US Spying Allegations

Nominator's comments: The US is expected to provide an explanation for the allegation over the coming days; the EU parliament president has stated that EU and US relations would be severely impacted if the allegations were true, and various commentators have noted that the allegations could have a direct impact on a proposed Trans-Atlantic trade agreement worth potentially billions of dollars. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Suspect the proper target article, at this time, is PRISM. It may takes days or weeks for the relation article to distill the proper information, but it is more in line with the scope of reactions to PRISM. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed it accordingly; I got a bit carried away and mentioned more details than I should in the EU-US relations article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The matter goes beyond PRISM. It includes offline, old-fashioned bugging as well. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I recognize it's quite possibly much larger than that, but it is a bit of a crystal ball right now. The relations could totally break down. Or in 24 hr the powers that be agree that it wasn't much and it was a blip in the overall PRISM story. For an ITN posting, the story stems from ongoing discovery of how deep PRISM runs. If, say, the EU formally disbands any US agreements, that itself would likely be a seperate ITN item that would feature the appropriate relationship/agreement article. But this facet, of the bugging, is news of itself and needs posting, and PRISM (or a larger article on the general discovery of how deep all this stuff has been) seems to be the right target presently. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. I was going to add that EU-US relations or a dedicated article would be best - but for ITN it depends on where the content gets added. If the content is added to PRISM (or a new PRISM spying controversy article, or Edward Snowden, or Edward Snowden leaks) then that is appropriate for ITN. --RA (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very serious matter that has put the EU–US Free Trade Agreement into threat. Alternative blurb provided. --RA (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the threat to the trade agreement is the primary rationale, then the blurb should be worded to reflect that, and possibly we should wait until said agreement is affected. Countries have spied on other countries (friendly or otherwise) since the beginning of time, so I wonder if this is really that shocking an event as the media claims it is. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The threats of repercussions for the trade agreement is an example of the seriousness. But the matter goes beyond that. The depth and degree of spying (e.g. listening devices in embassies and UN offices) is shocking. While some degree of spying between the two blocks is to be expected, relations (up until now) were assumed to be friendly. Looks like it wasn't seen that way by both parties. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to that, it's alleged that 500 million emails and phones calls to and from the EU have been intercepted and according to the most recent media reports, several other allied countries, including India and South Korea were also spied on; it's that type of scale that's concerning here. Anyways, the coverage of the allegations by the media and the potential implications of this on the US' international standing could justify a separate article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems to me that it's not really for us to decide how shocking or bad this is. The relevant thing is the reaction, and it certainly seems to have sparked a major diplomatic reaction in Europe, as well as getting extensive international media coverage. Perhaps the blurb should refer to the reactions of European leaders, as that is part of what makes it so notable. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction so far is noise. That's not notable. When it becomes action we can reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Agree. Spying is not notable. Getting caught is. --RA (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is headline news in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yarnell Hill Fire

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment This is a significant event in its own right. It's both unnecessary and inappropriate to bring the September 11 attacks into this. Just let it stand on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose especially mention of the single largest loss of life since 9/11 sa that is purely us-centric. On a general note, this has no in the news repercussions, and on the international media (bbc for the moment, ihow long will it last?)Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As newsworthy as the serious road traffic accidents we report around the globe. Also agree the blurb should be specific to this event only. CaptRik (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: proposed an alt-blurb too. Not sure if I've linked things correctly. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative blurb looks good, although "United States" generally suffices (although there are others, the USA is the primary topic). I think we also link countries from ITN blurbs, but I'm not completely sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated (alt-blurb), thanks. CaptRik (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we do not link country names as per WP:overlink. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is a very unusual number of deaths for firefighters. That said, I would suggest leaving September 11th out of it. 9/11 was such an exceptional event that trying to draw comparisons to it does not seem all that helpful. Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Blurb should mention this is a wild/brushfire, in Arizona. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left out mention of Arizona in the alt-blurb as I referenced the country itself. I'm not sure what our normal convention but I don't remember us mentioning counties/regions/states etc when the country is mentioned. CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the wild/brushfire aspect should be included. The way the original blurb reads, without being familiar with the actual fire, makes it sound like it was something happening in New England (where there are a lot of named "Hills" within urban centers, and the reference to 9/11). At least establishing that it is a wild/brushfire doesn't narrow the geography but gives better reason to why so many have died so far. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to do you feel about the alt-blurb now? I clarified that it's a wildfire, linking to the main article, and replaced the location with a link to Yarnell. CaptRik (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; I'd expect the reader will have a good understanding of how difficult wildfires are to contain and ergo why the lost of life here is significant. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 19 dead firefighters is tragic, note-worthy news no matter which way you look at it (aka the ending of the blurb, no real opinion of that). --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well I agree there was consensus but perhapos should have waited for a few more hours for the rest of the world to comment.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 13 hours isn't enough? --Tone 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "rest of the world" nonsense only gets pulled out when a US story gets posted. For the record, the hours this was open were probably the least friendly to the Americas possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor.

Also bear in mind, I did say it was a legitimate post. HJust a general ITN standard it should wait. (and there have been ITN discussion on this)Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor. Huh? Case in point how? This is a U.S. story, and you argued that this story needed more time to allow the "rest of the world" to comment, even though the discussion took place overnight in the United States. On the other hand, it was during waking hours in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia throughout most of the time this was open and available for comment. So... what part of the "rest of the world" was not given ample time to comment? South America? Yes, this objection (often from you) that the "rest of the world" was given the chance to comment is limited almost exclusively to U.S. stories, and it's quite clear here no one else is miffed by this posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hissene Habre arrest

Nominator's comments: "first time the former leader of an African state has been tried by another" at the behest of the AU. --Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[Closed] 15 birds discovered in Brazil

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

Article: Accession of Croatia to the European Union (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European Union. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Mallweft (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The acceding date is midnight July 1, local time, which is 2200hrs UTC June 30.

