the overall mention of the tournament in line with all sports tournamanets we list. and yes, it should be added to ITNR\Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral while it's interesting, it's not record-breaking until the record is broken. Perhaps then it'd be worth a punt at nomination. Right now it's just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question and Comment Are we sure this is a record? I'm sure I've heard claims like this in the past. Of course, these days, there are a lot more events than swimmers decades ago had the chance to compete in. And, only swimmers from countries with lots of competitors near the highest level have a chance of winning relays. A great swimmer from a lesser nation in swimming will never have that opportunity. To count relay wins as part of a swimmer's total glory is discriminatory. (And I say this as someone from a strong swimming nation where the media does this all the time.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. "X nearly breaks a record" doesn't cut it. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Update. Franklin have broke the record with a sixth medal, new blurb as below. Donnie Park (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent Deaths: Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy
Article: V. Dakshinamoorthy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India Deccan Chronicle New Indian Express
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: "Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy was a veteran carnatic musician and music director of Malayalam, Tamil and Hindi films, predominantly in Malayalam films. He has set scores for the songs in over 125 films. He has to his credit as many as 859 songs composed over a period of 50 years." Andise1 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if I would support this, article is not good enough to be posted. Is there actually any change that it might be updated enough to post? SeraV (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2
| Portal:Current events/2013 August 2
|
August 2, 2013 (2013-08-02) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Robert Mugabe
Article: Zimbabwean general election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the Zimbabwean general election Robert Mugabe is reelected as President and Zanu-PF win a majority of parliamentary seats (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Don't think this is ITN/R given the status of Zim, but this is certainly a newsworthy item, paticularly considering the indications (and denials) of rigging. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- He's the recognized head of state of Zimbabwe, regardless of how he carries that job out, so this is ITNR ("The results of the elections for head of state, In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position.") 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the most relevant article would be Zimbabwean general election, 2013, which has some decent background but has no update on the results. - 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose any opposition would be jailed or shot, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Telegraph article you've quoted cites a state of almost hysteria on the part of actual interviewees, and quotes the Marxist front organization Southern African Development Community, dedicated to black rule, as declaring the election free and fair. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Point of information: I didn't quote any article from the Daily Telegraph, you must be mistaken, or else you're talking to someone else, either way this comment is incorrectly indented and confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just for everyone's information, apparently the African Union has also called it free and fair with only minor issues, though the EU has said their were big problems. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, I don't think this would happen this year. 15 years ago, yes, but since there have been steps toward more power sharing, especially since Mugabe realized that it was freer elections or a big crackdown by other nations in Africa. In addition, regarding this election, the Southern African Development Community election observers said "the elections had been free and peaceful". However, the article also states that massive fraud was suspected. So even though the opposition wouldn't be jailed or shot, it's not as if ZANU-PF would simply let them win. Spencer 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- My impression the key to this is that Mugabe would quite probably have been inclined to rig this election had he needed to, but the MDC have spent the past five years blowing their credibility. Whatever anyone's take is, though, there's no clause in ITNR that we post general elections provided we are happy about the outcome. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I second the directly above. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Changed both the focus article and the blurb, as elections should have as the primary article that for the election rather than an individual. By the way, I don't think the presidential result is official yet.--LukeSurl 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its ITNR so it WILL be posted when updated. Medeis' non-reason presumption aside. Also the AU sanctioned it . V.s. partisan opposition parties crying foul. alone.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Updated - I updated/cleaned up article to (hopefully) meet minimum ITN standards. Unless someone objects on quality grounds, the article is ready to post. (For the record, I am against blindly posting all elections but this one is actually quite important.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The results section has only two sources. If the accusations section is to be added then the blurb is no good. (Given the huge coverage of corruption) We need a more neutral blurb in any case, so I don't think a full 3-5 sources in the results would actually be enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Reactions would also be considered part of the update and is where all the Western concern went... Not including any accusation in the blurb is kind of the definition of neutral; I fail to see how adding accusation would make it more neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Posted I went back to the original blurb as results of elections for legislative bodies are not ITN/R and, thus, are usually not posted unless it's for a prime minister position or where the nomination is specifically for that. I dated the event August 3 as that appears to be the date that the official announcement came out (even though this nomination is dated August 2). -- tariqabjotu 09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question how does the Cambodian election get the "allegations of irregularities" treatment, but Mugabe gets a pass? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Adam and Eve
Consensus against posting. I'm closing this now before discussion gets too far off topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Adam and Eve (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Scientists conclude that Adam lived over 135,000 years ago, longer than what had previously been suspected and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News Bloomberg Daily Mail Xinhua
