|
February 7, 2013 (2013-02-07) (Thursday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
February 6
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 6
|
|
February 6, 2013 (2013-02-06) (Wednesday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Monopoly token change
| Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Let's not waste time on this. Modest Genius 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Article: Monopoly (game) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The iron in Monopoly is replaced by a cat. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
Article updated
Hold the front page!
- Wrong. Something that has been embedded into our culture since 1935 is not a waste of time. Lugnuts 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do we report when football teams change their strips? Or move ground, for that matter? My point is not that Monopoly is not important, but that this is a superficial aspect of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Football isn't important, fullstop. But this is. Do not pass ITN. Do not add 200 edits. Lugnuts 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're really straining my ability to assume good faith. If you've raised this proposal in order to make a point about the relative importance we appear to attach to different areas of human activity, I'd advise you to withdraw it. It would be better to state your point clearly and directly, with coherent arguments, in a more appropriate forum. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- "If you've raised this proposal in order to make a point..." Er, no I haven't. Please practice what you preach and assume good faith too. Lugnuts 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I was always the ship anyway. --LukeSurl 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think this was a "waste of time", as it is being somewhat widely reported, but I don't think a minor change like this is notable enough for ITN. I would be curious to know if it was posted when they changed the color of Mediterranean and Baltic avenues from purple to brown, though(the last change they made, I think) 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree it's making news, but this is more of a "footballer kicks a ball into a net", "routine earthquake causes minimal damage", or "car accident in china injurs children", human interest story that we don't normally post, rather than a "massive corporate buyout" or "financian crisis narrowly averted" story that we do normally post. --IP98 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Minor Oppose, this story certainly has value in terms of reader interest, but c'mon, haha. *I always want to point out that where I live, in the UK - Monopoly is also iconic. This was one of the most read-about stories on the BBC yesterday. (FYI, last game I played I bankrupted my brother, nothing better than that) --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Tunisia assassination
Article: Shokri Belaid (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Opposition politician An Shokri Belaid is assassinated in Tunisia (Post)
Alternative blurb: Opposition politician Shokri Belaid is assassinated in Tunisia, sparking protests and a call for new elections.
Credits:
Article updated
Notable moment in Tunisia in regards to its satability following the revolution. Massive protests as we speak
- Seems like there is no article yet. He is a notable figure in opposition. So perhaps we can create one. Im not sure what we call the party on WP, its one of the coalition at Template:Tunisian political partiesLihaas (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Close until article is created.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support, but yes, we'd need an article in order to post. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Was he just a lawyer? I could support this if the article were updated to demonstrate his significance pre-assassination. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just created the article and it could do with a bit more work but nonetheless, support. The subject is notable enough and has potential to cause serious consequences in the country and potentially the region. --Droodkin (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but as Medeis says the article needs to cover his life as well as his death. --LukeSurl 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not entirely sure that he is more notable than the protests caused. The blurb should certainly mention the protests. I also don't understand the blurb as it stands right now. What is with the word "An"? Finally, his bio should certainly be expanded before this is posted. I'm left wondering who he was and what he did. He was a politician, was he actually involved in a branch of the Tunisian government? He was a lawyer, where did he work, what type of law did he practice? We're missing education information. Finally, what was his role in the revolution, and what has he done since? 5 sentences isn't going to cut it for this article, since we're starting from scratch rather than from an existing article. Ryan Vesey 20:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The article is coming along nicely regarding the death of Tunisia's opposition leader, though it has a few issues like the name in the infobox seemingly being misspelled. This is a reasonably big story around the world, and the lead headline in Aljazeera, and has symbolic impact across the Arab world, since Tunisia was where the Arab Spring started. I agree that the blurb needs an updating re: widespread protests/riots, and I have offered an alt blurb that can be further modified if need be. Also notable is the fact that Shokri Belaid semi-predicted his own violent death the day before the assassination, according to the article. Jusdafax 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Jusdafax. Nice summary explaining the prominence in major news sources. --Jayron32 02:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per the reasons given; this has been worked on enough for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose at this point since all that is stated is that he was a lawyer pre-assassination. The fact that he was a lawyer associated with a leftist party doesn't improve that according to NPOV wikipedia standards. If he was a major party candidate that's another thing, but that hasn't been added to the article or otherwise supported. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done I have put the fact that he was an "opposition leader," per the Aljazeera ref, into the lede, as well as the notable fact that his assassination brought down the government, with new elections called by the Prime Minister. Jusdafax 04:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned with the length. It's fine for a short article to go on the main page, but this is rather incomplete. Perhaps once it hits the main page, it will get improved. I'm still wondering why the blurb reads "An Shokri Belaid" what's with "An"? I can't find it in any of the sources. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- This would normally be Ash Shokri Belaid, (for the more classical Al Shokri Belaid) assuming the prefix is the definite article. Otherwise it should probably just be deleted, unless An- is a normal demonstrable form of Al in Tunisian? μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted the "al", and agree with the additional expansion regarding the government. I notice Aljazeera spells it "Shokri", where the NYT and Reuters spell his first name "Chokri." I have also added a bit more per Ryan's concerns regarding Belaid's opposition to Salafists. This was the first time I had heard of this term, and the link goes to a substantial article. Jusdafax 06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chokri would just be the expected French transcription of what in English would be Shokri, as Chicago is pronounced Shikago. μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
2013 Solomon Islands earthquake
Article: 2013 Solomon Islands earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: An 8.0 magnitude earthquake hits the Solomon Islands (Post)
Alternative blurb: An 8.0 magnitude earthquake hits the Solomon Islands, generating a tsunami, killing at least five people
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Article updated
- Oppose, thankfully. We post according to effect, not simply power, and casualties and fatalities are mercifully low (as far as we know at present: obviously open to change if catastrophic effects not yet come to wider attention) Kevin McE (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I agree with the above for smaller earthquakes, but magnitude>8 earthquakes occur on average once per year, and I think that they're notable enough in that right for ITN even without big death and destruction. However, the article is disproportionately weighted towards the (at the moment small) human effects of the earthquake, and has very little in the way of encyclopedic analysis (such as links to underwater earthquake or the specific type of tectonic interaction that resulted in the quake). 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even if we did post quakes solely based on power, the magnitude here doesn't crack the top 30 or so (according to Lists of earthquakes). Effects also currently seem relatively minimal; if that changes we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. 8.0 or greater earthquakes are rare, generally about 1-2 a year on average I believe, so this is close. However, given the very minimal effects I'd say no.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Lethal tsunamis are not that common, at least five dead and four villages destroyed with an 8.0 quake is notable and would certainly be posted if it happened in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. The article is technically updated, and the fact that the Earthquake Mavens haven't gotten to it yet is not an issue for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support - As earthquakes go, this was surprisingly mild in effect for its strength. That said, Medeis is right: this would be news elsewhere, so it's news here. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as per Medeis. LukeSurl 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as a earthquake, tsunami with deaths, and a 1/2 times a year event. Effects seem minimal and there's at least five deaths? That seems like not very minimal to me. gwickwireedits 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If we posted every event with five deaths, ITN would be very long indeed. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The difference being that this five-death event is prominently In The News; that is, reliable news sources give it prominence, which seems to me to be a far better criterion than "I just don't like it" or "I just don't think this is important enough". We don't post every five-death event. We post events which are currently at the top of news sources, and which have adequate Misplaced Pages articles, not merely those that have been so blessed as "worthy" based on some arbitrarily set of standards. --Jayron32 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone has their own standards, for better or for worse, arbitrary or not. The purpose of these discussions is to get a consensus as to what can meet everyone's different standards. There have been many widely covered events with good articles that don't get posted because they don't achieve consensus. This isn't a case of "I don't like it"; in my opinion the effects of this event are minimal and not far-reaching. Part of that is that there was only five deaths, but that isn't my sole criterion in forming my opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's all true, but I did not first make a statement characterizing the opinion of another editor as invalid (though in a roundabout way). You did that. If you're gonna give in that department, you should take. I recognize that you have the right to your opinion. If you're going to discount or belittle the opinion of others, as you did, you can't then be sensitive when the same happens to you. If you want to merely have your own standards, then do so without making such comment on others. Had you not commented, I would have not had any cause to comment back, and would have left you to your initial opinion. --Jayron32 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say your opinion was "invalid", I gave a reason that we shouldn't go by it. Very different. You did the same thing, which is fine. If I thought your opinion was invalid, I would say so outright. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't use that word, but you clearly discounted another's rationale using strawman language which belittled it. There are many ways to attempt to invalidate others, some more insidious... --Jayron32 15:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Widespread coverage, and the article is well-written. Remote location means death toll is likely to grow (the article says six deaths now.) 8.0 Quakes are not that common. Agree with those noting that if this had happened in the Caribbean or Mediterranean with the same death toll, that it would be an easier "sell" for an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose this may be widely covered, but I'm not convinced of the notability of this. Not in the top 30 earthquakes, low damage, low deathtoll. We frown upon all kinds of stories that are widely reported, so that alone doesn't do it for me. --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Top 30 earthquakes? Like the 2011 Virginia earthquake? Or Krakatoa, or the Lisbon earthquake? Can you give a link explaining that comment? μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- this one ok?. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- In those examples, there was either a lot of damage (Krakatoa and Lisbon) or notable structures were damaged (the Virginia quake damaged the Washington Monument, among other things). We don't have that here, nor was it powerful relative to past earthquakes. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The point being those were two or three centuries ago. Top 30 is absurd on its own as a criterion. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you disagree, fine, but I think it's a stretch to call it "absurd". 331dot (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, comparing ITN nominations to centuries-old disasters is the definition of absurd. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- In your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I don't think your opinion is "absurd", which would suggest bad faith. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support for consistency; large earthquakes have always been posted, and smaller ones have been subject to debate. The area is cut off from communications, so details will continue to trickle in. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a point of information, 8.0+ earthquakes occur, on average, once every 15 months. Make of that what you will. --LukeSurl 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whats the cutoff from large to small? Whats the last large one which was posted? --IP98 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The cutoff, in my opinion, is what is covered In The News, since this section we're discussing is titled "In The News". When it gets titled "What I Think Is Important Enough", then we'll be able to work through your criteria. --Jayron32 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, generally. However, there are stories that will always be breaking news. Among them are "shots heard near school", "explosion observed at U.S. embassy", "Kate Middleton admitted to hospital", and, yes, "8.0-magnitude earthquake recorded". But even the media recognizes that sometimes these stories, once details are fleshed out, are just of the dog-bites-man variety. We need to recognize when that's the case, when the media, upon learning more, decides to move on. So maybe this was in the news twelve hours ago, but, from what I see, this is very much not in the news now. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed; if we're going to post things because they "are in the news", we need to bring back a lot of events that were rejected(pretty much all of them). It isn't just what is "in the news", nor is it what you or I think is important, it is what consensus determines to be notable enough for inclusion on the front page of Misplaced Pages. Importance and "in the news" play into that, but so do all our opinions. 331dot (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, those who supported this before it was a five foot tsunami that destroyed several villages and killed at least five (probably not white) people probably shouldn't have. But lethal tsunamis don't happen as often as deadly tornados or European protest marches. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't merely being in the news, it is what news sources are covering it, and what prominence they give to it in their coverage. When major, national and international news organizations run a long, in depth story which appears at or near the top of their coverage (first few stories on main pages, front page on print news, cover stories on magazines, top stories on TV and Radio news, etc) that's the kind of evidenciary based criteria we should be debating here, not the tallies of deaths or other criteria we ourselves invent. Instead, we should be evaluating sources themselves and saying "The BBC gave this a three sentence story which is completely buried and impossible to find" or "The only sources covering this are highly local newspapers without any national or international reach" OR "The BBC, New York Times, and Al Jazeera are all running multiple, in-depth stories covering this topic, and those stories are prominently displayed" are the sorts of rationales we should be presenting when assessing stories like this. "There's only five deaths" shouldn't even enter into the discussion. The point of ITN is not to promote the sorts of stories we personally find worthwhile. The point of ITN is to direct readers to Misplaced Pages articles that cover topics they are seeing in the news. Highly prominent news stories out there which also have decent articles in here should be be the sorts of things we base our discussions around because that's what serves our readers. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Jayron, it didn't sound like your response to IP98 was simply a disagreement with his question as a matter of procedure. In a subthread up above, you said this was in the news, without saying to what extent. I contest that; it's hard to find stories about this unless I just Google them. And when I locate them, they're hardly in depth. I don't know if this comment here was just a response to 331dot, but I already took the approach you suggested (noting the quantity and quality of news sources) in comments above and below, while discounting the use of magnitude or death levels as thresholds for inclusion on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The BBC website had a top-level headline story about this when the quake hit, and news cycles being what they are, it isn't there this instant, but it was there. Same for CNN.com, though the story has moved from the main page to the #3 story on the world page; such movement happens with nearly every story on major news sites: it's exceedingly rare for any story to stay on the main page for more than a day. This was the lead story on NPR when it hit. If I tuned up All Things Considered tonight, a different story would air. Most of the major news outlets are running follow-on stories today as well. So this one is clearly getting prominent treatment. There's still a main page BBC story right now covering the aftermath, This one is on www.bbc.com right now. If you wait 2 days any story is going to roll off the front page of many news sources. It doesn't mean it wasn't given prominent treatment. So, you can't just wait two days and then decide that this earthquake was a minor story by trying to find the news headlines on the websites. No story stays the top headline that long. --Jayron32 05:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I would say 6.0. However, those questions don't mean anything without context, and that's really what I believe posting earthquakes should be about. And that comes from both angles. The angle it was a magnitude 8.0, so let's post it is wrong. The angle it's not among the highest magnitude earthquakes in the past X years, so let's not post it is doubly wrong. Most of the most prolific earthquakes in history have not been earthquakes of this magnitude; among them, 2010 Haiti (7.0), 2010 Christchurch (6.7), 1999 Chi-Chi (7.1), 1999 Izmit (7.6), 1995 Kobe (6.8), and 1994 Northridge (6.7). And those are not difficult to find; most prolific earthquakes you could probably think of had magnitudes less than 8.0. Many faults are incapable of achieving magnitudes of that caliber (that's about the maximum earthquake that could theoretically be generated on the San Andreas Fault, for example). Perhaps more important than magnitude in predicting whether an earthquake will be disastrous are the density of the area, the quality of the structures in the area, and the soil conditions. The primary exceptions to that rule are with tsunamis, but they are generally catastrophic when they are due to high-magnitude earthquakes from subduction zones.
- And, given the high seismicity of sparsely populated parts of the Pacific, 8.0-magnitude earthquakes that cause very little damage, like this one, are not at all uncommon (as demonstrated by the USGS link above), so the direct connection from magnitude to importance is just as tenuous. I could see us posting 9.0+-magnitude earthquakes no matter what because they're so rare (despite the fact that there have been a especially high number over the past decade), but generally the magnitude doesn't mean anything without context. Upon initial reports of a 8.0-magnitude earthquake happening somewhere on the planet, the media is quick to (rightly so) turn some attention toward it, since -- as shown -- earthquakes of that magnitude when positioned strategically could be catastrophic. But when nothing major is shown to have occurred, they tend to, rightly again, turn their attention away, putting it down as just another major earthquake that occurs on a remote part of this planet without much effect on human life. That's what happened here; at this hour, I have to dig deep to find news about this seismic event. I don't think we should overstate or understate the importance of an earthquake of this magnitude, but, this one at least, is not particularly notable. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Nine dead now. Covered in NZ, Aus, BBC (linked from main world news page). There are more prominent news items on each, including a Australian sport doping scandal, so I don't know. Leaning towards posting. AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted The article is fine, there appears sufficient support, and there it has been sufficient evidence that (perhaps because of aftershocks now) this story is still in the news. -- tariqabjotu 07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
February 5
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 5
|
|
February 5, 2013 (2013-02-05) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
United Kingdom's Commons vote on same-sex marriage
Article: Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The United Kingdom's House of Commons votes to legalise same-sex marriage. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Channel 4
The Guardian
Sky News
NBC News
Deutsche Welle
Credits:
Article updated
- Oppose as it was not the final vote; probably shouldn't be posted until then, at least. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per 311dot. Once it's signed into law, fix up Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and nominate for an easy support. --IP98 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Precedent seems to hold that gay marriage legalization is significant enough to post, particularly as it's becoming more common. Swarm 04:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose once it's all passed we can post. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose even when full legislation goes through. A shift in legislation is gradually happening worldwide: each step on the journey is not notable of itself. Eight other European countries have already enacted similar laws, and three others are on track to act before this. Blurb is misleading: proposed legislation only applies to 2 out of 4 constituent nations of UK. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pile on Oppose Partly for the same reason I opposed the Dell deal below, still got a long way to go in the processes, at least one more vote in the lower house and then at least three more in the upper house. LightGreenApple talk to me 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Because this is only the second reading. I'd support royal assent to the resulting act; the UK is a large jurisdiction, and the interaction of this measure with the presence of an established church provides a distinctive feature. But as it stands, this nomination is some months premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Magdalene laundries
Article: Magdalene asylum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A report into Ireland's Magdalene asylums finds "significant" state collusion in the admission of thousands of "fallen women" into the institutions where they were abused and worked for nothing in conditions of slavery before they were shut down less than two decades ago. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ireland admits state collusion in the mistreatment of more than 30,000 women in Magdalene asylums.