Other articles to update that mention Croatia July accession in the future tense: Croatia, History of Croatia, European Union, History of the European Union, Treaty of Accession 2011, Enlargement of the European Union, Future enlargement of the European Union, Member state of the European Union, Countries bordering the European Union, Currencies of the European Union, Template:Member states of the European Union, Central European Free Trade Agreement, Balkans, History of the Balkans, Template:Foreign relations of Croatia and all the articles that the template links to, European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012, Croatia and the euro, List of observers to the European Parliament for Croatia, 2012–2013, Croatian language, Schengen Area, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, European Economic Area, Croatian passport, History of Croatia since 1995, History of the European Union (since 2004), European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia), Croatian identity card, European Patent Convention, European Parliament election, 2014, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, European integration, 2013, European Fiscal Compact, Eastern Europe, European Union Association Agreement, Visa policy in the European Union, Single Euro Payments Area, Passport stamp, Template:Foreign relations of the European Union, as well as all other EU-related articles that mention "27 members", and there are probably still more articles including various maps of Europe.

• Support but I what was the actual last requirement that was completed a week ago? Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ratification by all member states. The last formality looks to have been the depositing of the German instruments of ratification with the government of Italy (see Treaty of Accession 2011#Ratification). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then out that into the timeline table. Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tmeline updated. Mallweft (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a major Europeaen and itnernational topic. The last accession was 2007 and it will be several years before the next one if I'm reading the Future enlargement of the European Union article right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant event not only for Croatia, bur for the whole Europe. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very significant event for the country and the EU. Egeymi (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant news story, particularly when you look at the number of articles this will change. doktorb _words^deeds 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Expansion of a notable international organization; a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per above. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant for Croatia (minority topic). Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ocomment there is only 1 sentence of an update "Entry into force and accession of Croatia to the EU is set to be 1 July 2013, as all 27 EU members and Croatia have ratified the treaty before this date"Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sentences. Mallweft (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Medeis, Wikipedia is not a source. The number of hits is blindingly irrelevant to whether or not this is in the news. But as it happens, Nergaal is right, and you and nottruelosa are wrong - the EU is a sui generis international organisation. I'd gladly support the addition of a new state to the USA for ITN; an entire sovereign country joining the largest single market in the world gets my nod too.

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

World's Fastest Bird Killed

Consensus not to post. (We have the Cambodian tailorbird on MP at the moment, more than one bird-related story is excessive). --Tone 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article: White-throated Needletail (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Unseen for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is killed by a Scottish fan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Gathered crowds watch, as, unseen in 22 years, the world's fastest bird is struck dead in Scotland.
News source(s): Fox
Credits:

• Nominated by Medeis (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This was an unexpected turn, we have a great article to showcase

• Oppose it was one bird that died, and it is categorized as "least concerned" as far as endangerment goes. It was only unseen in the UK for 22 years, the blurb reads like this specific bird was actually the fastest. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. (EC) This is not an endangered species, just rare in the UK. Further, suggest a reword of the blurb to change "fan" to "wind turbine"; I thought fan meant person. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Altblurb--the purpose of a blurb is to attract readers, I am not set on mine. An alternative might be "The world's fastest bird, unseen for 22 years, is whacked before onlookers in Scotland." μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't completely unseen for 22 years; it just hasn't been seen in the UK, which isn't part of its normal territory. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was reflected in my suggested altblurb by "in scotland". "Unseen in Scotland for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is whacked before onlookers" seems a bit awkward. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't unusual for wildlife to leave their normal territory and end up somewhere else. I'm also only seeing this covered by Fox. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usual or unusual, it has apparently only been seen once in the last 22 years, only to die in front of an onlooking crowd. As for the source, I chose Fox as outside Scotland. See also. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate the nomination, but I am still not persuaded. Not seeing widespread coverage, nor is this an endangered species, just rarely seen in one country. I would oppose if this was the US and not the UK, too. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If the species were critically endangered or previously thought extinct then there might be a story. As it stands this would struggle to make the front page of a regional specialist magazine, so it's really not suitable for the front page of a global general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except it obviously hasn't so struggled. In addition to the British, US, and Irish coverage, and the UPI it's made headlines in Latin Italy and Denmark. (I believe the language is Danish). Except for not knowing what to call the victim in other languages, I am sure Italy and Denmark are not the only Non-anglophone press covering this. How often exactly do the Scottish kill birds that so rarely visit them? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It has not made headlines, it has made the equivalent of inside pages on a quiet news day. Your question is a non sequitur because "the Scottish" didn't kill it - it flew into a wind turbine. How often do birds do that? I haven't a clue but I'm guessing quite often as it doesn't make the news. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying when Michael Jackson died it wasn't news because black men overdose all the time without it being news. As for not being a headline, how did I see it? Of course it made headlines, but not necessarily the top of the front page. Neither will Croatia's accession to the EU be top of the front page news throughout the anglosphere. We have the world's fastest bird, we have a once-in twenty years sighting, and we have a violent death in front of spectators. What's not to love? μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people in the UK want to see this bird, they can go to its normal territory. It's only "once in twenty years" in the UK. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] News Corp split

Vatican money laundering

Nominator's comments: An unusual scandal that has been brewing for a while. At the top of the international headlines today on many sites, so now would seem to be a good time to post. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] New pulsating star