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: New research shows that Adam lived a longer time ago than previously thought and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. Andise1 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)e
- Whoops, my bad. feel free to modify the blurb to correct it to a version you think is suitable. I did not intend to link to the bible Adam and Eve but I must have not been paying much attention. Andise1 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. We did a story on Y-chromosomal Adam a few months ago when there was a major revision to the date. That Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were probably separated by thousands of years has been an established part of the science ever since those terms were coined. Also this doesn't seem to be a new discovery, only a minor refinement. The date quoted in these new stories fall within the established range for the non-A00 Haplogroup Y-chromosomal Adam. --LukeSurl 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Request Get rid of the POV religious nonsense. Then I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unlike Y-chromosomal Aaron, Y-Adam and mt-Eve have literally no connection with the biblical figures of the same names, and it was already well-known that they could not have been contemporaries. The blurb misrepresents the story, which in turn is not that interesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per AlexTiefling. Besides, these two conceptual humans in anthropology have nothing to do with the religious figures, and should never be confused. Linking to that article would be wildly inappropriate. Modest Genius 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stale this is a rehash of the story on a new Y chromosomal adam date from a few months back. μηδείς (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, nominator has mistaken a resurrected story in the popular press for news. Abductive (reasoning) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose A disgusting attempt to shoehorn religion into old science. Fgf10 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons above - I actually got a bit worried there, thinking whether my world's been toppled onto its head. YuMaNuMa 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Simply not good science. And please, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral. I personally think Evolution is a Satanic lie as do many others, so keep it off the front page. God bless. --85.211.118.34 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read Misplaced Pages:ITN#Criteria to learn the criteria by which ITN nominations are judged. Note that Misplaced Pages is supposed to have a neutral point of view when discussing a notable topic; neutrality does not mean Misplaced Pages censors certain topics because some editors are offended by them (see WP:UNCENSORED). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
August 1
| Portal:Current events/2013 August 1
|
|
August 1, 2013 (2013-08-01) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and finance
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Edward Snowden
Article: Edward Snowden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: American whistleblower Edward Snowden is granted temporary asylum in Russia. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, L.A. Times, VOA
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: After more than a month being holed up in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, the now-famous leaker of classified U.S. surveillance documents is granted asylum for one year in Russia and leaves the airport for an undisclosed location. Sca (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Sure, we're probably all sick of Snowden, but this basically brings a conclusion to a story that had international ramifications, at least until his asylum expires or he gets nabbed by the CIA while in Russia.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If this is posted, we should probably avoid the use of the term "whistleblower". We can use "dissident", used in the lead of the Edward Snowden article. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - previous stages of this story were rejected with rationale "wait for asylum/arrest". That point is now here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Thaddeus. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per those above, this is a milestone in the story. Next up, what happens in 364 days? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Sorry, his 15 minutes of fame was already up a month ago, Misplaced Pages is not a place to give him his own platform of fame for another 15 minutes of fame. Donnie Park (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "fame." (I should have said "controversial" rather than "now famous" above.) Whatever anyone thinks about Snowden's actions, it's a fascinating and complex personal story dealing with issues that could have extremely important political consequences.
- Further, Snowden has been associated, at least tangentially, with Wiki, and for that reason has been very conspicuous by his absence from English Wiki's "In the News." Sca (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikileaks has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages other than the parasitic use of a morpheme. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good to know — I wondered about that. But I venture to say that because of its use of Wiki, Wikileaks probably is associated in many peoples' minds with Misplaced Pages.
- PS: Learned a new word: morpheme. Sca (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, wiki- is a free morpheme at this point, since we can say there are various wikis, such as Misplaced Pages, Conservapedia, and Wikileaks. The latter two I would say are obviously glomming off the prestige of Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately for those of us who do not want to be associated with conserva- or -leaks, Wiki- and -pedia were not trademarked. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some smart lawyer should look at the possibility of still trademarking Wiki. Sca (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Put him on the frontpage when this traitor is convicted, not before. Lugnuts 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ready this is well-updated after several "wait" nominations and well supported; a few political opposes are not valid for ITN purposes. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Undisputable coverage and "asylum" was pointed to as the postable time in previous discussions. Traitor would normally imply co-operating with or leaking something to enemies, rather than to allies and fellow citizens. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Provoked a strong reaction from the US this one. (And can a certain editor give it a rest with the "traitor" crap?) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Point of order. I object to the use of "dissident". This is a violation of NPOV. The article no longer used that term in the lede as of a few moments ago when I went in add the word "fugitive", which is how the New York Times describes him.