News source(s): Times Independent Guardian CNN Al Jazeera BBC Deutsche Welle NYT
Article updated
- Before I give any opinion on the merits of this item, the blurb needs to be much shorter. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm leaning towards supporting this; it's certainly being widely reported(it's on the front page of NBC News right now, aside from the other sources given) but a shorter blurb would be better. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. The issue for me is that the last asylum was closed for 20 years, so no major changes can really come of this. Also I can't figure out from the article what "state collusion" means exactly. Was it one corrupt bureaucracy, was is systemic across multiple government agencies? Lastly, the statement "mumbled a half-hearted apology" may be technically accurate, but it reads as POV. I would support this, but would like the above addressed. Before posting a reply with a link to the BBC, instead use that link as an inline ref and update the article :). --IP98 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Nuetral until the blurb is significantly shortened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support the story, agree the blurb is too long. Looking at the BBC front page, their text is Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny apologises for the stigma and conditions suffered by women who were inmates of the Magdalene laundries. - perhaps we can work something from that? CaptRik (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. There's massive controversy over the "apology". Best focus on the publication of the report and not cause any further distress to the survivors and the families of those worked to death. --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- How do you conclude that? There's nothing else in the news in Ireland today and it's made it through Washington, Los Angeles and New York, across Europe and the Middle East. This is being compared to Nazi Germany and Soviet Gulags by survivors on the TV right now. So how can it not be "news"? --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- This would have been news 17 years ago when it ended, it might be news were someone being jailed on a serious charge now. Interviewing people and issuing reports is what the media and governments do. I hope you are not comparing this to Nazi and Soviet atrocities. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Except that it was posted on many news outlet's front pages, at least initially. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support with my shorter alt blurb. A significant story. This development, implication the state, is a good marker to post at. LukeSurl 13:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support with LukeSurl's much better AltBlurb. While reports, apologies, etc, are certainly not inherently notable for ITN purposes, this one represents a substantial new admission of complicity in a very wide-ranging scandal of human rights abuses. It also comes amid discussions on whether Ireland should move to the 'Nordic model' of legal controls on sex work, prompted in part by the same religious groups responsible for the Laundries. This (and other discussions of state oppression) root this report in a wider contemporary and international context. That factor, combined with the considerable novelty of the admission, makes this worthy for ITN in my eyes. I will understand if other editors do not agree; reports are a marginal case. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
--IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support the AltBlurb. It's much better. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The first blurb was confusing, this one works. A disturbing story I had not heard of. The release of the report is the key factor, and arguments that this happened years ago carry little weight. Jusdafax 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, post posting. This story has everything one would want in an ITN listing. Human interest, worldwide impact (given that the Church is on the hook all the way to the Vatican, and that some of the victims have immigrated), good legal basis for lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Dell
Article: Dell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dell announces it will go private in a $24.4 billion leveraged buyout. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Article updated --Ks0stm 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose So what? Regards, Sun Creator 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- From the Reuters article I linked: "the biggest leveraged buyout since the financial crisis", "biggest private equity-backed leverage buyout since Blackstone Group LP's takeout of the Hilton Hotels Group in July 2007 for more than $20 billion, and is the 11th-largest on record". Dell is also the world's third largest computer maker and on the Fortune 500. Ks0stm 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interested.--WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support pending update this is a buyout of a public company, not company A absorbing company B. These sorts of things aren't that common. In addition, Ks0stm's points. The article needs an update though. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment "So what?" "Not interested"? Please see PDN #1 above. FWIW I didn't give a damn about a 500 year old skeleton being identified as a long dead king, but I was still willing to acknowlede the significance, read the article update, and post a support. Kindly get real. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Witholding my support pending a proper update to the article. It seems significant, given Dell's status as a market leader in its industry, and business news is a minority topic; having a variety of topics is always a nice break from the sports-disaster-war-politics cycle. I would support this if I had more than one line of text to evaluate. If this is worth putting on the main page, its worth adding a paragraph or two to the article itself. --Jayron32 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support pending update; a uncommon event on a somewhat large scale, though article needs updating. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Four sentence update as of my writing, which is almost there. This is a significant deal which appears to meet ITN threshold. Oppose votes should not be regarded, as IP98 says. I also don't care about the bones of a dead king, but agree that was newsworthy enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Updated. I have added several sentences about the buyout at Dell#2013 buyout. Ks0stm 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Due to coverage in media, and Dell being a pretty decent article. Partly disagree with the comment from Muboshgu, who seems to suggest "newsworthy" is more important than WP:ENC. I think it likely that in as little as 10 years Richard III and his bones will be more valuable in our learning of humanity than a business buy out. Pedro : Chat 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - sorry, on re-reading that came off as a touch aggresive to Muboshgu for which I apologise. My point is that in ten years time the circumstances and science of finding the bones of Richard is likely (IMHO) to be far more enriching an entry than a footnote about a reverse buy out in the article on a computer company. Pedro : Chat 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The claims of significance actually diminish this story: they read as "the biggest since not very long ago". We also need to cut to the actual substance of the story: Micheal Dell has let his intentions be known for several weeks at least, and this still requires shareholder approval. The story then is not one of any real solidity but amounts to the board reaching a decision to recommend the bid. 3142 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is still pretty significant, actually, especially when you think that 1) Misplaced Pages has only existed since 2001, so it's the largest in nearly half this site's history, and 2) it's still the 11th largest ever. This is also the appropriate time to post, not when Michael Dell said he wanted to buy back the company. Ks0stm 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ready well sourced update, decent article, no orange tags, consensus to support, with 2 of the 3 opposes being "so what" and "not interested". --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Is this final, or is the buyout still subject to approval somewhere? Spencer 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The buyout is still subject to shareholder approval. However, we are talking about a major company making one of the largest transactions of its type in financial history. Resolute 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The price of $13.65 per share represents a 25 percent premium over Dell's stock price before news of a pending deal leaked in January. I'm not expecting opposition... --IP98 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not convinced as to its notability - as has been noted elsewhere this is simply one step in the process and no, IP98, we do not second-guess the outcomes. However the real issue here is that the update is frankly appalling: you are told that it is going private three times using different formulations of words and there are other instances of similar redundancy. If the claim is that this is notable there should be no problem getting a well-rounded update together that does not need to repeat itself to get to the minimum update measure. ﬥ (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
- That's a load of hooey. The update is fine and has quite minimal redundancy. I still think now is the time to post, as well. Ks0stm 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Ks0stm. We had an edit conflict, I'm still going to say my piece :
- ﬥ You're not convinced that one of the largest cash buyouts in history, of a major industry player, by the original company founder, is not notable? I don't see how we're told it's going private "three times using different formulations of words". Is "The $24.4 billion buyout" somehow redundant? It's not needed to lead into "is the largest leveraged buyout backed by private equity since the 2007 financial crisis."?? (which by the way helps to establish notability). How, ﬥ would you word it? Better yet, fix the article if it's inadequate! --IP98 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we wait until these sort of things actually happen? Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose None of the adduced arguments puts weight on the story. The largest leveraged buyout since July 2007 and the 11th largest on record are simply not enough in time and size to conclude any outstanding importance beyond it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - A major tech and business story. Update is a bit on the thin side but good enough. Jusdafax 22:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose To start with the deal is not final, until it is completed we should not post it. Even when it is completed unless it can tick a box that shows it is a notable first or largest then it should not be posted, from what I can see it is only the 11th largest such deal and for a company that is only third in its field. LightGreenApple talk to me 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose business minutiae, lacking any notable "firsts." I also object to the business-press phrasing ("going private"), which doesn't read well over all English dialects and doesn't mean anything to someone unfamiliar with such phrasing. 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Withdrawn (unless someone else wants to take over this). I'm sorry, but (and I mean this with the utmost respect) y'all can go . Personally, I feel like I need to go pet some kittens or eat a nice dinner or something to boost my morale. I don't know since when ITN has become such a cesspool of rejection, but it seems like any time I come around here lately the timer is red because we can't get consensus to post a goddamn story often enough. I also note how amazingly sad that is since blurbs are ridiculously cheap. They're one line of text in a template that goes on the main page. You would think we could agree on one to add every 24 hours or so, but evidently not. It didn't used to be that way...ITN nominations didn't used to have to have 25,407 deaths, a new prime minister and a world champion to be posted, and the way this nomination has gone doesn't make me feel very confident that it's going to get rectified any time soon. Don't count on me returning to ITN for quite a while, or at least until I get my morale back up to the point where I don't feel like I could nominate a plane crash with 200+ deaths and somehow manage for it to not be posted. Ks0stm 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can definitely sympathize with the frustration when you put a lot of work into a valid nomination. But there has been a strong tendency to commercial deals and roll-outs, so I can't say I am surprised at the attitude. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as per those above. Very big numbers of dollars flying around and a decent update. --LukeSurl 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, we could post the buyout when it occurs later if we don't get consensus for the annoucement. I'm happy either way. --LukeSurl 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the announcement, but support the buyout when it occurs; we don't post enough business news, and this will be an excellent story when it comes to pass. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply the thing is, there won't be a big news item when it's complete. The announcement is the big item. Now the wheels will grind, money will flow, probably for some months shares will be bought back. The stock will be delisted. Im totally over it at this point, but this would have been the right time to post. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support reading through every single oppose above atleast 2 dont even have a reason. one is for the update which i think isnt the concern here since it has a good para but maybe it can be worked on if we get more of a consensus. The others about notability dont really state why its not notable but just say its not a "first". we dont only post firsts so i dont know how valid of argument that is. In reality its a pretty big news in the business world and of wide interest. If ever we had to differentiate between poll vs consensus based discussion then this will be it. Its not like we are posting 2-3 items a day that we can afford to slow ITN down even more... (yes i know we need consensus no need to state that but when some people always oppose that becomes harder and harder) -- Ashish-g55 23:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pull immediately Not that it didn't receive any support, but there is simply no consensus towards posting. I have never seen an admin posting a story with this balance of votes. Pretty strange!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply There was plenty of support, two of the opposes were "Not interested" and "so what", like it or not, there was consensus to post. A few vocal opposes can't outweigh the supports, I know this, I vhemently oppose football noms which get posted anyway. --IP98 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- 8 supports 9 opposes, you need to disregard half of the opposes to get consensus. Nergaal (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Goodness no, we can't possibly have an item on the main page that might cause people to learn something they didn't already know. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE MUST PROTECT WIKIPEDIA FROM THIS SCOURGE. --Jayron32 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- (to Jayron32) That's not the issue(and it's only part of the purpose of ITN). The issue is the fact that there was no consensus to post this. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I may disregard my comment above and ask a question...who cares? What harm is it doing sitting on the main page? The wiki isn't going to explode, it's not the end of the world, it's just sitting there...a line of text on the main page that might just actually be informative to some of our readers. Ks0stm 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOHARM is not sufficient. If there was no consensus, there was no consensus(again, I supported posting this). 331dot (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- NOHARM is not enough of a reason to post it (which I agree, it probably shouldn't have been), but in my opinion it is enough of a reason to leave it there. Ks0stm 15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Senkaku Islands radar lock
Article: Senkaku Islands dispute (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Amid continuing dispute over Japanese-owned islands, a Chinese frigate locked weapons-targeting radar on a Japanese navy vessel. (Post)
News source(s): Japan Today News
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: I had nominated a statement by the Japanese PM and was rejected because it wasn't an action. It's now an action. -- Kotjap (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still oppose this until weapons are fired, there are casualties, or physical damage to a ship. Reading the source given, this also happened to a helicopter on January 19th. Neither that event or this one has been widely reported, from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per 311dot. This sort of incident was routine during the cold war. NK does it to SK all the time. --IP98 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose For the same reason as others, no weapons fired yet. Ryan Vesey 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose; it is practically a non-event. 75.62.130.32 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is standard international jockeying. This spat will have to reach at least the engaged seriousness of the Cod Wars before I'm prepared to back it for ITN, and even then, it would depend on the circumstances. I'd encourage kotjap to stop nominating every incident related to the Islands for ITN, and to practice bringing a nomination on an unrelated topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
February 4
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 4
|
|
February 4, 2013 (2013-02-04) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Remains of Richard III identified
Article: Richard III of England (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Researchers from the University of Leicester confirm that human remains found in Leicester, England are those of Richard III. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Archaeologists identify human remains found in Leicester as those of Richard III of England
News source(s): , , NBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Interesting story that seems to be getting a lot of press. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - a significant event for one of the UK's better known monarchs, due to Shakespeare, etc, and if my recall of history is correct, the last
British English monarch killed in battle. An optimist on the run! 11:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It's not every day that the remains of a medieval ruler are identified! However, I've suggested an alternative blurb in the template above. Modest Genius 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb. An interesting, different event receiving wide coverage. Involves a head of state(even if a medieval one). 331dot (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. And not just head of state, but
most all of the skeleton too (sorry). But the extent of the spinal defomity may at last help to dispel the myth that Richard was the limping hunchback (sometimes) portayed in the Shakespeare play. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support a story of good encyclopeadic interest. LukeSurl 12:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. But I suggest that the blurb describes him as "Richard III of England", to avoid any doubt. (I know there were not many other people called Richard III, but we should err on the side of trying to be helpful to those seeking information.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb with "of England" appended. --IP98 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, strongly agree with most of the reasoning above... I had a 'hunch' it was him. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ready article is updated, strong consensus to post. --IP98 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posting the alt blurb, seems better. --Tone 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- They found a note on the remains saying "Now is the winter of our discontent"! -- Ashish-g55 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it would read "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!"--WaltCip (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLVII
Article: Super Bowl XLVII (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In American football, the Baltimore Ravens defeat the San Francisco 49ers to win Super Bowl XLVII. (Post)
News source(s): BBC,Irish Times,Der Spiegel,Asahi Shimbun
Credits:
Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: I included a few random sources to show its international press. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 04:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- As an aside, it would need a prose update too..Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment What the hell is the point of ITN/R if these kinds of discussions are permitted to continue?"It's much better to gain consensus now than to wait around after the game"? Consensus for what? It's on ITN/R, so it already meets the importance criterion, and it gets posted every year in exactly the same fashion (that's without the score). And there certainly won't be a suitable update for at least nine hours, and often not even then. But when one does materialize, one could theoretically point it out to an admin and ask him/her to post it regardless of what it said over here. So, this barely needs a nomination, let alone hours before the event. Why do people insist on having and justifying these pointless discussions for certain events? It's like you're fishing for oppose votes to shoot down. -- tariqabjotu 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment For those who are saying "we always post this" or "it's a big time event", as you can see here and here, for some reason this is always called "U.S.-centric" and has always been a controversy in previous years. The only reason I nominated it so early was to get the "arguing" out of the way so it could be posted sooner rather than later (after the game of course). It's obviously not U.S.-centric because it is covered in the sources I put in the nomination, as well as many, many more... Shark96z (talk ·contribs) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- No need then to bait the tolls with a nom some 18 hours before the game starts then. LightGreenApple talk to me 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 Not posting until game summary section is filled in. It's like election results when posting elections...we can't post with just a box score. Ks0stm 04:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Damn rubbish game with riggesd electricty circuits to get the tension up! Its more notable with the historical feats: longest TD run ever in suprbowl (apparently longest rush TD in superbowl too), nearly the biggst comeback..Lihaas (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted. The article has been sufficiently updated to have this go live on the main page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, do you realize the updated section has almost no references in it? Orange tags generally prevent an article from being posted to the Main Page, especially when it's in the "updated" section. The game summary is great, but it's a huge swath of unreferenced text. --tariqabjotu 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Tariqabjotu pulled the item. For the record, having seen the above message, I was about to do the same thing. —David Levy 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was initially going to stick with the message, but it was apparent that Metropolitan was... er... new to updating ITN, and may not have fully understood the criteria for posting. -- tariqabjotu10:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ITN says that "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." The game summary has more than five sentences, and more than three references. The unreferenced parts of the summary do not detract from the single sentence of information that goes on the ITN template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a misleading description. "The unreferenced parts of the summary" are actually the vast majority of the section. Three of the four references in the entire section are about the power outage rather than the game itself. This clearly isn't acceptable for being featured on the Main Page, even without getting to the part of WP:ITN where it says "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." -- tariqabjotu 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You've just confirmed your unfamiliarity with with ITN.
