Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

April 30Edit


[Posted] Century of centuriesEdit

Article: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (talk, history)
Blurb: Neil Robertson becomes the first snooker player to score 100 century breaks in a single season.
News source(s): ESPN, BBC +Daily Mail, The Times, The Guardian, Sidney Morning Herald, ABC.au, The Gulf News (UAE), GSP.ro, Abola.pt

Nominator's comments: Normally such a record would be shut down, but this feat is so outstanding (considering that the previous record was 61) that I really think it deserves to be ITN-featured. There are only around 50 players who have scored these many in their whole careers. For those not familiar with this field, I would dare to compare this to a soccer player scoring 100 goals in a season. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support - This certainly seems to be an outstanding achievement in the field - or on the baize, as the case may be. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any coverage of this beyond ESPN? 331dot (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The game ended 30 mins ago. Wait for the morning, and the UK should be full of it. See this thread for news when he got to 99. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Added a few that I found today. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What does "Normally such a record would be shut down" mean? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be against posting incremental seasonal records in scoring sports such as when he got the #62 (even if it was soccer); that is unless the record is really notable for a landmark such as is the case here. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean "shot down", as in quickly rejected? 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's it. I'm still confused. I didn't think Nergaal's post was an answer to my question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal is saying that nominations of this nature are routinely rejected, but that this one might be special enough to warrant posting anyway. Resolute 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If that's really what he's saying, he's not saying it very clearly, and therefore is distracting from his nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear to me. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)×2 I read it as "Normally a nomination to post a sporting record like this on ITN would be quickly rejected. However this event is such a significant milestone and so much beyond the previous record that it is worth posting.", and to me at least Nergaal's latest comment backs up that interpretation. Maybe it's a variety of English thing? Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I was reading it as referring to something internal, within the sport, like somehow preventing someone from scoring, and effectively therefore part of the story. But you're saying it isn't? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't part of the story. Snooker is turn-based, once someone is at the table there is no way to prevent them scoring if they pot a ball. The challenge is to leave the balls in such a position at the end of your turn that it is as difficult as possible for your opponent to legally pot a ball (ideally so difficult it is not possible at all). Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to say that normally breaking records in less-popular sports is usually a snow-oppose. In this case, the record is sufficiently outstanding to break through that lower threshold of popularity. Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unsure at this point, I want to see how much coverage this actually gets in the media. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've posted some links, including some outside of UK. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Support now that coverage is clear. This is being treated as significant and none of the opposes below are relevant, so I don't see a reason not to post. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever seen snooker played in a pub? I know I haven't. The Senior Conservative club, or perhaps the smoking room of the Dorchester, might be a different matter. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Yes I have. It was a big pub, too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised by these reactions. I have seen a bunch of random people play cricked on a side-walk, but that does not make a century record in cricket not notable. I am pretty sure that some of the snooker players these days beat ANY cricket players in terms of winnings and sponsorship. Please go check List of snooker millionaires for your self-education. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
After looking at the cricked records, I would say that Tendulkar's record would be comparable to 1000 career centuries (i.e. not in a season) in snooker. Nergaal (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Then you know nothing about cricket. Or "cricked". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Then you know nothing about how little you know sir. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Call me back when someone plays 100 Test or ODI matches in one year. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - seems to be a record that is actually cared about in the sport (unlike the last one of these) and not something that is likely to be beat any time soon. However, the article will need improved - the first two sections are basically unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of refs, especially to those tow sections. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are bigger sport stories we haven't included recently. Calidum 17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Such as? Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Tons. Have a look back through the archive if you can manage it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear troller, point to a single one out of those tons. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a decent record and a sport which is highly under-represented given the global interest. Recent stories we didn't run have no effect at all on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Why the hell not? If it's never been done before and has never been done again, do it. Pull the trigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This IS a great and unique achievement. I was puzzled by the nomination (and I still think the title isn't very helpful), but now I know what it is I'm all for it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems like a significant achievement, and a chance to post about a sport that we don't usually. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have to admit that I didn't know the difference between pool and snooker before this nom but after looking at the sources it became quite clear that this is a significant and newsworthy achievement in the sport. AgneCheese/Wine 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Post-posting support Just wanted to mention I'm delighted to see this on ITN. Massive achievement in a popular sport, should be up there. Fgf10 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't otherwise be posted? Eh, isn't snooker listed in WP:ITNR? –HTD 07:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The world championship is, but obviously this sort of record is not really amenable to ITN/R. GoldenRing (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but an ITNR event can also lead to other blurbs which are related to it. Not all the time, though. –HTD 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams arrested for murderEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Murder of Jean McConville (talk, history) and Gerry Adams (talk, history)
Blurb: Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams (pictured) is arrested for the 1972 murder of Jean McConville.
Alternative blurb: Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams (pictured) is arrested in connection with the 1972 murder of Jean McConville.
News source(s): (BBC), (Irish Independent) NBC News (Guardian) (Sky News) (CBS News) (ABC News)