I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus. Can we please fix this now? Replace "dissident" with "fugitive". "Fugitive" is a very nice, neutral, factual term for a person who has been indited and is fleeing (and seeking asylum). Whether he is a whistleblower or a traitor is highly debatable and won't be settled until he faces a court of law. Jehochman 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whistleblower is correct, he was travelling before he was charged, and he is revealing unconstitutional activity condemned by just about every authourty outside the Obama regime. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- He's been charged with a crime. Because he has run from the law, he's a fugitive. The article explains who things he's a whistleblower and who thinks he's a criminal or traitor. There are some of each. It is definitely not for us to decide. We just report the facts in the most neutral way possible. Jehochman 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Jehochman that fugitive is the least objectionable term here. It's 100% accurate, since he is evading arrest by legal authorities, regardless of whether you support or oppose what he did, or whether you support or oppose what the U.S. authorities are doing in response, he is a fugitive. Whether he is a dissident or not, and whether he is a whistleblower or not, depends on which political tribe you get your talking points from. But he is wanted by legal authorities, and he is evading them. --Jayron32 02:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken out the word "dissident" because it's just unnecessary and controversial. The article explains all the nuances: whether he's a dissident, whistleblower, criminal, traitor, etc. If there is a consensus to insert "fugitive" or "fugitive intelligence analyst", one of those could be added, but I don't feel comfortable doing that until there is a stronger consensus. Jehochman 02:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine too. Less is more; in the sense that no word is better than the wrong word. --Jayron32 02:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- There was nothing npov with the word dissident, our own definition of dissident is "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution". Who can really argue that Snowden is not one. I feel that Jehochmans oppose of the term is based on that it doesn't have that much negative connotations. However i think current blurb is also fine but I oppose putting fugitive in it, if dissident is npov then certainly fugitive is as well. I also object accusing Tariq of anything here. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unless Medeis is on the US Supreme Court, no activity Snowden has revealed has yet been adjudicated to be unconstitutional. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even if this stuff is not illegal in USA, which would be a shame indeed for USA, most of that activity is illegal in other countries, including mine and Germany, which still makes Snowden a whistleblower. SeraV (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Laws of other countries do not apply in the US. For instance, in Germany it is illegal to walk around in a Nazi uniform. In the US this activity is protected as free speach. (2) Whether Snowden is a whistleblower/dissident or a criminal/traitor depends on whether he chooses to stand before a court of law and justify his actions, or perhaps Congress will pass a law or the current or future President will pardon him. We, Misplaced Pages, cannot decide which term is accurate. It is entirely possible that he will eventually return the USA and be acquitted by a jury of 12 citizens. For the moment, he is a fugitive because he chose to run away rather than to justify his actions. If you look at the biography of Nathan Hale you will see a different type of behavior. (Disclosure: My personal belief is that he needs to take responsibility and face the jury. Delivering those computers to Russia was the worst possible thing he could have done and will undermine his position severely. If he's not a traitor, he should stop acting like one.) Jehochman 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- He has been granted political asylum, with your logic we could just as well call him political dissident who is persecuted by his own government, but that would be biased. It is just as biased if we use the word fugitive, exactly since it it not our place to decide which term is accurate. With the word fugitive we would be taking the side of US government. And my point was that even if US goverment doesn't see him as a whistleblower other goverments might since he exposed illegal activity towards them. SeraV (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- The mistake you are making is that you are applying your own logic or analysis. Instead, just look at the words being used by reliable news sources, and use those same words. Jehochman 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- He has been called whisteblower quite often in reliable sources, you can't claim that most or even majority use the word fugitive. But seriously current wording about this is fine. I just wanted to say that I oppose the use of fugitive. SeraV (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus. - @Jehochman: Excuse me? I request that you strike that comment immediately. There is no basis for that accusation. I have never in my life edited the Edward Snowden article, or any articles related to him. If the first sentence had said "Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower", I wouldn't have objected to the term on the Main Page. And subsequent to my comment, no one commented on the suitability of the term "whistleblower" or objected to my comment about "dissident". The reason I mentioned dissident is because it was in the first sentence of the article, and content on the Main Page defers to article content. Why is it acceptable for you to use the same rationale to promote "fugitive" (also not from the original blurb!), but my use of the same rationale is "personal editorial judgment"?
- Now that the term has been removed from the first sentence (with "fugitive" added at your hands, but never mind), I have no objection to it being removed from the Main Page and no objection to the use of the term "fugitive" as now in the article. But, I do firmly object to your baseless suggestion that I usurped consensus in favor of what I wanted, and request that you strike that comment (which was entirely irrelevant to the rest of your comment) immediately. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, since people continue to comment, post-posting oppose. I don't care about the political and emotional furor in the US. My concern is that this is nothing more than an incremental update. There's nothing here except the fact that a man who was in Russia can stay in Russia. Resolute 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The blurb as it is currently written suffers from goes-without-saying-everything-is-about-America-unless-otherwise-stated syndrome. Could we possibly replace "Former NSA contractor" with something line "Former US intelligence contractor"? Formerip (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I can make the modification, but is the NSA really not recognizable here? I don't think it's "everything is about America" syndrome, more "NSA is recognizable with the link and without further context, especially considering this story has been in the news for two months" syndrome. I'd like to think there are some intelligence organizations -- FBI, CIA, Mossad, MI-6, etc -- that could suffice without beating people over the head which country is being discussed . -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend dropping "American" and using "Former intelligence analyst". That's what the most reliable local media are calling him. We've discussed this at length at the article talk page. Shorter is sweeter. Jehochman 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, being American doesn't make his activities more or less significant. And Tariq..., I'd agree that CIA, FBI, Mossad & MI-6 are well known, but NSA is no better known than ASIO. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly the vast, vast majority of British people (I can't speak to anything wider than that) will have no idea what NSA means. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- We provide links in blurbs for a reason. I bet a large number of people don't know the National Assembly is the lower house in the Cambodian Parliament, but they can click on a link and find out. There is always information omitted from blurbs: for a brief time yesterday, we omitted that he had any ties to the intelligence community, for example. We have to draw a balance between being informative and being brief. (In this case, we have a well-known story with the title a basic formality; the former formulation provided a link to a relevant article.) I think the alternative you suggested is fine, as it's informative (perhaps more so?) and brief, but we face this issue on all blurbs, regardless on origin, and we don't need to levy accusations of bias. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. I feel like the connection to the U.S. is very important to the story, and thus the blurb. It's an American being granted asylum in Russia, after all, and it's only five more characters. I don't understand how one can make the argument that "NSA" can't be mentioned in the blurb because people don't know that's an American intelligence organization, but then state the fact that he's American is not relevant. At least some connection to the U.S. should be made -- by saying he's from the NSA, by saying he was a contractor for U.S. intelligence, or by explicitly saying he's American. I do agree "analyst" sounds more natural than "contractor" though. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Terms: If I may add my 2 cents' worth, it seems to this ex-journalist that whether Snowden objectively meets the criteria for whistleblower remains to be seen — and the jury is likely to be out for a very long time. To call him a "dissident" sounds very odd in the U.S. context, since that word usually is applied in single-party states and dictatorships. The term "leaker" hasn't been used much historically in U.S. English, although it is in the Merriam-Wesbster online dictionary under the noun "leak." While "leaker" seems a rather inelegant term, it appears to be the most accurate one to describe Snowden's recent history and resultant status.