[Posted] World's oldest genome sequence

Nominator's comments: The world's oldest genome sequence is a horse over 700,000 years old. Feel free to modify the blurb or provide an altblurb if needed. Andise1 (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Science stories are always good. However, I don't see the update in the Horse article. But, if we go with the altblurb, the evolution article seems a better choice for the target one. --Tone 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, I'll add that as altblurb EdwardLane (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, it is a very important story. I have updated our evolution of the horse article with the new findings; see the Genome sequencing section. I also rewrote the blurb above, probably making it too long. I hope I'm not acting out-of-process here -- I'm only moderately familiar with the way things are done on this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I was going to nominate this yesterday (when in was announced), but didn't know off hand which article to target and didn't feel like figuring it out - the evolution of the horse article is a great target. The main story here, however, is the record breaking DNA age (understanding of lineages is in constant flux). I suggest tightening the blurb event more:

ALT2: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse bone is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest DNA ever sequenced by a substantial margin.

Also, I would like to see a bit more on the sequencing (its one short paragraph at current) before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: WikiProject Equine member here, a couple small thoughts. You may want to use the word "equine evolution" as opposed to "horse evolution" in the blurb; while the animal sequenced was a horse, (so that's fine there) the evolutionary discoveries are relevant to the entire equus genus, (donkeys, zebras, horses...) not just the horse. The edit to evolution of the horse article is fine from this side; we have a link to the evolution article within the larger horse article, so probably will have few changes there for the immediate future. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that "equine" will be a hard word for lots of main page readers. Regarding the length of the edit, I'm reluctant to add more right now because generally in science articles we try to avoid "recentism" -- it's already a bit contrary to policy to add this material before it has had a chance to be grokked by the field. This is an area where one has to find a compromise between the requirements of stable scientific articles and the requirements of current news. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article has enough sentences for an update, but only two references. It shouldn't be hard to reference the other sentences. As for "equine", we should not dumb ourselves down. The word is certainly familiar to minimally educated native speakers and we can simply pipe to the appropriate article if it matters. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added a third ref - think it might be 'ready' except for agreeing a blurb, I'd be happy for the posting admin to sort that out from the various bits proposed EdwardLane (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready updated and unopposed. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Which blurb is prefered? I see some blurb-related discussions, but it's not clear which one is preferred over the others. Spencer^T♦C 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first blurb is way too long. Otherwise they're all equally clunky. ThaddeusB's attempt is pretty good, but maybe;

ALT3: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest genome ever sequenced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can support that, though obviously I favour my 'clunky' blurb slightly, but not because of the wording (for which I think Abductive has done a decent job), rather that I think that all the articles :genome, Horse, Middle Pleistocene, DNA, Whole genome sequencing, Equus_(genus) and obviously Evolution of the horse are quite decent interesting articles compared to some of the 'just slightly better than stub' things that can sometimes get posted, and so they might 'deserve' the chance of front page billing. If the particular variety of prehistoric horse that was sampled has an article(presumably it does?) I'd have liked to have linked to that too. I just added a link to permafrost in the other blurb above in case the posting admin does choose to go with that (however unlikely). Anyway that was the thought, I was trying to squeeze the nice links in. EdwardLane (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Mongolian presidential election, 2013

Article: Mongolian presidential election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj {pictured) is reelected as President of Mongolia. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press via Idaho Statesmen
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Kelapstick (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Mongolkhun (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Death of Marc Rich

Nominator's comments: one of the most successful commodities traders in history, inventor of the spot market for crude oil, was a most-wanted fugitive sought by the US government for nearly two decades, recipient of one of the most controversial US presidential pardons --Dezastru (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Which of the three RD criteria are you asserting Mr. Rich meets, and can you explain how he meets said criteria? Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich qualifies under criteria 1 ("The deceased ... had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region") and 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"). (1) His activities in the oil industry had a huge impact on economies of both Israel and Switzerland. (2) He was widely regarded as one of the most influential commodities traders in history; he was dubbed "the King of Oil" and "the King of Commodities," and he has been credited as an inventor (some say the inventor) of the modern oil trade.

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

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

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

"'He actually bought and sold the earth's crust. Everything in your iPhone, your computer and your light bulb, Rich was involved in buying, selling and delivering,' said Copetas [the author of "Metal Men: How Marc Rich Defrauded the Country, Evaded the Law, and Became the World's Most Sought after Corporate Criminal"]. 'He invented the spot oil market and he's the only individual in history to have successfully manipulated OPEC, the oil companies and ultimately the price of oil in the United States and the United States government.' ...

'And if the federal prosecutors had caught him at the time, they were ready to slap him with charges of treason that would make the kerfuffle over Edward Snowden look like a spat between two gerbils,' said Copetas.

Many of today’s biggest oil and metals traders trace their roots back to Rich, who expanded the spot market for oil in the 1970s, wresting business away from the world’s biggest oil companies." Financial Times

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

"he deserves credit as one of the greatest creators and sharers of wealth in business history.

His most visible legacy is Glencore Xstrata, one of the world’s largest natural resources companies. Glencore was formerly Rich’s private holding company: Marc Rich + Co. Trading houses following in Rich’s footsteps are now a key part of Swiss growth and prosperity. A third of world trading in petroleum is handled by Swiss-based groups including Vitol, Gunvor and Mercuria.