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Internationally notable Irish politician and president of the Sinn Féin party. Notable murder case. --Bruzaholm (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too early. We do not even know if he is arrested really. If he is charged or found guilty of this murder then perhaps.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The arrest is news now(Adams also acknowledged he was arrested); any potential future action might not be, as much at least. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I guarantee that if Adams is convicted or even charged that will be big news - bigger that this, I would say. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is huge, major figure arrested in a significant case. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

*Support. Political leaders being arrested for murder is a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A well-known international leader arrested for murder. Adams is a figure who draws plenty of interest. Mvblair (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He has not been arrested for the murder, which implies he has subsequently been charged with it; he has been arrested in connection with the case. Even if a charge is brought, it could easily be for something like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It's further been suggested (by SF, admittedly) that the timing of this event is nakedly political. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Innocent until proven guilty. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No one is saying he is guilty or innocent; just that he was arrested. Notable political figures being arrested for alleged involvement in serious crimes is notable. It doesn't mean he did it. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The arrest itself is notable. Calidum 22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe so. But as written, the blurb is simply wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the arrest is notable. I've written an altblurb to clarify that he has been arrested "in connection with" the murder (a standard phrasing in the UK at least) rather than arrested on suspicion of being the murderer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Support alt blurb. Mvblair (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on BLP grounds Posting this will give a misleading impression to anyone not familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. An arrest in England does not have the same significance as an arrest in the US or other countries. Really all this boils down to is that Adams voluntarily went to the police and they arrested him so that he would have more rights when he was questioned. But how many readers are going to realise that when they see the blurb? It is an entirely routine step that in no way suggests that the police intend to charge him or indeed that they have any evidence against him. This article gives a good explanation about arrests in England.[1]. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I will add that several of the support votes are based on factual inaccuracies, not surprisingly in light of the blurb. Adams has not been arrested "for murder" or even for "alleged involvement in serious crimes". Neljack (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Neljack. I don't believe we have ever posted a mere questioning by the police before, and for good reason - reporting questioning implies a level of guilt or at least strong suspicion, a serious BLP problem. No problem revisiting if/when he is charged with something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oscar P? μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose now; the more I read about this, the less I support it. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The consensus is to post convictions. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If he is convicted, then post. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Total BLP violation as drafted. Wait to see if he is charged. Arrest is a technicality and, as written, implies far more than it is legitimate to imply at this stage. Leaky Caldron 09:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Which provision of WP:BLP does this violate? WP:BLPCRIME states that, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Gerry Adams does not fall into that category. I would be more inclined to oppose this on notability grounds. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't violate it. People just throw that about in an attempt to look smart. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That looks awfully like an accusation of bad faith. Would you like to withdraw it, or could you be more specific? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The BLP problem is that the blurb would convey a misleading impression to the majority of readers who aren't familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. Neljack (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Readers aren't stupid, and the UK legal system isn't as complicated as you are trying to make out, even for Americans. The police arrested him because they think he ordered this murder, and they have sufficient evidence to question him under caution - which is a decision that goes well beyond mere 'suspicion' (as a layman/tabloid news reader would understand that term). He had no choice about whether or not he was going to go the police station, and he certainly wasn't arrested because the bobbies were terribly concerned about protecting his rights, as a mere procedural concern. If anything, it shows his situation is worse than what sometimes happens when people are merely under 'suspicion', an actual voluntary interview. It means that, by law, everything he has said in the last 48 hours has been recorded, and will be used in a court of law if he ends up charged. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hugely notable arrest. I am utterly baffled at the suggestion Wikipedia would be somehow damaging Adam's reputation by detailing on the front page what is already in his biographical article, and indeed across the world media. He got arrested in connection with a murder - it says exactly what it does on the tin, and is 100% true as written. And can we just clear up a few myths here? Being arrested in the UK means exactly the same as it does in the US - it means the police want to question you about something without you being able to leave if you don't like their questions. Yes, you have rights once you are under arrest, but the idea that UK police would choose to arrest you just to make sure you have those rights, is just nonsense. And in the UK, the only reason anyone ever turns up 'voluntarily' to a police station and then gets arrested once inside, is because the police let their solicitor know beforehand that they were going to be arrested soon, and it's up to them whether they want to save them the hassle