I note that the Guardian, for example, refers to Snowden simply as "the American whistleblower." However, if WP is to call Snowden a "whistleblower" it should be qualified, i.e. "self-proclaimed" or "putative." Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Silvio Berlusconi
Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Italian Supreme Court upholds the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi on tax fraud charges. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation upholds the four-year sentence of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for tax fraud.
News source(s): Corriere della Sera
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: This is the first definitive conviction of Berlusconi, who was sentenced to 4 years of jail Alex2006 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, and feel free to change the blurb (my italo-english deserves it :-))! "Finally" means "definitively", "irrevocably" because in Italy we have three degrees of judgments (trial, appeal, appeal to the supreme court): he has been condemned several times in trial and appeal, but this is his first definitive condemn, and IMHO this should be pointed out in some way. Paraphrasing Churchill, maybe this is neither his end, nor the beginning of his end, but for sure the end of his beginning. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, as I believe that exhausts the legal system and he will now actually go to jail. Another blurb suggestion, which attempts a middle ground between the two above:
The Italian Supreme Court sentences former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to four years in prison for tax fraud.
- Modest Genius 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I hope that English speaking readers understand that no appeal is possible. Alex2006 (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - I think for the news blurb the clarity is not needed and possibly even lost on readers from some countries. The article looks like it covers it adequately. CaptRik (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Tuvalu Prime Minister
No consensus to post at this time. If new events arise or if he is permanently installed, this can be renominated. Spencer 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Prime Minister of Tuvalu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Enele Sopoaga becomes Prime Minister of Tuvalu after Willy Telavi is removed from office. (Post)
News source(s): Island Business
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Enele Sopoaga is the new Prime Minister of Tuvalu since Willy Telavi was removed from office. Andise1 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- 'Oppose He's only the acting Prime Minister. Maybe something more permament would cut it. Lugnuts 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- 'Oppose acting PM, support if permanently installed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - only acting PM.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose if only an acting PM; would support if this person is made the actual PM. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support He is the actual Prime Minister, not just an acting one. What they mean is that he is acting subject to the caretaker convention until an election is held. It is very unusual for a PM to be dismissed by a Governor-General (or monarch) in a Westminster system - it hasn't occurred in decades. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose this jurisdiction has a population of less than 12,000. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Objection - according to the article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald, the (?) former PM notified the Queen that he was dismissing the Governor-General so it is not clear whether the PM or GG has been dismissed and a constitutional crisis brewing. To me, that makes the story more noteworthy but also presently unclear whether a new PM will be needed. EdChem (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lavasoa dwarf lemur
Article: Dwarf lemur (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A new species of dwarf lemur, Cheirogaleus lavasoensis, is discovered in Madagascar. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A new primate, the Lavasoa dwarf lemur, is discovered in Madagascar.
News source(s): UPI, Sci-News.com, International Business Times
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: A new dwarf lemur species was found in Madagascar. Andise1 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are these things really in the news? Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less every time a new species of mole rat is discovered wherever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bongwarrior, it is always interesting and highly encyclopedic that a new animal species is discovered wherever. But main news? Unlike the ant story below in which its getting massive headlines for some reason (front page in Yahoo, CNN, etc...), I think this, and other similar articles should be discussed in DYK instead. Secret 04:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not vaguely familiar with zoology but according to a few studies only a minute number of mammals (estimates place it between a dozen and 3% of all known and unknown species) remain undiscovered, so perhaps discoveries as such are more notable than we thought even though there seems to be a spike in discoveries. YuMaNuMa 05:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong support yeah, I understand the skepticism about what seems like literally every-day report of a new species, however, if there is one thing in biology that I genuinely believe should be ITNR, is a new species of primates is discovered. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Cheirogaleus lavasoensis would need to be created. --LukeSurl 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support if someone creates the article. Per Nergaal, a new species of primate is fairly significant. But, seriously guys 'n' gals, we need to establish that there is a high bar for new species stories. Formerip (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, lemurs are speciose. According to Misplaced Pages's own article, List of lemur species, "From 2000 through 2008, 39 new species were described and nine other taxa resurrected" and it is continuing; Mar 2012, two discovered. Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that's helpful. Make mine a very weak support. Formerip (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Dwarf lemurs are sublime. The discovery of 39 species is irrelevant unless we've posted them all. Most will be splits from existing species anyway, not real discoveries. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support If we refuse to post new species, mammals especially ITN will only have post about deaths, politics and sports. As an encyclopedia we really should look bit further than that. SeraV (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support if there's an article, per Formerip. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support in order "to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." A new mammal is "encyclopedic news". Even without any traditional news coverage discoveries like this meet our criteria when the relevant article is created/updated. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose As some of you know, I write extensively about lemurs on Misplaced Pages, and though I will probably end up writing this article as well, I have to agree with some of the early comments. Many of the small, nocturnal lemurs are being split into new species, and some years as many as 10 or more may be "discovered"... and it's done almost entirely based on DNA. DYK-worthy, yes. ITN-worthy... I'm not so sure. Personally, I only nominate new primate fossil discoveries and maybe a truly surprising lemur species discovery. Extinctions are another one I would definitely nominate. But not this. – Maky 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify that I'm primarily concerned that frequent new lemur species being listed on ITN may make it more difficult for genuinely important discoveries to get mentioned. If, for example, 10 mouse and/or dwarf lemur species are described this year (and there have already been 3, including this one), will anyone support a related but more significant discovery if I bring it to ITN? At this point, I am weakly opposing because, yes, I would like to see lemur discoveries mentioned on ITN. However, professionally, I favor reserving ITN for more significant discoveries. – Maky 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am curious now, what do you think is the biggest discovery when it comes to lemurs in the past 5 years? Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Although it was in 2006 (7 years ago), I think the explosive jump in sportive lemurs was pretty big, especially since hardly anyone studies them. Otherwise I think some of the fossil discoveries in Africa regarding Algeripithecus and others were quite significant since it helped begin to establish the evolutionary history of lemurs (beyond speculation). The same can be said of some of the cognitive studies that are slowly debunking long-held views about simian cognitive superiority and cognitive evolution. Also, the 2010 study by Ali & Huber that helped clinch some evidence for oceanic dispersal for the colonization of Madagascar was also very big. However, these latter cases don't get as much press. But then again, our news media is actually for our entertainment, not our enlightenment. People are more entertained by new, cute species than complex cognitive studies or primate fossils that aren't human ancestors. I guess it then becomes a question of what ITN is. Are you like the news media and primarily serve an entertainment role, or do you care about educating the public? I'm not trying to be combative—I'm asking a serious question that I've never seen addressed on ITN before. – Maky 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- In the "news" is a misnomer. The requirement is that the article is sufficiently updated to reflect sufficiently important recent events. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- So in that case, if a pivotal research article in the study of lemurs (or primate evolution) is published but doesn't get mentioned on any major news sites, then can I still nominate a sufficiently updated article reflecting these important recent events and expect support? Or does it have to directly involve something cute and fluffy and/or relate to the popular topic of conservation (in which case it might get some press)? I'm just playing devil's advocate. Please understand that I if this nomination passes, then I will happily bring every new lemur species that gets announced to ITNC, even if it's 10 in one month, and I will not be happy if all the reasoning thrown around here in support gets tossed out the window. I want people to think about this fairly and proactively. Again, I'd be very happy to see this one on ITN rather than DYK. I just want this nomination and all future nominations judged evenly, and I don't want more important nominations knocked because less significant articles like this got approved too often. – Maky 07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two species of mouse lemur were described earlier this year, and were not considered for ITN. Three new species of slow loris were also discovered this year (and got a lot more press coverage), and they only made DYK. The same goes for a sportive lemur in 2011, another mouse lemur 2012, and two more mouse lemurs in 2009. Important, yes. Is it a huge event? No. And so far, no major news organization has covered it, as far as I can tell. – Maky 05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should cover all of them. They may not be "news", but they are "encyclopedic articles updated to reflect recent events". I would consider this a near-perfect case of "subjects might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, I'm reading the research article now, and the authors note that 3 other new species were also discovered, though not officially named. Expect more in the future. – Maky 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I looked it up - about 25 species of mammal have been described each of the last few years (sometimes more than 1 at once, which would mean even if we covered all it would be less than 25 postings). That quite a bit more than I expected, as I was relying on old information of ~2/year before genetic testing caused the recent increase. Even so, I personally would support posting most or all of the new mammals (bats and rodentia make up the majority of the new species, so if we were to exclude some those would be good choices). Certainly, we have room for 2 primates (lemurs)/year on average if the trend holds - and it probably won't since at some point the genetic testing possibilities will be exhausted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the data for small, nocturnal lemurs, lorises, and galagos is suggesting that the new species descriptions are only just beginning. The inaccessibility of their deep, dark, wet forests is the only thing holding back the research. Well... that and a relative lack of academic interest in lorises and galagos. But in truth, we are only entering a new stage in taxonomic expansion, similar to what was seen during the 1700s and 1800s. Worse, there will probably be just as much of a mess to clean up afterwards. (In other words, some of these species will be erased and made taxonomic synonyms.) Again, I'm fine with it as long as everyone understands what kind of precedent we're setting. I will be citing this nomination in the future—that's why I'm playing devil's advocate so fervently. – Maky 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion it would be remiss of an encyclopedia with a "news" section to not use it for the discovery of new species of primates. Personally I would extend this beyond primates as well. A higher turnover rate is desirable, and an increase in "deathless" stories would be even better. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well put. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
July 31
| Portal:Current events/2013 July 31
|
|
July 31, 2013 (2013-07-31) (Wednesday)
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
New ant species