Today’s world oil markets are partly the product of Rich’s vision." Financial Times

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

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

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

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

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

• Support this is a weird but good borderline case. He can be considered the richest fugitive ever to buy a pardon as a minimum qualifier. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - death update is insufficient (2 sentences). Kind of a weird situation where people aren't likely to come out with "I'm sad he died" reactions in droves, but I imagine there has to be at least some of reaction out there. If the update can be expanded with reaction or in any other way I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If his death is important, it will not be necessary to wait for "he was such a huge influence" quotes. There are always the "on news of his death, The True Fork Times called him the greatest of the..." quotes. This is a borderline nomination that needs a good update. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of what more would need to be added to the death update? He was 78, so his death from a stroke wasn't really a surprise. Dezastru (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have just posted a whole bunch of stuff above (you should sign it) which is presumably commentary from the last few days. Copy some of those into the death section saying. On his death, the Financial Times said "yatta yatta yatta" for a few papers and it will be quite good. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Gliese 667 C planets

Nominator's comments: Multiple planets have been found orbiting around Gliese 667 C, a red dwarf star. Three of the planets found are habitable (according to the Fox News source). The CNN source and the European Southern Observatory source say the planets may be habitable. If anyone has a different idea for a blurb, feel free to make an altblurb. Andise1 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are the habitability claims reported in scientific sources or the original journals? What does the specific original wording say from the people who actually made the discovery and/or are recognized experts in the field? --Jayron32 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the research from the astronomers who made the observations in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics. Andise1 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The planets exist within the (theoretical) habitable zone. It is impossible to say whether the planets are actually habitable with current technology. I do not believe such discoveries are rare anymore, but this one has generated a lot of press coverage, so I'm on the fence as to notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with ThaddeusB, I would like just a bit more. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit more what? Are you asking for more sources about this news item? (I am just trying to understand what you want more of.) Andise1 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree in asking "more 'what'?". If you specify, it should be available. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What make this discover any different than all the previous times they've said an exoplanet is in the habitable zone. The answer is, it seems, nothing. Abductive (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Incredibly well updated article, very notable first discovery of more than one habitable planet orbitting a star. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Habitability simply means a planet is the right temperature (32 to 212 degrees) that its oceans never over- freeze or boil. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edward Snowden

Sergiy Stakhovsky

[Posted] Cambodian Tailorbird

Nominator's comments: A new bird species. Kind of rare story, especially if the bird is found in a densely populated area. The article needs some work, though. --Tone 13:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's not a rare story at all. Just try googling something like "new bird species discovered 2012". Formerip (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Onion: Scientists Probably Discover A New Species Of Frog --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :) Well, there's Bird species new to science described in the 2010s that says that there are around five new species discovered per year, some of those extinct. However, this one had a particular interesting backstory, I thought it could be a nice science story on ITN again. Also, TFP regularly features birds :P --Tone 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That table doesn't look very reliable - the numbers are completely unsourced. Even if it is accurate, it says 22 new species of bird have been discovered so far this year. 22! Formerip (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like that we have a proper good news story and one that should interest folks around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A discovered of a new living bird species is rare. (The above discussion largely missing that most newly named bird species are extinct.) The discovery of a new animal species of any kind within a major city is very rare. Combining the two, this is an extremely rare situation well worth ITN coverage (when the article is built up beyond a micro stub). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. I wouldn't tell you it's not rare if it was rare. Here's a few more examples of it happening in June 2013, which I just Googled in about 20 seconds: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare is a relative term. Looking at the last 15 years, the average seems to be in the 4-6 range, which is rare in my book. In any case, how many species can you find that were discovered living in a city of 2 million people form the last 15 years? That is the basis I am supporting on - "just" being a new species alone wouldn't do it for me. Finding a new bird in the Amazon jungle and finding a new bird in a densely populated area are quite different situations (IMO). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, link [2] is a fossil species and link [4] doesn't refer to a new species at all, but rather someone seeing a bird they personally had never seen before. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, like I said, about 20 seconds. It still means that this is, at the very least, the SEVENTEENTH new species of living bird to be announced so far this month. But where TF are you getting a 4-6 range from? It seems to be at least one every few weeks. And there also doesn't seem to be anything particularly rare about finding a new species in the city: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Formerip (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on the 15 new Amazon birds makes clear, that itself was quite an exceptional event ("It’s been 140 years since as many new Brazilian bird species were described at one time."). The 35,000+ entry (include subspecies) IOC World Bird list shows 3 extant new (full) species for 2012, 4 for 2011, 4 for 2010, 9 for 2009, 7 for 2008, 7 for 2007, 6 for 2006, 5 for 2005, etc. Looks like 1998 was the most recent year with more than 10 (11). I went back to 1980 eyeballing it and didn't see a single year where there were 15+ new species (a couple years had more than 15 new subspecies though).

As to the city examples, you list a bee (hardly the same thing as a new vertebrate), a NYC frog (which was posted on ITN I believe), a dolphin (obviously not found living within the city), a shark (ditto), and an ant (like the bee, not as surprising as a vertebrate). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercifully, no we didn't post the New York frog because, all said and done, it was just someone discovering yet another frog. The dolphin was indeed found living in the city, and the shark was found dead in the city. Formerip (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it wasn't posted (a different frog was around the same time, which is what I was probably thinking off. The NYC frog had approximately the same support and opposition, which the opposition being partially based off the lack of name/article for the species... OK the dolphin was technically living in the city (its bay), but it wasn't living undetected amongst a dense population of humans which is obviously what I meant. A shark being caught it the ocean and found in a fish market is hardly a similar situation at all. Insects are poorly described in general (as few as 10% of species have been described), so finding new insects in a city is not nearly as surprising.