and turn up at the station under their own steam, or have the police come out to arrest them and then (because in high profile cases like this they would always tip off the press about such an arrest) be snapped being led away from their house in handcuffs. Which is obviously the sort of bad publicity a politician like Gerry Adams would have wanted to avoid, even if it's true that he's 100% innocent. As for the 'connection' business and this idea that somehow this means he's not suspected of murder, come on - this is just standard press release terminology. The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it. He would get a life sentence if convicted, either way. The only useful thing that WSJ article says in relation to this, is to point out that the UK doesn't go in for plea bargains - so the news that he has been arrested means this story now has just three possible outcomes - either he gets released without charge, or he gets charged, tried, and found not guilty, or he gets charged, convicted, and sentenced to life. None of those outcomes can be described as not notable, not given how long he has been accused of being the leader of the IRA and of ordering this murder, hence there isn't really any reason to wait until something else happens before deciding whether to put it on the front page. The arrest is the notable event that set the wheels in motion on this story, everything else from now on is just a consequence. Lokie Dokie (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And what's your source for the police's motivation in arresting him, exactly? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you could say it's a combination of my bioligical make-up - two working eyes - and the fact I went to school and they taught me how to read. What's your excuse for pretending that he's been arrested for some other reason than ordering this murder? Do you have any basis for believing their motivation is something else, other than your own imagination? Lokie Dokie (talk)
This is an encyclopedia, not a saloon bar. We require sources, not speculation. You write an awful lot for someone who has misunderstood the law and is throwing accusations around. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And what the hell do you think I was reading with my eyes, if it wasn't not sources? And what have I misunderstood about the law, exactly? Come on, tell us all .... if you're not going to substantiate your own opinions with any facts to believe your pet theory about what motivated this arrest, you might as well do something useful here. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it." So, the entire core of your argument is "He looks like the murderer to me, so let's just throw it up on the front page." 98.180.53.48 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Try reading it again. The core of my argument isn't hard to fathom, but you got it quite spectacularly wrong. If anything, you've outlined the reason why many people are opposing - they seem to believe that the rest of the world is reporting right now that Gerry Adams is a murderer, and only Wikipedia is doing the right thing by completely ignoring it, protecting his reputation, which has of course been completely unsullied by any high profile accusations whatsoever up until now. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, point to a single reliable source that says that's why he's been arrested. We don't report speculation, especially of a serious matter like this. I hold no love for Mr Adams, but you're urging us on to post a headline which (in the first case) would be false, and in any case throws undue attention to what may be either a very early or a very minor stage of proceedings. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a damn good job Wikipedia doesn't report speculation, otherwise you'd probably be over at his biography adding all sorts of dubious nonsense to try and fool people into believing this arrest is for something other than the police suspect he ordered this murder. If you want to contradict that claim, which any intelligent perosn can put together with just a few seconds of research, then I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the source for that, because it's nonsense. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And to get to the heart of the issue I have here with your view, it's not remotely speculation that Adams has been arrested 'in connection with' a murder. Anyone who even thinks about claiming it is, is obviously trying to mislead readers of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that right now Gerry Adams is wishing that being arrested in connection with a murder is a minor procedural matter in the UK, but I'm quite sure he and his solicitor know differently. As for this being undue attention, sure, right - that's why the arrest alone (with zero further developments to report) has been the headline news in Britain for two days now, and why it was the lead item on Newsnight. The clue's in the title. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply said, there's a long-standing consensus of only posting convictions. This is to avoid sensationalisation. Without knowing any of the details here, the police can generally arrest anyone on mere suspicions, so giving arrests very high visibility is troubling for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    If you don't know any of the details, why are you even commenting? If Barack Obama was arrested 'in connection with' a murder tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered sensationalism to put it on the front page of Wikipedia. It would be extremely troubling if an encyclopedia completely ignored such a high profile arrest - and there's no real difference here. Unless you think it's a good thing for Wikipedia's reputation for it to be seen to be pretending Gerry Adams is a low profile individual, or that this is somehow the first time his name has been associated in a highly visible way with criminality. Christ, you'd be hard pressed to find a single serious news source in the last 30 years that was mentioning Gerry Adams that didn't point out that he is suspected of being a high ranking member of, if not the leader, of the IRA. And on that score, if all you needed to arrest people in the UK was mere suspicion, Gerry Adams would have had a very hard life indeed for the few decades. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    Again, there is a difference between being arrested in connection with a murder the US and in the UK. Until he is charged with anything this is a "too early nomination. But I agree that if he is charged with murder this would definitely be something for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    I read this reply a few times, and I have no idea how you got to that conclusion from what I wrote. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I wrote "without knowing any details" because I can't see anything here that would contradict the established procedure relating to criminal investigations and ITN. I don't think an MP is quite comparable to the acting head of state. There's no need to publicize the arrest, because we have the courts to make final decisions on all this, and we generally post each story only once to ITN. I am definitely sure that if he is convicted, it will be on the ITN. It's not about the notability of the person, but established procedure. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Established procedure suggests that someone of equivalent stature/importance has been arrested in connection with a murder before, and it was rejected. A claim I find hard to believe really. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb 1 is quite wrong. The alternative blurb seems correct but I think we should wait at least to see if he is charged with anything (I won't link to criminal charge because it doesn't apply here). BTW there is now Arrest of Gerry Adams which I suspect will get redirected or AFD'd before long. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This arrest (or rather, the fact he has now entered his second 24 hour period of detention), is the lead item on Newsnight tonight. That's not their ordinary news, that's their flagship current affairs programme. I'm watching it right now, and they seem pretty clear what this arrest was for. So, would someone here like to formulate an argument as to how Wikipedia is somehow more high-brow, more ethical, more reserved, more concerned about not maligning the reputations of innocent people, than Newsnight? Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - Lokie Dokie has made no edits other than to this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So what? Does that make you feel better about ignoring my criticisms of your theories about why the police arrested Adams? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one pushing a theory. I'm saying we shouldn't post your theory, for which you have been repeatedly asked to provide reliable sources, and you have not done so. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you're pushing a theory - the theory that Adams has been arrested for something other than ordering this murder, and thus the implications of it are somehow less serious than the level and longevity of the news coverage it has got in the real world, in the serious media, would suggest. Therefore, your refusal to substantiate that belief at all, in any way, with any kind of source, is telling indeed. Anyone with a brain, even half a brain, can figure out what the source is for my 'theory' (that the 'connection' is that he ordered the murder), so I'm not going to waste my time by providing it here. Just like petulant toddlers shouldn't be rewarded for bad behaviour, specious requests for sources shouldn't be entertained on Wikipedia. Of course, I will offer you my profuse apologies if it turns out this arrest was for, say, simply not reportig to the police that he knew someone was going to commit this murder. I'm only saying that to put meat on just how ridiculous your view is. You might as well be saying this arrest might be for a parking ticket, for all the credence it carries. Lokie Dokie (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe this discussion should be closed, as this is not going to be posted right now and there is no further need to draw this discussion out; I'm involved so I can't do it. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No further need? Right. So we can all just pretend that the above discussion is an accurate reflection of the UK legal system, or of the profile/reputation of Adams in public life? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Query For those who think that this should only be treated as news by Wikipedia if he is charged, would any of you like to explain the logic behind that? A large proportion of his biography is devoted to the fact he has for many decades been suspected of being a terrorist, a claim which has been repeated in a high profile manner by a wide variety of respectable, ethical and cautious sources, as well as in his biography at the 'anyone can add libel' Wikipedia, the number 1 Google result for his name. Therefore, it seems to me that it takes quite an imagination to believe that it wouldn't be news if he were to be released without charge, having been arrested for, for all intents and purposes, being a terrorist. The only explanation for that would be if you completely misunderstood what being arrested in the UK actually signifies (which is likely, given what's already been claimed as fact in here). If he were to be released without charge, you can guarantee it would completely change the way both he and the press portrayed him, going forward. Similarly, given it's pretty damn obvious that he will be saying absolutely nothing to the police except 'no comment' during questioning, if he is then subsequently charged, what will have actually happened between then and now? The evidence will be the same, the man's reputation will still be the same, his protestations of innocence would still continue, I would have thought, so really, to an outside observer, what would they think was the thing that changed your minds about the significance/newsworthiness between arrest and charge? I am trying really hard to find any kind of logic behind this opposition, and it's just not there. The only thing that holds any water is the claim of precedent, yet I would have thought that Gerry Adams was by far the most famous person arrested in Wikipedia's short life, at least for a serious crime like murder anyway, and certainly if restricting it further to just significant political leaders (obviosly I'm only talking about the jurisdictions where arresting political opponents on invented charges is not considered a legitimate part of the democratic process). Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Close I'll agree that this needs attention in so far as we have a more than two-to-one consensus opposing the nomination, and a sockpuppet now posting his wall of text on the issue. I'd do it myself, but I am sure someone else will agree this is no longer productive in any way. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this looks like a sockpuppet; the relative fluency and immediate arrival at a comparatively obscure discussion page are deeply suspicious. Unfortunately, it looks like one can't start WP:SPI without two accounts to compare. Do you have any idea whose hand is in the sock? I am unfortunately clueless. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Gerry Adams was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and technically could be held for up to 28 days. If questioning is to continue beyond 8pm today (48 hours after the arrest), however, the Police Service of Northern Ireland must seek authorisation from a judge, who must also decide how many additional days Addams can be held. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 Ürümqi attackEdit