The section's purpose isn't to report news. "The single sentence of information that goes on the ITN template" is merely a pointer to the encyclopedia article, the quality of which is highly relevant. (As Tariqabjotu noted, even orange-level issues unrelated to the update can keep an article off the main page.)
"At minimum three references" is roughly what's expected of "a five-sentence update". For sporting events, we look for a full summary. We have one, but the four references are nowhere near adequate. —David Levy 11:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I, however, am familiar with Misplaced Pages's WP:V policy, which is a lot more important. Many of the references listed at the bottom of the article include a game summary. These facts are reported ubiquitously and are not at all contentious. The reader could choose almost any reference on the list and be able to quickly verify the facts reported in the game summary section. As such, it is not at all correct to say the section is un-referenced. While inline references are desirable, they are not strictly required. Therefore, I would like to restore the event to ITN. Many people will look at Misplaced Pages today and expect to find that listing. Placing the listing on the home page will be good for Misplaced Pages because it will give the article exposure, motivate improvements, and hopefully bring in a few new editors. One or two editors mis-understanding policy should not be grounds to pull important content from view. Jehochman 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- agree and marking ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- See below. —David Levy 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- As stated at WP:MINREF (to which you linked at Talk:Main Page), inline citations are required for any statement that has been "tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag" (which constitutes a challenge). 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Correct, but I don't see any of those, and if somebody puts in spurious tags just to make a point, I will ignore them. There has to be a bona fide dispute about the content, not just somebody doing an policy endrun by slapping tags on things. A bona fide content dispute would include a statement on the article talk page explaining why the content is challenged. Jehochman 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The tag citations tag has been removed as of now. The article has 76 references, and I completly agree with Jehochman on the nature of the need for inline references at this point. This article is in a far better state than many posted at ITN. I won't mark it 'ready' again but my suggestion is post now. --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's been removed on the basis that the "article contains 76 references", which ignores the underlying concern. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Do you assert that {{refimprove}} isn't a "similar tag"?
2. Do you assert that users must possess specific knowledge that a statement is false in order to challenge it?
3. No, "a statement on the article talk page" isn't required. This is explicitly noted at WP:MINREF. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Little confused About the whole ITN/R-thingie and the need to go through a vote like this. I Support btw as this is a clearly notable, unique sports event.--Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the quality of the article, its blurb, and whether or not it has sufficiently been updated; ITN/R means its notability is not at issue, unlike other nominations on this page. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the clarification. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Put it back up The entire section is sourced, just not with inline citations. Nobody is contesting the material. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the use of the {{refimprove}} tag constitutes a challenge. Editors needn't assert that the claims are false. When reasonable doubt is expressed (because a statement's accuracy isn't inherently obvious), inline citations are required. —David Levy 15:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. You're being tendentious. Please point out specific facts within the section that are challenged. I just checked it very carefully and found one small problem (a reference to Twitter) which I fixed. Jehochman 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether most of the statements are true or false. The onus is on those making the claims to establish the former. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Doubts aren't being expressed because people believe the information is false.
"Doubts" are being expressed to keep the article off the main page. That's pointy disruption and you know it. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The energy being spent debating the merits of standard practice could instead be used to fix the actual problem. This is a huge sporting event, there will be no shortage of reliable newspaper sources to use to fill in any gaps. The fact that there even was a citation to Twitter and not the 477,000,000 Google hits for "Super Bowl XLVII" (66,000,000 under "News" alone) is cause for concern. GRAPPLE X 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody has yet challenged any fact in the game summary, except an anon who mentioned that the "blown transformer" wasn't correct, which I did fix. You can look at past Superbowl articles and see that the game summary isn't loaded with inline references. These facts are non-contentious because everybody watched the same game and saw what happened. All reports are similar. Jehochman 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not everyone watched the game (or is even familiar with the sport) You perceive statements that obviously are accurate, but others see them differently. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop beating the straw man. Which fact in the article is dubious? You have to identify a specific fact to say that the content is challenged. You can't just make a general challenge in the form of "I don't like it all. Please put an inline citation on every sentence." If you were acting in good faith you'd point out a few dubious statements, somebody would fix them, and we'd move on. It would take an incredible amount of work to cite every sentence. At this point it looks very much like the regulars here are bottling up the process to make a point that they want to be in control, and that if anybody else comes here and tries to do something, they will be frustrated endlessly. Jehochman 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- No one demanded that every sentence receive its own citation. That's a straw man.
At the start of this discussion, almost the entire game summary contained no inline citations (and three of the four that were present were unrelated to the competition).
You've continually implied that statements cannot be challenged without specific knowledge that they're incorrect. That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. It isn't my responsibility to research the claims and determine which ones are inaccurate (as you suggested on my talk page). Their accuracy must be established.
I don't know why you believe that Tariqabjotu and I set out to exclude this item. Why would we do that? Why would we want to eliminate an ITN update during this particularly slow period? Why would we object to increased participation? I've urged editors to become involved in the ITN process, and I recall Tariqabjotu doing the same. Do you possess any knowledge of our attitudes regarding the section, or have you based these accusations of bad faith on a single instance in which we disagreed with you? —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ryan, please strike your assumption of bad faith. ITN has its standards - the article will not go on the main page if it is not suitably updated...--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The regulars at ITN are not allowed to make their own local laws in contravention of WP:V. What's happening here is a pissing match. Some regulars are upset that a non-regular deigned to post the article, so they removed it and are not going to allow it up again until everybody bows and kisses their feet. This behavior is appalling. Jehochman 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, it takes at least two to have pissing contest. Fortunately, it looks like Ryan Vesey is going to save us all by adding some references to the game summary section. Can we agree to let him finish that editing, and then post the article? Jehochman 15:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I finished the first quarter, but I'll be gone for a while. We need a source for the statement "It was the first time a team scored a touchdown on its first drive of the game since the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII". If someone wants to continue using the play-by-play to source the summary, please re-add the in-use section tag, otherwise I'll start referencing again when I get back and I don't want to wreck your work. Ryan Vesey 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find that accusation of bad faith quite insulting too. When I saw that a non-regular had posted the item, I responded by correcting its formatting and switching to a related image.
You're entitled to express the opinion that we're wrong, but I can't imagine why you (and Ryan) would attribute our actions to malice or spite. —David Levy 15:47/16:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find that accusation of bad faith quite insulting. Over the years, I've supported the inclusion of Super Bowl items with great passion (including arguments with those who asserted that it was "non-notable" and made anti-American comments), despite the fact that I don't follow sports. Earlier today (before this issue came to light), I created a custom thumbnail of the 2013 MVP and placed it on the main page.
I have no idea whether most of the information is true or false. The onus is on those making the claims to establish the former. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find your stonewalling quite insulting. Jehochman 16:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you perceive my actions as stonewalling. I've done my best to communicate my honest concerns. I take no offense at accusations that I'm wrong, but I don't understand why you'd attribute my position to malice/spite. I disagree with you, but you don't see me questioning your motives; I don't doubt that you have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart. —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for my accusation of bad faith. I was perturbed because you made it clear that you had no idea whether any information was true or false. You are correct that you shouldn't need to know it is false to challenge the material, but you should have a reasonable doubt as to its credibility. Unfortunately, I'm eating crow as I had to fix a small number of incorrect statements. Ryan Vesey 17:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my accusation of bad faith.
Thank you, Ryan. I sincerely appreciate it.
You are correct that you shouldn't need to know it is false to challenge the material, but you should have a reasonable doubt as to its credibility. Unfortunately, I'm eating crow as I had to fix a small number of incorrect statements.
I was genuinely concerned about the possibility. Please understand that from my perspective, the summary was a massive wall of claims with few clear sources. I understand that a fan of the sport might take much of this information for granted, but the article isn't written purely for such individuals' benefit. Thanks for working to resolve the issue. —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted that if every person here had put the effort in to fixing the problems in the article as they have in complaining here about it, this would be an FA-quality article by now. --Jayron32 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- At FAC the reviewers are helpful. They will make lists of what they think is wrong with the article so that things can be fixed. Here, a few editors are playing a game of disputing things, but refusing to provide any particulars. They say they are challenging the content, but refuse to specify which items. Meanwhile, the article has 50+ references that support the content. This process is a horrible case of WP:BITE and WP:OWN. Jehochman 16:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article contained a tag indicating the problem before the issue was even raised here. We explained how to fix it, and Ryan did so (and found some incorrect statements in the process). —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Marking as Ready. There are no large sections lacking citations anymore, and the summary section is of sufficient length and adequately referenced. --Jayron32 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted. The game summary section looks extensive and well referenced to me. Ks0stm 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I posted it. Our edit conflict machine needs help. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
| not relevent to the purpose of this page.