Let's say the frog and the dolphin count. That means 3 vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. That is certainly a rate (1/year) that I would call very rare. I think we can afford 1 such story on ITN per year - we have about 1 per week on a natural disaster, for example. Furthermore, the frog and dolphin were only distinguishable via DNA testing which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean that three vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. It just means I was able to find three on Google in 20 seconds flat. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support significant new bird and mammal species discoveries are infrequent enough to be notable. The article is woefully undersized, for the three paragraph minimum however. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose New species of animals are dound all the time what makes this so important. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between any random species (of which there truly all many) and a high order vertebrate (of which there are few discoveries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New species of birds are not found all the time, and not in major cities. Of new animals, about 20,000 a year are described, almost all insects, and one or two are birds. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Kevin Rudd

Articles: Kevin Rudd (talk · history · tag) and Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former prime minister Kevin Rudd (pictured) wins leadership of the Australian Labor Party against incumbent Julia Gillard, becoming Prime Minister of Australia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Julia Gillard resigns as Prime Minister of Australia after losing leadership of the Australian Labor Party.
News source(s): New Zealand Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, ITV, ABC
Credits:

• Nominated by Evanh2008 (talk · give credit)

Both articles updated

 -- Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what I'm supposed to put in the updater field. I'm sure someone here knows, so feel free to fix that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait - it's not 100% clear that Rudd will be the next Prime Minister. It's probable, but there's also a chance that the independents will back Tony Abbott. Constitutional crisis looms.... The Age. So wait until we actually have a new Prime Minister to add. Worldwide readers don't care who the leader of the Australian Labor Party is, but once we get a new PM, then it's front-page-worthy. Adpete (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: p.s. whether or not he becomes PM tomorrow, he is the 26th PM of Australia. Australian convention is to count them only once. Adpete (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Thanks for that. I'll just remove "the," in that case. To the larger issue, I suppose we can place it on hold for 12-24 hours, then? International news sources seem to be reporting Rudd's return as a given, but you're right to point out that it's a bit more complicated than that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clear-ish picture of the forthcoming chain of events is emerging. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting now, minus the bit about him becoming PM (until he is sworn in). A sitting PM getting axed by her own party is newsworthy enough to post right now. The blurb can be updated if (and, I assume, when), Rudd is sworn in. We should definitely not do nothing until Rudd is sworn in. It would be silly to wait with the ticker blank given that the wait could be almost 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A rare event; the rough equivalent of a US President losing their re-election bid in the primaries. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too premature at this stage. He has simply won a leadership challenge within the party. He still must go through a confidence motion and win support of independents, as the party does not carry a majority in parliament. There's a chance, remote as it may be, that he may not become PM. --Dorsal Axe 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Just curious, since this is my first time ITN'ing anything, but what happens if I change the blurb to cut out the PM bit?
• Wait until there is an official change in PM (which is, technically, a matter for the [[Queen/Gov. Gen.). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. The BBC News article says "Ms Gillard must write to Governor General Quentin Bryce stating that she is resigning as prime minister before Mr Rudd can be sworn in." and implies that she has not dome so yet [12]. If so then she is technically still PM and it's just a change of party leadership, which is not ITN-worthy. A change of Prime Minister on the other hand certainly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gillard has resigned. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support a blurb announcing Julia Gillard's resignation as PM following the leadership challenge. However it is still not 100% clear who will succeed her. --Dorsal Axe 12:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a blurb on Gillard's resignation to the "altblurb" field. Sorry if that's out-of-process or something. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Dorsal Axe 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, once we have confirmation that he's been commissioned by the GG. From what was said at Gillard and Rudd's press conferences tonight it can certainly be inferred that Rudd has been given the official big tick, and the press is reporting it this way, but it won't hurt to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Support on significance for posting the resignation now, with an update when a successor is named. There's no reason I can think of why we can't do it that way. The resignation has been confirmed reliably, though information is a bit light in the Julia Gillard article. Is there a better bolded article or can we get that one a bit more expanded? If we do that, we can go with the alt-blurb now and expand as needed later. --Jayron32 13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I think I remarked something similar before when it came to something in Israel a long time ago. Julia Gillard losing the leadership vote is not significant enough for ITN nor her resigning as PM as a consequence. A new Australian PM would be, but that hasn't happened yet and it is unclear precisely who it will be or whether it's even going to really happen now as it's also possible that an early election will be called (for example, if sufficient independents demand it both leaders and the GG will have no choice, or even if they support Abbot he may just ask the GG to dissolve parliament) and I don't think the calling of an election even in these circumstances (not that far from the elections being expected and one of the reasons formthe challenge is to improve their chances or at least try to mitigate their losses in the election) is significant enough for ITN. This isn't 1975, yet whatever some random articles may say but a resonable reality of a minority government. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to posting Gillard's resignation now and then updating the blurb when a new PM is appointed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb. Resignation as PM and losing party support while in office is significant in governance of a country. Rwos (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once Rudd becomes PM. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as soon as he's confirmed as PM. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb. This could be Australia's only shot at a posting all summer and a prime minister resigning is enough. We don't need to wait to see what happens next and, as has been pointed out already, what happens next may turn out not to be ITN-worthy. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment It is not summer in many parts of the world, including the southern hemisphere. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Which article(s) are being proposed for bolding (i.e. which have the best updates)? --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support regardless of how unlikely it is we'll hear of Australia again before Halloween. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has been announced that Kevin Rudd will be sworn in as Prime Minister by the Governor-General in approximately one hour (at 9:30 a.m. local time or 2330 GMT/UTC): [13]. This is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented situation - a Prime Minister who was ousted in a party coup has then ousted his successor in another coup to get his old job as PM back. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready sworn in. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can someone confirm that source? The video's giving me issues. It says "is" but may mean "about to be". μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Guardian's liveblog, the swearing-in has not taken place yet. I'll keep an eye on it and update here when that changes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay - The Guardian says it's official. Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sworn in - it's official [14]. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] SCOTUS Decision on Defense of Marriage Act