No consensus to post. Spencer 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Ants (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Scientists discover thirty-three new ant species in Central America and the Caribbean. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Thirty-three new ant species were found. Andise1 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Support if the article is updated. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- What's notable about this? Nergaal (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ant seems too non-specific an article. Considering there are 12,500 classified species of ant it would be misplaced to include in that article a substantial update about the discovery of 33. --LukeSurl 07:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support-Pending compliance with LukeSurl's suggestion. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, According to this NPR article on this non-event, "He's just published two papers describing 33 new species of ants, bringing his personal "new species" total to 131. Longino says that's actually average among entomologists. "I do OK," he says, noting that some scientists have discovered thousands". The nominator needs to stop being gulled by press releases. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose based on comments by LukeSurl and Abductive. Will support if it is linked to a reasonable update in some subarticle. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- weak Oppose - for now per lukesurl. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - new insects are extremely common (some estimate 90% of living species are not named yet). 33 at once is proabbly rare, but an appropriate update on the 33 as a group seems unlikely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
July 30
| Portal:Current events/2013 July 30
|
|
July 30, 2013 (2013-07-30) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
RD: Eileen Brennan
Article: Eileen Brennan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, The Independent, Xinhua global edition
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Iconic, decorated supporting actress with huge six-decade stage, film, and TV opus and own lead cut short by car accident, globally covered and recognized for her work by artists from Peter Bogdonavich to Michael McKean μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Long career with much recognition would suggest that she is notable in her field. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The question is not whether she was notable in her field; she undoubtedly was (she wouldn't qualify for an article otherwise). The question is whether she was widely recognised as a very important figure in her field. Looking at the news articles on her death and her WP article, I don't see any reason to think that she was. She didn't win any major awards. The articles on her death don't describe any great importance or impact that she had. They basically describe her as a moderately well-known actor with a long career. While praising her ability, they don't describe her as being very important or indicate any particular impact that she had. I fear that we are too ready to post actors who may be quite well-known (at least in their home country), but don't meet the death criteria. She may have been an important figure in the field of cinema, but does she really qualify as a very important one? Neljack (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, Glenn Close is the only other actress to have won an Obie, a Golden Globe and an Emmy. Brennan wasn't a shockingly beautiful lead, which seems to be the criterion you are suggesting for winning actresses. But she had roles created for her (Helly Dolly) Private Benjamin (tv), and was specifically sought out for roles such as Last Picture Show up to Cheeper by the Dozen. That seems to meet RD requirements. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- (to Netjack) A Golden Globe and an Emmy are not "major" awards? Further, the great majority of actors go their entire careers without even being nominated for such awards. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see the Golden Globe is for Best Actress, not Best Supporting Actress (as I had thought), so I guess that qualifies as a major award. But I stand by my point that there is no evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field. The fact that the great majority of actors never get nominated for such awards is irrelevant: the great majority of actors don't qualify for Recent Deaths either. Finally, since I have no idea what she looked like, I certainly didn't take her appearance into account (and it would be utterly inappropriate to do so). Neljack (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point--since an editor has no idea what a celebrated vintage actress looks like she couldn't possibly deserve recognition. We need a little more scope here than just voting for our own recent and local interests. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand me. I didn't dismiss her because I hadn't heard of her - I'm perfectly aware that I am not very knowledgeable about TV and cinema, so I don't assume that actors I haven't heard of don't qualify. I looked at the article and news pieces and then made a decision. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- For better or worse, being pretty is part of what makes actresses successful, and it's embedded in our criteria. If we are going by awards, it's 23 years, for example, since the Best Actress Oscar was won by someone who didn't have a tendency to make people dribble. Unfortunately, having been sought out for roles doesn't hit the right buttons. Picket Hollywood, by all means. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- But not, as we hear above, as pretty or as non-American. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support in spirit an an iconic, recognizable, decorated actress with a very long career; though I note that this will likely age out before it gets enough support for RD. Still, I think she merits inclusion. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thomas Quick acquitted of serial murders
Article: Thomas Quick (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Thomas Quick is officially acquitted of the last of his 8 former murder convictions in a lengthy appeals process after he recanted his earlier confessions. (Post)
News source(s): ,,
Credits:
Article needs updating --BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not American or British enough is what you really are saying. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe if this guy was from some country I've heard of like France or Europe or The Iraq I would vote support. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- You just made your !vote nul and void as natonality is not a reason to either oppose or support.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, must be a slow news day in the important countries. But you must have heard of it, it's the home of that famous tennis star?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, that place! My favorite cooking show host is from there. Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- For those not editing, there is a hidden comment in the above saying it's not notable since it's an aquittal. Medeis' form of humour, I guess.Fgf10 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not worth updating either, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- For sure. If they had executed this guy as justice demands, the whole issue of appeals would never have come up. Formerip (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah my point was, that he was sentenced without any actual proof expect for his confessions. You think justice have worked just fine if someone is found not guilty after 20 years in jail/psychiatric confinement? SeraV (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you mean "there was obviously something wrong with swedish justice system"? Evidently it is currently working fine, by admitting the grave errors in these cases. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. SeraV (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances, I don't see anything here that couldn't have happened anywhere in the world (except, maybe, the opportunity of re-trying the cases). Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually news about these sorts of things should not be mentioned at ITN until completely delt with. Like now, that is why it should be mentioned now and not several months ago now that it is done and complete and Quick is kind of historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like there to be secondary sources on this guy. Right now it's all newspapers (primary sources). Is there a documentary or book on his case? Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the article and look at the image you will get the answer :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Newspapers are secondary sources and are absolutely fine, with all the normal caveats. Although there isn't much sourcing in our article altogether, and parts of it tell a slightly different story to what is in the Guardian article. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- You say that newspapers are absolutely fine, but then say that there are discrepancies between the sources in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is book, Thomas Quick: The Making of a Serial Killer, which is pointed out and linked in that guardian article about him. SeraV (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Guess they'll all have to be pulped now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hanumangarh bus crash
No consensus to post. Spencer 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Hanumangarh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Eleven school children died in Hanumangarh when their school bus crashed into a truck. (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu Indian Express The Nation La Prensa Washington Post
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Even though bus crashes are kinda common, bus crashes with multiple children killed are more tragic and notable. Andise1 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP does not post thins because they are tragic. If its notable, then yes that's for ITNC to decide. As such this is not in the news or notable (what with Telangana taking the headlines)Lihaas (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- This IS in the news. No one said both this event and Telanaga can not be posted. Andise1 (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Its not the news. Im watching it as I write. NDTV, CNN-IBN, TIMES NOW...I didn't even hear of this till I came to ITNC and ive been watching tv for hours.oh! and people said the u.s. media was bad...Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- All due respect to the dead children, but this is not wikicrashia, and these nominations are getting to the point we need a ban on the topic of all traffic accidents. In The News is the name of the section, not the sole criterion for things being posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not significant enough an event to be posted. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose a formal "moratorium" on good faith suggestions- discussion is perfectly capable of keeping these from being posted, as it is here. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- How is the lack of a moratorium hurting us here? This item will not get posted; further such similar suggestions are likely to end up the same way. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It encourages people to create articles on non-notable traffic accidents to try for the ITN/C, which is against NOTNEWS and NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then 1)those grounds can be cited in any ITN discussion and said discussion can be closed; and 2) it should be dealt with at the article creation level. We don't need a formal policy prohibiting any category of suggestions. That's a very slippery slope to go down. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with 331dot. The idea of banning certain kinds of nominations is highly unproductive. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree also.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. No need for any kind of blanket ban. Modest Genius 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I afgree with Masem here. Ive been advocating too. Friviolous articles with no encyclopaedic value other than news stories get added here. We need to review this as ITN is hurting WPp's encyclopaedic outlookLihaas (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, if something is "frivolous with no encyclopedic value", it it easy to state that on any such nomination and have the discussion closed(should enough people agree). We don't need a policy to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Telangana
Article: Telangana movement#Congress Working Committee Resolution on bifurcation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: After years of lobbying, the ruling Congress Working Committee approves the re-creation of Telangana. (Post)
News source(s): WSJ India Today
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Its not too often the world's most populous English-speaking country approves a new top-level political division. The state formation is the culmination of a decade of protest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Damn you, bmy nomination ;)
- Anyhoo, the reason I did not nominate this was the government has not approved the creation of Telangana. The Congress Working Committee approved it (and all sources are noting its partisan politics for the election). There is a lot of process left to creating Telangana. Remember in 2009 the INC-led government approved it and backtracked 14 days later after protests. That's a sign enough to wait. I've added all this to the aforementioned page at the new link I added to the blurb. I also added to Indian general election, 2014#Issues
- CNN-IBN now also saying the bill won't be tabled in the monsoon session of parliament, so that means even the proposal for bill , let alone debate (which is more open), is months away.Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question. This is obviously massive news, but I'm unsure as to the timing. Do we post now? When the state is formally created? Both times? My question is therefore whether we have posted anything relating to Scottish independence as of yet? I know this is not a direct comparison, but the answer to that question would affect my opinion, and probably other people's too. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well nothing had happened yet. Only a ruling party committee had indicated for partisan decisions to create this state (and the reactions indicate this from opposing parties, as well as the media). They have indicated a willingness to propose this to the cabinet/parliament who THEN decide after non-partisan deliberations which is several months away. As said 4 years ago the same thing happened and was rescinded. The attached WSJ links indicates this saying "Ruling party..."