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Comment what a waste of energy this has all been. Surely the point of ITN/R is that its inherently notable for ITN, right? So early nominations are simply for kudos, for a little star or whatever on people's user pages. The only thing needed here, is to ensure the update was inline with the update requirements of the ITN criteria. That's surely a simple yes/no, perhaps with the suggestion of how best to improve the update to meet said update requirements. Instead we see veteran editors tearing each other up over something as trivial as the Superbowl. Come on Wikipedians, we can all do better than this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You make this sound like blame is on both sides. That's not the case. Suggestions on how to improve the update (with references) were clearly outlined, and they were brushed off as if this was a conspiracy to exclude an item that is posted every year. I see multiple completely unfounded accusations of bad faith from those unhappy this wasn't up sooner, and I see no similar retaliation. We cannot allow such bully tactics to work, as doing so gives the appearance of a double standard. Oh, we'll post the Super Bowl with shoddy referencing because it's the Super Bowl, but an article about some event that doesn't pique the interest of American readers so much must meet the reasonable requirements set forth. No, that's not acceptable, and the insults thrown at David Levy (and, implicitly, me) were uncalled-for. It has nothing to do with the fact that a non-regular originally posted the item, although I would hope that most regulars would have recognized that the update was unsuitable at the time. That seems a bit unlikely, though, given how this discussion played out. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tariq, you undid another admin's action without discussing it with them. You took the a hostile path, reversion, because you claimed to know better than them. How do you know that you weren't in error and that they weren't right? For the future it would be better to explain the problem you perceive to the other admin and jointly agree on the correct path forward. As for the ugly discussion that followed, you are the one who set that in motion, so please don't get all preachy. Jehochman 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tariq, looks like you need a break from this topic. I outlined the facts. (a) ITN/R meant Superbowl was going to be posted no matter what. (b) All that needed to be done was an update in accordance with the ITN criteria. (c) All the yelling and shouting and early noms and pointed comments here are a perfect demonstration of all that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. I accused no-one of anything. Take a break, come back when you're not feeling so aggrieved with the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lay off Tariq. I don't always agree with him, and the entire discussion above is hilarious, but this "I am holier than you" condescension from his critics is tiresome and offensive. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm closing this down. As this has nothing to do with promoting the Super Bowl article to ITN, take this discussion up somewhere else. Or better yet, don't. --Jayron32 21:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
February 3
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 3
|
|
February 3, 2013 (2013-02-03) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Sport
Liechtenstein parliamentary election
Article: Liechtenstein parliamentary election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the Liechtenstein parliamentary election the Progressive Citizens' Party wins a plurality of seats in the Landtag (Post)
News source(s): AP Wire Bulletin AFP wire
Credits:
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: Elections! Everyone loves Lichtenstein elections, no? Technically ITN/R. In my opinion this is pretty borderline as to elections that really need to be posted (19,200 eligible voters), but we haven't had an election for a while. --LukeSurl 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
RD: Lino Oviedo
Article: Lino Oviedo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
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.
- The article is not updated with five referenced sentences, and we need a source that says he was indeed a major party's candidate. If that's done this can easily be supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, how often do presidential candidates die in helicopter crashes? μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- This reminds me of my father's favorite joke every time we drove past a cemetery. "You see that place?" he would ask. "People are dying to get in there." Somehow I doubt many presidential candidates, even of smaller countries, are dying to get into the Recent Deaths ticker at Misplaced Pages. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- How he died is not relevant. Should we put the US Presidential candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party or the USA Communist Party on the ticker if they die? There should be something other than the person being a candidate for office to get on the ticker. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Oviedo would be listed, if he were listed, as a major party national presidential candidate who died during the campaign. That is a rare and notable event. That is how he was nominated. What does his just being a candidate have to do with it? Are you suggesting he was just nominated just because he was a candidate? It is hard to take such contrarian comments in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- As stated by another user, it's not entirely clear he was a "major" party candidate. He clearly was nominated because he was a candidate; that's what the nomination says. If it was "331dot died in a helicopter crash", we wouldn't be here now. 331dot (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well one of us certainly wouldn't. GRAPPLE X 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe the guy got over 20% of the vote last time he ran, which seems to make him major in my book. But no one seems to care to updtae the article, so the nominator's time seems wasted here, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Syria sticky
Conflict is stalemated and weve had this on for a long time. I think its time to nominate individual items of notability lest it becomes a banner for the event. Should this be removed?Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support removal as a sticky. If we start to get a steady flow of notable events again, we can always restore it. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support removal of the sticky so that significant events can get a blurb. For example, the Israeli airstrike 3 days ago. --IP98 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support removal of sticky. Time to move on, but things could get very active there, so let's be open to putting the sticky back up if a new stream of big stories comes along. Jusdafax 19:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- See my comment below. Things have been very active in the conflcit during the last two weeks. --hydrox (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe the sticky was ever reworded to reflect any of those events; and in a conflict like this one would expect such events to happen regularly. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but was the article being consistently edited to reflect these updates? Spencer 04:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is a timeline article with such NPOV headings as "Day of the massacre of children by the west" or something like that/ --IP98 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It does seem wrong to remove the sticky. The Israel attack for example shows that the conflict is not at all going into irrelevance. Thue (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Though drawn out, it is a significant on-going event.Kdammers (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quick idea, we could have a permanent link to List of ongoing military conflicts, then post major war developments as regular ITN/C items. Unfortunately that's quite a poor-quality article at the moment. LukeSurl 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess a major problem with that article is that it uses a combination of different sources, mostly newspapers. But as defining a war is not straightforward, different sources are unlikely to agree on one definition, so maintaining an exact list of ongoing conflicts becomes difficult (what should be included, and what not). I started researching about how this situation could be improved, and found this Ontario, Canada based NGO that seems to publish a periodical report about ongoing conflicts and has written about how it defines an "armed conflict", but unfortunately their latest publication is more than a year old. Does anyone know if the UN publishes any similar list? The UN would seem like a natural source for such info. --hydrox (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles aren't being developed for these specific incidents, it's just being heaped into a timeline. It's a war zone, people are dying because that's what happens in a war zone. "A rocket hit an apartment complex" (thats from portal:current events). So what? It's a war zone. Nominate blurbs for major offensives or substantial milestones. --IP98 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Uh.. So what is the relevancy of that comment to what I wrote above? I am talking about this article. --hydrox (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose unless you want to add list of ongoing protests, list of financial crises, timeline of environmental events, etc. There are lots and lots of ongoing issues, we can't have a bold link to every list of articles which might pop up in the news. What are we trying to fix here? --IP98 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment A car bomb exploded in Iraq yesterday, killing 23. The insurgency there is alive and well. Get a sticky going for that too? And for Afghanistan? How about Mali? Sudan? Gonna sticky every conflict with no end in sight? --IP98 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 2
|
|
February 2, 2013 (2013-02-02) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sport
RD: Chris Kyle
Article: Chris Kyle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
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: Respected as the United States' most prolific marksman, shot dead at a Texas gun range. Unusual death related to guns and PTSD from combat. Individual meets ITN/DC #2 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I was just coming here to nominate this myself. It's the unexpected murder in odd circumstances of the most storied sniper in US Military history, making news well outside the US.