Nominator's comments: Nearly any way this is ruled will be important in the US, even if there are a number of subtleties or even a partial decision. It is possible that the decision is determined to do effectively nothing, but this seems very very unlikely. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

what did the bird ever do to you? -- Ashish-g55 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Cambodia for that matter.--85.211.126.62 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Initially i was unsure about this but this is getting more attention than i would have expected. The ruling may not be legalizing same sex marriages country wide but it might as well could have... ill support it. -- Ashish-g55 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't make it legal everywhere, but it really paves the way for federal recognition. A major international news item per Spat. A larger federal ruling than anything before. 72.130.52.73 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how to measure these things, but I'd suggest it is not as large as the federal ruling legalising gay marriage in Brazil two months ago, which we declined to post for lack of worldwide impact. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd argue for inclusion of both Brazil and US rulings, the US ruling affects twice as many people, more if you consider the "ripple effects"-- the US accepts 1 million immigrants a year-- and bi-national same-sex spouses of US citizens just experienced a major change to their immigration status. That's a worldwide impact.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I just thought I'd point out that 'international significance' does not seem to be a disqualifier for many other articles posted on ITN. Just to name a few current ones: Silvio Berlusconi scandal, floods in Canada, there's even one about North American hockey. So to suggest that this news should be disqualified for lack of international significance seems wrong to me, especially since it probably has much more significance than hockey. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is nowhere nearly as significant as it would have been if the SCOTUS had ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In fact, they refused to tackle the question; this ruling basically overturns a ban and a 1996 bill, but makes no real headway in terms of marriage equality. Surely France's ruling two months ago would have been a better choice. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Federal benefits to SSM couples is huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Although this decision isn't an international agreement/whatever, it will have a lasting effect in the United States, and this could easily be a step towards international action. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This procedural ruling from SCOTUS could have international impact? What about the actual legalisation of same-sex marriage by several nations recently? I suggest you look again at WP:CRYSTAL. Claiming that SCOTUS has international influence where the actual elected government of France doesn't looks like a pretty insular view, smacking of American exceptionalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of us supporting this ITN item would have supported the French news items as well. But let's be fair-- the US has 5x the population of France, and let's be honest, the US is substantially more influential than most nations. Federal government recognition of SSM has immediate consequences for people globally-- via immigration decisions and diplomacy. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of all those people who 'would have' supported the French story to go and find other things to do when it was actually under discussion. France is more influential than most other nations, too. But crucially, the DOMA decision does not enable one single same-sex couple to get married - it's all about the inter-state effects of doing so. The separate striking down of the appeal on CA Prop 8 (for lack of standing) has a more direct effect on same-sex marriages, but that's not a whole nation. Seriously, this is looking like a particularly nasty instance of US-centrism here. I don't say that often, but for some reason, I seem to say it a lot about LGBT issues. The hopeless fragmentation of the US's civil rights law, and the limitless arcanity of its judicial procedures, are not the fault of the 95% or so of LGBT people who live in other nations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's certainly a complex issue, but the decision has gotten extremely broad attention both in and out of the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If a country legalising same-sex marriage is not significant enough to post (without more), which seems to be the current position here, I don't see how this ruling - which doesn't even go that far - can be important enough. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I listened to a story on The World, (a show jointly produced by Public Radio International and the BBC) which specifically aimed to discuss the international impact of this decision, it miught be worth looking at what they had to say about it [16] Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per NelJack, FormerIP, and especially 331dot.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a world power who had an act on the books that has now been determined to be against their founding principles. This isn't about the gay marriage aspect of it, this is about the repealing of DOMA by the SCOTUS after 10+ years on the books as a landmark decision in countries that explicitly define marriage. Regardless, I see a lot of opposes such as "well we didn't post this so we can't post DOMA" which is just plain crap. This is in international news, and it is "in the news". None of the opposes have denied that this is in the news, just that it's not big enough. Charmlet (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was discussing the ruling with friends (non-editors but frequent readers) who went specifically to the Main Page to find the link to the United States v. Windsor article, expecting to see a blurb on ITN and we were all shocked that there wasn't anything at all here considering the international attention this is getting. Instead, we are still featuring stale news about the Stanley Cup that has been over for a couple days now and is certainly no where near the historic level of the Supreme Court decision. People are coming to Wikipedia to find out more information about this decision and implications with it being so widely broadcasted. This should have been posted several hours ago. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think ITN truly serves readers' interest like that anymore (if it ever did), you're mistaken. Calidum Sistere 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. As an editor (though I don't participate at ITN often), it is easy to get tunnel vision and insular. It was certainly a bit jarring to be looking at the Main Page today through the eyes of several readers and seeing how it was clearly failing our readership at this point. We (the readers and I) took it for granted that a dynamic medium like Wikipedia would be on top of something so monumental and internationally newsworthy. We were all obviously wrong. While I can peak behind the curtain at the ITN process, readers like my friends will never stray to pages like this and will just be left bewildered and empty handed when they come to the Main Page expecting Wikipedia to be covering something that nearly every single major international news source is covering as an historic event. [17] [18][19][20] [21][22][23][24][25][26] Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they wanted to find the article, they could do what I often do. Come here to this page. If it is not in ITN it will be on ITN/C. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Bit of an ambiguity in English there. Depends if you read it as "benefits to opposite sex-marriages were limited" or "benefits were only given to opposite sex marriages". Perhaps we could change "limiting to opposite-sex" to "restricting to opposite-sex". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked, should be unambiguous now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Voting Rights Act of 1965 (talk · history · tag) and Shelby County v. Holder (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (signing pictured) is struck down as unconstitutional. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