- Secondly, no we did not post the decision for the Alba referendum.Lihaas (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that response Lihaas. The Scotland comparison is certainly a factor, but not the only one. There's no doubt that the creation of the new state would be ITN, but even kick-starting the process is a huge political shake-up (in the same way that discovering that the UK might not exist in 2015 was pretty damn big). What I'm trying to decide is whether "being huge" qualifies it for ITN, regardless of what has actually happened. It's a toss-up. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- comment reworded blurb to indicate it is not Iindia that made the approvalLihaas (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Having read a bit more, we should wait until this is formally and finally approved (and possibly until it actually happens). Modest Genius 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Bradley Manning verdict
Articles: United States v. Bradley Manning (talk · history · tag) and Bradley Manning (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges (Post)
Alternative blurb: ...for giving classified documents to WikiLeaks
News source(s):
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: I assume people will be interested in this. --Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- oppose the more notable part would have been his treason charges. This is more straightforward. Perhaps wait to see his punishment.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The verdict, including acquittal on "aiding the enemy" (which is believe was the treason charge) is a significant development in a long-simmering news story. When the sentence is announced, the ITN blurb can be updated. I prefer a blurb that clarifies what he did, like: Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges related to giving classified documents to WikiLeaks --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it cant be taken as a support. Using that logic the IP below "there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news" should be taken as an oppose. Really both should be null and void then , if you wish. Still leaning towards consensus. Just needs an updateLihaas (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support the story – this is widely accepted by those on both sides as being one of the biggest intelligence leaks in history. I think leading with acquitted and bold linking it might come across as a bit one-sided though. We need to incorporate both the conviction and the aquittal, so I would suggest leading with one, and then bold-linking the second. Admittedly not the way we normally do things (we normally bold link at the first opportunity), but in this instance I think trying to maintain NPOV trumps convention. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news 24.136.136.91 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I hope any votes based on whether the user approves or disapproves of Manning will be disregarded. Regardless of what one thinks of his actions, this has been a big story and the significance of the leaks can hardly be doubted. I suggest that we add something like "by a US court-martial", as we usually indicate the court or at the least the country when posting about court cases. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support, very significant. For months the verdict has been subject for discussions and predictions. It has also influential consequences that may also affect Julian Assange. In short not an ordinary eventEgeymi (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but think we should post after the sentencing. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support but yes wait for sentencing. SeraV (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wait for the sentencing and the blurb should be along the lines of "Bradley Manning is sentenced to xyz after being convicted for leaking US govenment documents to Wikileaks". LGA talk 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose found guilty of theft is not exactly newsworthy. Only partisans care here, and we don't do partisan, do we? μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Personally what is newsworthy here is how USA and Obama administration treats their whistleblowers, Manning is not an isolated case. SeraV (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is slightly different to putting a bag of sweets in your coat pocket Medeis. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Verdict in a notable case followed worldwide(due to the Wikileaks association). Not wanting "traitors" on ITN is an invalid reason to oppose; we don't base what is posted on judgments about what he is(some would disagree); we merely post what factually happened to him. I believe he was never actually charged with "treason", which has a specific meaning per the US Constitution. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- He's not a traitor, he's a thief. I don't think we normally post thieves, do we? μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we don't normally post thieves, but I think it depends on what is stolen. Would we post a hypothetical theft of the Mona Lisa? Probably. Would we post the theft of a few pieces of art from my local museum not created by anyone with worldwide fame? Probably not. In this case, he stole hundreds of thousands of documents with as yet undetermined consequences and damage to a large nation. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or maybe he saved this nation... Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- ....which is equally as invalid an argument as saying he is a traitor as that is a political view. It is a fact he was convicted of stealing and releasing the information, thus he is a thief, regardless of how one views his actions. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- He wasn't charged with theft and his crimes don't meet the normal definition of the theft (no intention to permanently deprive). Just sayin'. Formerip (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - update is currently insufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Editors' personal political views should carry zero weight. This is a huge story of worldwide interest and certainly worthy of an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 05:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - the trial has been intensely followed by media worldwide. The acquittal of the main charge is highly significant and makes front page news everywhere. -Zanhe (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Significant and notable, reported around the world and has continued importance in a number of fields. doktorb words 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - when/if he gets a prison sentence.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support, and I don't mind if we post now or when sentenced (just not both). The blurb should definitely mention the Wikileaks connection, as not every reader will recognise his name. Modest Genius 12:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support when sentenced ---- Patar knight - /contributions 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Huge story with world implications. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article needs more information on the verdict before it will be suitable for posting. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- This will probably need to be posted after sentencing. At the moment it is only possible to expand upon the verdict using one side of the story. The judge's detailed written rationale for the convicions and sentence, coupled with the government's response and the resultant debate, will enable us to present a more balanced view. At the moment, almost anything that is added to what is currently there is being removed on POV grounds. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
New Pakistan president
Article: Pakistani presidential election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Mamnoon Hussain is elected as the new President of Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): Tribune
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Wait till official announcement --Gfosankar (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- comment the article is sort of cites with various tags, I have thus added the orange tag on top to answer these. (and the missing bits are important section to the whole process)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I removed the last remaining orange-level tag as I think it's good enough. ITNR so no need to support. Can someone take a look, decide if they agree with me, and mark if so? Modest Genius 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Referencing is mediocre at best (see multiple ). Update is woefully insufficient - I would expect 2-3 paragraphs on the results + reactions\implications, not one sentence and a chart. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support and Updating It is an important candidate for ITN, I would like to see the article expanded further. I would be glad to help. Faizan 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 Article Updated The article has been updated, expanded, and fixed. Minor copy-edits have also been made, and the references have been fixed too. The article should be posted there at ITN. Nominated by Gfosankar, updated by Faizan 9:29 am, Today (UTC+5)
- Posted as the main concerns of sourcing is taken care of and it is a ITNR but please add a paragraph or two about any reactions or implications. Secret 04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok sure, I was the updater, and I have not got credit yet. Secret! I mistakenly undid my own edit here, causing the confusion. Can it be fixed? Faizan 06:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Secret, the section about "Implications" has been added with a para. But as they were just the presidential elections and not the parliamentry, they did not get any significant reaction or an "aftermath". Faizan 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox
Grand Kartal Hotel in 2007
.jpg)