- Updated See diff. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Chief Petty Officer rank does not suggest that he was at the top of his field. "Respected" is highly POV. Gunman gets shot in place full of guns: doesn't seem the most unlikely killing to me. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Kevin's reasoning. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Respected" was my word. NY Times source calls him "America’s deadliest sniper", Guardian calls him "US's most prolific marksman", ABC News source calls him "the most deadly sniper in U.S. history". I don't know enough about the military to know what to make of his rank, other than I wouldn't expect a sniper to be a general. He's got two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars, and a number of other commendations for his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Murders at gun ranges are rare. What in the world does his rank have to do with anything? He was undisputedly the greatest sniper in US Military history. Perhaps we are passing moral judgment on that fact? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- His rank would indicate whether he met the first of the death criteria: I can't see that he does, nor either of the other two. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- He could meet ITN/DC #1 for his "significant contribution/impact" on the Iraq War and with his book. I think it pretty clearly meets DC #2 for his being considered one of the best snipers ever. He might meet #3 also, but I wouldn't make that argument personally. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to our article, there seem to have been two snipers, a Soviet and a Finn, in the first half of the last century with more kills. Third in world history obviously meets ITN#2. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Chris Kyle who?.. Being an american sniper isnt of huge international interest. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply to all the "who, what, I don't care" types: He was the most lethal sniper in United States military history. I think that pretty well covers ITN/DC #2. As for the "gunman shot in place full of guns", a range isn't a bloody free for all. Get real please. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get you. "Top American sniper" is significant, but "top Vietnamese musician" is not. In which universe is sniping more significant than music? DHN (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't make pointy comparisons like that. Someone's previous (if you think it is invalid) oppose is not a reason for a current oppose. In any case, he seems to have been the third best sniper in the world, and his mere being American is not the reason for his posting. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Medeis. @DHN I might have been less inclined to support if Kyle had been in exiled obscurity for 40 years. --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per IP98. And as IP98 says, the "gunman shot in place full of guns" comments are ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- International Story This is currently the second story at Google News Germany Berühmtester US-Scharfschütze am Schießstand getötet, front page at Google News España El francotirador más letal de EE UU y ex 'Navy Seal', Chris Kyle, muerto a tiros and the number one Google News Italia story: Texas, ucciso in un poligono cecchino più letale d'America So much for "who?" μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the international interest, and the exceptional nature of the event, would a full blurb be appropriate? Ryan Vesey 21:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really think the level of notability here is met - individual was not in any command position and his post-military career consisted of literary and media work that would not meet the DC. That said, I'd be perfectly happy to pretty much scrap the criteria for recent deaths and have the ticker speed through almost every decent article listed on this page. That's probably a discussion for somewhere else though. --LukeSurl 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I think the fact that he was murdered pushes him just over the edge of notability. For the guy who said "Being an american sniper isnt of huge international interest", I should also point out that his death has been given main page coverage on some major Canadian news sites like CBC (right now it is given the picture and blurb treatment which means they consider it significant), CTV and Canoe (right now it's the second top headline). -- Scorpion 01:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support He was the most effective soldier in American history. His death warrants a mention, especially considering the unexpected circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbog (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ready This is updated, the article has no tags. Sentiment is about 2 to 1 in favor of posting--and the opposes based on his rank, which is irrelevant to his accomplishment, and on lack of international cover, which is false, don't weigh against the support rationale. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Japan PM's vow on Islands dispute
Article: Senkaku Islands dispute (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vows to defend the disputed Senkaku Islands "at all costs" in a speech aimed at the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (Post)
News source(s): Japan Today News
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: I think it's worth of a front page given the growing hostility between the two countries. Kotjap (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A statement of policy in this ongoing dispute is not significant enough for ITN. I think we would need an actual confrontation, involving weapons fired or some other aggravating factor to get something about this ongoing dispute posted. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support The dispute as a whole is notable, and should be posted in some form to ITN. While a political statement is not ideal for ITN, the important point is to post something about it. Thue (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- We posted about it a couple of months ago. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't post something about this ongoing dispute for the sake of posting it; we should only post important, significant developments in it- and a statement of policy doesn't rise to that level, especially a statement that isn't really that surprising. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- No one has said it's not important; that's not the issue. There is no single event here to hang our hat on to have a blurb posted about this ongoing event. I'm American and I would oppose any similar event involving the US being posted(I opposed posting the attack on the US embassy in Turkey below). There was no armed confrontation, large number of casualties, or other aggravating factor here. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are disputed areas between the US and Canada and if President Obama told the military that the US would defend them at all costs, I would oppose such a listing without some aggravating factor. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Policy Statements simply aren't posted. We didn't post the recent US administration policy change about women soldiers on the front line, nor the UN report below for that matter. Comparisons with the US hurt rather than help the nomination. (Oppose) μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The statement is startlingly bold and is widely In the News. The article is quite good, though the update is one sentence, and is an enlightening read on what could become a flashpoint in a regional conflict that would draw other countries in. Also becomes a reason to build up armed forces in Japan, which is controversial in its own right. Jusdafax 23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- When we get to the "flashpoint" or the armed forces build up, that would be worth posting. We're not there yet. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just a policy statement. Similar to Cameron's recent declaration on the EU, in fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Speeches by politicians are a dime a dozen. Nsk92 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support- I don't think I've ever supported a public statement before, but as Jusdafax says, this is "startlingy bold." Considering Japan's military history and the coverage this conflict has been getting across the world, I have to support this for ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I nominated this article under a different blurb a few days ago. This is a high-interest story given that the dispute has been at or near the top of international news for several weeks now. I know that we don't have a "sexy blurb" to go with any of the developments, but I'm willing to put that aside given that major news sources are giving this story attention, and the article is in decent enough shape. Given all of that, I think that I can't pose any objections to putting the dispute in some form on ITN, because it clearly is in the news. --Jayron32 02:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not seeing how recent events merit an mention in the article that meets ITN update standards. I think Senkaku_Islands_dispute#2013 says what needs to be said about what happened. I might be persuaded to support if there is enough relevant, notable information used to update the section, not meaningless fluff. Spencer 03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A policy statement. Not significant enough for ITN. NickSt (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a statement, not an action. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Just ordinary diplomacy. Nothing's happened yet. 75.62.130.32 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
February 1
| Portal:Current events/2013 February 1
|
|
February 1, 2013 (2013-02-01) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
US Embassy bombing Ankara
Article: 2013 United States embassy bombing in Ankara (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide bomber kills himself and one other person at the United States embassy in Ankara (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: I don't know if it meets the "minimum deaths" but an attack on an embassy seems noteworthy. --IP98 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I agree with IP98 in that attacks on embassies are generally noteworthy, but in this instance not much really happened. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I too agree embassy attacks are generally noteworthy, but the attack took place at the gate and did not harm anyone other than the deceased security guard. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Little impact. The headline indicates something that would have been really ITNworthy, had the staff of an American Embassy taken it upon themselves to bomb the capital city of a NATO member. Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Explosion at Pemex HQ
Article: Pemex (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: An explosion in a building next to the Pemex headquarters in Mexico City kills at least 32 people and injures over 100 (Post)
Alternative blurb: An explosion at Pemex headquarters in Mexico City kills at least 32 people and injures over 100