• Nominated by DecafGrub74393 (talk · give credit)

 DecafGrub47393 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent Deaths: Lau Kar-leung

Nominator's comments: Lau Kar-leung was a famous Hong Kong director and Martial Arts master. According to Twitch Films, "In a career spanning more than 60 years, Lau starred in - and provided action choreography for - more than 70 films." Twitch Films also says that Lau Kar-leung "directed more than 25 feature films himself." According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lau Kar-leung is "a fourth-generation direct disciple of martial arts legend Wong Fei-Hung." He has worked with notable people such as Chang Cheh and Jackie Chan during his career. At the Hong Kong Film Awards, Lau won the award for Best Action Choreography for the film Drunken Master II in 1995. He also won the lifetime achievement award at the 2010 Hong Kong Film Awards. In 2005, he won a lifetime achievement award at the Golden Bauhinia Awards. He has won two Golden Horse Awards for his films Drunken Master II (in 1994) and Seven Swords (in 2005). Andise1 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD of Richard Matheson

[Posted] Change of leadership in Qatar

Nominator's comments: Abdication of a reigning monarch in this area of the world is quite unprecedented Hektor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support. Abdications of reigning monarchs in countries where they have a constitutional role are not common anywhere in the world. ISTR we posted the abdication of Beatrix of the Netherlands so there ins't a reason not to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cam e here to nominate. Definitely worth posting per ITNR as well. Except the page has NO update and is short of sources.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. When a cleanup has been made, this can go up on ITN. --Tone 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since it is clearly notable. Egeymi (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Chicago Blackhawks win the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals

Nominator's comments: Final of Big Four North American Sport, International Interest in Hockey, in WP:INTR. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Summary has been expanded. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 04:51, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] Mick Aston

Nominator's comments: Noted British Archaeologist and presenter of Time Team. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 08:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Reading his article, he seems to be notable enough in his field to be posted IMO. We don't see many archaeologists. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Wait. Yes he absolutely meets the RD criteria as far as I am concerned (lifetime achievement award, almost certainly the most notable archaeologist in Britain) but there isn't enough detail about his death available yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems that exact details are not going to be immediately forthcomming, but the article has been updated (kudos to The Rambling Man), so I don't see any reason to hold off any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having met him I felt compelled to come here and lend my support for this nomination. He was a staple of the British archaeological scene. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I appreciate that he won't be well known outside of Britain, but I would argue he's been a major player in his field and is helping bridge that to TV and his contributions to historical knowledge itself is significant. Time_Team#Other_formats shows the TV program itself has been exported abroad if anyone has regional notability concerns. CaptRik (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD assuming his article is updated with a couple of sentences about his death. I can't see anything at all in the article itself (other than the past tense) to suggest he's passed away. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunnit myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull, here is a case of somebody known only locally, and only from television. There are a lot of experts and specialists on television documentary series. What awards did he win? Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was more than just a specialist on a documentary - he was co-creator, site director and archaeological consultant for 18 years of the programme's 20 year run. He received a lifetime achievement award last year for his role in popularising archaeology and his distinguished academic work. He has been widely described as the most notable archaeologist since Mortimer Wheeler (died 1976) (e.g. [27]). As noted above, Time Team is not just a local TV program, and his death was reported in Australia 1 2, New Zealand, Nigeria [28], USA and likely elsewhere. Several of those are copies of British articles but papers don't do that for every TV expert that dies. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi conviction

Nominator's comments: Details just emerging, but is sentenced to 7 years and banned from hlding public office. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He has two more appeals possible. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That's not a reason, Medeis. We often post significant criminal convictions and appeals are always possible (even though at least one is a racing certainty in this case), but not guaranteed to be as newsworthy. Formerip (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reason, yes, there are plenty of criminal matters we have had nominated and not published because they had not reached final appeal, and no, appeals don't go on indefinitely, he has two per Italian law. There is no encyclopedic interest here. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It doesnt matter if he has appeals or not. Those appeals will take years and given who he is, even after the appeals he may never see inside of a jail cell. Him getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless of future appeals. -- Ashish-g55 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Per Ashishg55. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the option of adding in the (threatened) collapse of the ruling coalition to the blurb if that happens. Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We would never post any convictions if the fact that appeals hadn't been exhausted disqualified them. This is in the news now and is notable now. People understand that defendants have a right to appeal convictions. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, "Pending appeals, Berlusconi is sentenced..." But he's not yet been remanded to prison, has he? I'll be quite happy to support a "Berlusconi begins serving..." blurb next decade, when it happens. But a sentence in Italy is like a hurricane season forecast. In the meantime this is no where near the top of the news, nor objectively (as opposed to ideologically: ..."given who he is...getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless") important. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent Deaths: Gary David Goldberg

Nominator's comments: Gary David Goldberg was the creator/producer of Family Ties, Spin City, and Brooklyn Bridge. Andise1 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Bobby Bland