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Currently unexplained explosion in a 54-storey skyscraper in Mexico City with large death toll, expected to rise, and many, many injuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The explosion occurred in the offices adjacent to the skyscraper, not in the skyscraper itself. Nonetheless, strong support, though I also recommend we wait until more details become available about the nature of the explosion, and once we can get a lock on the number of those affected.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - This is all over the news here. Clearly a significant and so far mysterious incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support for the significance of the event; the current target article probably has the bare minimum of information for posting (5 sentences). Recommend posting this now, but this event is likely to generate its own article, and we can change the bold link when and if the article becomes worthwhile. The event is clearly significant enough for ITN, based on the prominence I am finding in reliable news sources. --Jayron32 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per AlexTiefling. 2013 Pemex explosion seems ready to go and is the article Google News is pointing to. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that article still needs expansion. Per Misplaced Pages:ITN#Updated_content, the 5 sentence expansion is the minimum requirement for an existing article, a brand new article about the event needs three full paragraphs of good content. The current article falls short in that regard. If this is posted the bold link should point to the main Pemex article. Once the article on the explosion is expanded past the minimum requirements, we can make that the bold link. --Jayron32 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support pending update agree that 2013 Pemex explosion is the right pick, and that it needs expansion. Unlike the TV news, WP can wait until multiple sources are pulled together and a more complete picture is available. It's not a race. --IP98 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support and agree with IP98's comments above. LukeSurl 16:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note, the 2013 Pemex explosion article is currently incorrectly stating the explosion happened in the building. It needs an update, we definitely can't post until it reflects current thinking (i.e. that the explosion occurred in a neighouring building). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- An explosion at the office headquarters of Mexico's state-owned oil company killed 25 people and injured 101 on Thursday as it heavily damaged three floors of a building, sending hundreds into the streets and a large plume of smoke over Mexico City's skyline ? I read something about it being in an anex building, but it looks like it took out 2 floors of the main building in the process. --IP98 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Altblurb I have added an altblurb that sidesteps the exact location and links to the explosion article--which could use work, but is technically updated. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ready? This should go up if there are no other issues, unless we want to be three or four days behind as we were with the Israeli elections and Pham Duy. One of the points of ITN is to link the reader to the article. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Concur. Article has no major problems, widespread support. I've marked this as ready to alert another admin to post (I've voted so I won't post). Also, I would support the altblurb, it is more concise and easier to read. --Jayron32 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well as far as all the RS go, it wasn't actually at the HQ, it was near the HQ. Unless things have changed, the alt blurb (which was my original blurb) is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- At doesn't mean "inside the confines of". That would be "in". "At" can mean "in the vicinity of" just fine. It appears the explosion was on the grounds of the Pemex headquarters campus, though not in the specific skyscraper. That also meets the definition of "at" pretty well. --Jayron32 21:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your lesson. In any case, the new article is not great, lots of bare URLs and a whole unref'd section, we should not post this to the main page before it's resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've solved the problem with the unreferenced section. The other problem (bare URLs) is not an orange- or red- level problem, and as such is not a hinderance to ITN posting. That falls under WP:PERFECTION; the bare links are not ideal, but are sufficient. --Jayron32 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
re the bare links, for some reason I cannot capture the text to copy and paste from some of them, everything else I am working on, and can use some help rather than some more tags. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW "Near" is fatally vague, and "at" is perfectly accurate and idiomatic English. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
| That's enough of that
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Note, the piss poor referencing method has now been fixed, but some editors are insisting on inserting masses of unreferenced timeline text. Please stop that, especially now this on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Talk about piss poor, someone seems to have a bug up his ass about something, but the section referred to is fully referenced and the fact it was being worked on while the article was posted is not a good reason for such hostile and beyond the point comments being posted here after the fact. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty. That's enough. --Jayron32 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
|
RD: Ed Koch
Article: Ed Koch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC CNN
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: Influential three-time major of New York. Not a former head of state, but New York is more populous than many nations. Did quite a bit after being mayor as well. --LukeSurl 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently never having had a girlfriend, Koch was denied the opportunity Kennedy had to drown one in his back seat. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell is this? Are you commenting on Koch's sexuality and the Chappaquiddick incident? This is in no way constructive, and I see it as degrading and offensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's an off-colour political joke that pokes fun at the Chappaquiddick incident and the notion that its significance bolstered Ted Kennedy's notability. Kurtis 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Significant cultural and political icon, his notability extends far beyond the mere label of his office. I understand that many people voting here may not have much memory of the 1980s and may not be Americans, but he was a major national figure during that decade. If you base your position solely by the name of the office he held, you completely miss the boat on this one, and are vastly underestimating the kind of national figure Ed Koch was. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Jayron, iconic figure, US Congressman, executive for 12 years of jurisdiction with greater population than Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand, or Israel, one of few US congressional and municipal figures recognizable nationally and internationally, brought great world city back from bankruptcy, responsible for NYC renaissance of 80's and 90's, and of huge reader interest for a non-sports, non-entertainment figure. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per μηδείς. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Iconic figure. DHN (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. As Jayron32 noted, Koch was far more prominent and influential than his political titles suggest (and he remained so after leaving office). —David Levy 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per reasons given above. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose under which ITN/DC category does he fall? Certainly not #1. #2 maybe? How? --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- He was certainly regarded as very important; the mayor of a city with a population larger than many states and some entire nations has a high profile and influence. People paid attention to what he said. His policies largely rescued NYC from its major financial problems of the 1970s. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- We don't post the election of the mayor of New York, or Tokyo, Mexico City, Beijing, Jakarta, Mumbai, etc. We didn't post the election of the first gay premier of Ontario, which also has a higher population than many countries (such as Israel mentioned above). We spat upon elections in an Indian state that had a population of above 100M. What happens when Giuliani dies? He was in charge on 9/11. I think this is a mistake. I don't advocate pulling it, but his only claim to fame was a beloved former mayor of New York. --IP98 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- As discussed above, Koch's impact exceeded the level typically associated with the elected offices he held, and he remained prominent via political and nonpolitical activities in the decades that followed. —David Levy 01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- As David said, that isn't his only claim to fame. We're also not talking about posting his election; I wouldn't support that- but his notability goes beyond that. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's little point in going on about this. Yes, Giuliani will be posted when he dies, as will Red Ken and Mayor Chirac. None of this should be shocking. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chirac vs Koch -- President of France vs notPresident of the United States. Not exactly apples to apples. --IP98 (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I assumed the point wouldn't be obscure, the first mayor of Paris since 1871, a storied and controversial 18 years in office. He'd be postworthy on that alone, even if like Koch, Chirac was never president of the US. But if your intention is just to disagree with everything that is said it's not necessary; your discomfort has already been noted and the nomination is moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
January 31
| Portal:Current events/2013 January 31
|
January 31, 2013 (2013-01-31) (Thursday)
Disasters and accidents
- 2013 Pretoria train collision: Two passenger trains packed with schoolchildren and rush-hour commuters] collide near Pretoria, South Africa, injuring up to 300 people in a crash. (BBC) (Reuters) (AFP via Google)
- 2013 Brisbane train crash: A train overshoots the end of the tracks and crashes into a railway station's ladies' bathroom in Brisbane, Australia, leaving 14 people injured. (ABC News Australia) (Brisbane Times) (The Australian)
- A brief lake effect snow squall on Interstate 75 in Detroit, Michigan, United States, leads to a 30-car accident that leaves 3 dead and 15 injured. (WXYZ)
- Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion: A blast at Torre Ejecutiva Pemex, the headquarters of Pemex in Mexico City, Mexico, kills 36 and injures 126 people. (BBC) (Reuters) (Euronews) (Milenio)
International relations
Law and crime
- A teacher suffers scrapes and bruises and a 14-year-old boy is shot in the back of the neck and suffers a non-life-threatening wound at Luther Judson Price Middle School, a newer Atlanta Public Schools facility in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. The boy is stable at a hospital and the suspected student was safely disarmed by a resource officer and arrested. (NBC News) (CBS News) (Fox News) (BBC)
- Armenian politician Paruyr Hayrikyan is shot in his right clavicle and taken to a hospital in Yerevan, Armenia, during his bid for the presidency. (Asbarez)
- A judge sentences Russell Wasendorf, a founder of Peregrine Financial Group, to 50 years in prison for stealing $215.5 million from investors over 20 years. (Reuters) (USA Today) (NASDAQ)
- Australian House of Representatives member Craig Thomson is arrested to face at least 149 charges of fraud in relation to his former position as National Secretary of the Health Services Union. (ABC News Australia)
- Icelandic teenager Blaer Bjarkardottir wins a legal fight to use the name given to her by her mother, which the Icelandic Naming Committee had argued was not a proper female given name. (BBC) (Sky News) (NBC News)
- Eight people are stabbed and wounded in an apartment building in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Huffington Post)
Media
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
UN report on Israeli Settlers
Article: Israeli settlement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: UN report says that Israeli settlers must be immediately withdrawn without preconditions, to comply with article 49 of the Geneva Convention (Post)
Alternative blurb: A UN report finds Israeli settlements in the West Bank in breach of the Geneva Convention.
News source(s):
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Blurb needs to be very carefully worded if this does get posted, I've tried to keep it brief and neutral EdwardLane (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lean oppose. Is this really new news? The legality of the settlements has always been one of the primary disputes; now we just have some in the UN saying that(and I don't think the UN has ever held the opposing view). This almost certainly will not change anything on the ground there or Israeli policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support it's a report, not a binding resolution, but it does decree that the Israeli settlements are blatantly illegal. The fact that everyone knows this, and that Isreal has ignored previous resolutions doesn't detract from the significance here. A binding security council resolution declaring Israel in violation of article 49 and calling on the government to withdraw would be an easy support. Israel would still ignore it though. --IP98 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Some will find this startling, some won't, but it is a big international story In the News. Jusdafax 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Someone opines on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute" is hardly special. Especially when it comes from a political agenda-driven body such as the UN Human Rights Council. Resolute 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lean oppose as per 331dot. There isn't much new encyclopeadic content as a result of this. --LukeSurl 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I disagree with Resolute's characterisation of the UNHRC, but I agree with the conclusion: this is still just 'a committee gives a non-binding opinion'. Not really news. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose How many divisions does the Pope have? μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? What does that mean? --IP98 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- q:Joseph Stalin --LukeSurl 19:20, 31 January 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.jpg)
Wildfire in Pacific Palisades