Nominator's comments: Bobby Bland was a blues and soul singer. He was one of the original members of the Beale Streeters. In 1981, he was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1992. He also received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997. Andise1 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Bland played a major role in the history of blues and R&B music. His numerous hits helped define an era and his distinctive voice was unforgettable. Has won all the big-ticket music honors. Jusdafax 04:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've never heard of him (not my era or style of music) but with two hall of fame inductions and a lifetime achievement award it's clear he was a very notable person in his field. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/not ready on article/update quality - the article is short and not well referenced. One sentence on his death is not sufficient to meet ITN update standards. If article quality is improved, I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree with ThaddeusB. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom, Jusda, and Thryd. Contrary to IP 76, the article is much improved since ThaddeusB's qualified oppose. ThadB, has the article improved enough yet? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose was qualified also, which is why I said I agreed with Thaddeus. There have been some minor improvements since Thaddeus posted, but overall, the quality of the article hasn't changed much. The Biography section is significantly undersourced and one source is relied on too heavily. When this thread started there were 12 sources. Since then, just three have been added, primarily to verify the death. And the death content itself hasn't expanded much. So my concerns, like Thad's, are based on the the totality of those issues. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - The career section is modestly improved, but remains at least half unsourced (likely closer to 2/3rds). The death material meets the bare minimum, but is insufficient in light of the overall article quality. Either the death material needs expanded substantially or the article needs to be well sourced for me to support. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some further updating now done, with refs - will probably do some more today and tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Richard Matheson

Nominator's comments: Celebrated SF writer and screenwriter: Incredible Shrinking Man, I am Legend, Duel, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet (The Twilight Zone), etc, etc. --Jheald (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obviously a very important author. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major figure in his field. His work on The Twilight Zone alone would make him notable. Jusdafax 04:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (pending update) - A significant author whose works have been picked up on television and in the cinema. Was due to be awarded the visionary award at the Saturn Awards tomorrow. Miyagawa (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' - article referencing is poor, with most of the career section unreferenced. I would also need to more than a single sentence on his death to support (e.g. reactions, "legacy" info, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the "tribute" section is badly written and entirely unreferenced. Otherwise a notable author. Although not sure what he has over James Herbert who didn't make it to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Herbert? In which case, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Can you cite "far more important"? I doubt it. (Herbert had awards, halls of fame, movies, lifetime awards etc etc etc). Please try to be neutral here. And there's nothing about his death or the reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once updated - highly important author and screenwriter. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Have added a number of trubutes to page. Article should be good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work so far, there's still a section with a maintenance tag at the top.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok now.yorkshiresky (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nik Wallenda high wire walk across the Grand Canyon

Nominator's comments: No human has ever successfully crossed the Grand Canyon via a high wire before (until Nik Wallenda did). Also, unlike his previous walk across Niagra Falls, he had no tether or safety harness or anything to protect him if he fell. Nik Wallenda's walk across Niagra Falls was [posted on ITN.] Andise1 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ThaddeusB had nominated this event in the section above, a few minutes after this nomination. I have closed ThaddeusB's nom, and I am copying his nom comments below to keep the discussion in one place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a Washington Post report. Click on it and see what the heading says. Moriori (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different sources say different things. As I noted below, the AP (and sources that follow it such as Washington Post) say "near" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak oppose - Taken at face value, I was prepared to support this. But this wasn't Wallenda's longest walk, and more importantly, it wasn't actually at the Grand Canyon,[29] although it was nearby. Yes, it's a technicality, but it makes for a much less interesting story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hardly. "Grand Canyon" is inaccurate. Perhaps something like this, or this or this for instance. Yes, there are media reports which say canyon, but we shouldn't allow their sloppy journalism to influence our standards. Moriori (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The USGS refers to the location as part of the "Grand Canyon area". It also states that the Grand Canyon formation includes the Little Colorado River Formation. [30] At least geologically speaking, Wallenda did cross the Grand Canyon. (But we obvious can use a different wording if wording is the only concern.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A bit off topic, but could someone please fix the current events portal for June 23, as it is currently a red link. The portal link is now fixed. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We have settle the GC/not GC issue on the article. For the one sentence (lead) version, we settled on "walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge". This I suggest:

ALT: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge.

The feat is equally impressive whether he technically crossed the GC (according to the USGS he did) or a rock formation with the same properties but up river from the "real" Grand Canyon (i.e. the widest part in the National Park). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

FYI... the nominator's own, one-sentence source, the Washington Post story (via the AP), actually contradicts the notion that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. Both the title and body say that it was near the GC. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree with the objections raised above. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, tabloid stunt. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not saying the stunt was a mere stunt? μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montenegro bus crash

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If that's a question, you just answered your own—"albeit in an accident".  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albania election

Nominator's comments: Winner sh9uld be Socialist Party of Albania.. Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kashmir tourists attack

Nominator's comments: This is the first time that foreign tourists have been attacked/shot in the province, according to Reuters. Tourists being shot and killed does not seem like an everyday thing, which is why I decided to nominate this event to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once the article is up to ITN standards. Calidum Sistere 06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, casualties from multiple countries. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose nine casualties in an attack in Pakistan is not notable by ITN standards for war torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, etc. There are no expectations of international repercussions (China being Pak's best friend are not going to escalate this)Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think it's that foreigners are more important, but it does provide an international scope, especially in this case where the victims were from three countries. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support What makes this particularly notable is that the people killed were apparently climbers headed up Nanga Parbat, the ninth highest mountain in the world and considered extremely difficult -- many people have died attempting it. So these were not your ordinary tourists. (I should note, though, that it doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers.) Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So you support because "killed were apparently climbers" although "doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers". --ELEKHH^T 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, sorry. I would support anyway, but if it turns out to be correct that they were climbers then it becomes a strong support. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The article has now been updated, and will be ready for being posted provided there is sufficient support. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: One of the headlines in many international news media. --RJFF (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this seems to be notable because the victims were foreigners, which is not an encyclopedic viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Medeis.  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]