Article: 2014 Ürümqi attack (talk, history)
Blurb: A bomb blast in Ürümqi kills 3 people and injures 79 others
News source(s): BBC, The Voice of Russia, ABC, The Hindu

Article updated

 Matty.007 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:WTAF – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's an essay? How about linking to the state, or the conflict? Thanks, Matty.007 18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • If the update in the article is sufficient, then that's fine. But we can't post an article that doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - There seem to be plenty of sources; we should at least be able to manage some new paragraphs in Xinjiang conflict. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the basis that there is no article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Update – article has now been created (although it's still very stubby). I'll try to expand it the best I can. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • support once all sections of the article are completed. Number of injuries means event seems sufficiently notable to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu and Lugnuts: would you support when the Initial Response section is expanded? Thanks, Matty.007 16:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, now it's expanded. Compare with 2014 Kunming attack. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll decide if I want to support later, but now that there is an article, I can at least strike my oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I did a little to update the article (obviously no where near as much as Bloom), and added myself to the updater, but please can someone tell me if I should remove myself? Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - although death toll is relatively low, it's a high-profile attack in a sensitive region that made headlines worldwide. Bloom6132 and Matty.007 should be commended for producing the well written article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted no complaints now article has been written. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Iraqi electionsEdit

Suggested withdrawal by nominator, agreed we need to wait for real results. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Elections take place in Iraq for the first time since American troops withdrew
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 Matty.007 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see just the elections taking place as worthy posting. I prefer waiting until results are announced and then add "for the first time since American troops have withdrawn" at the end of the blurb. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • General elections are ITNR, so this should be posted once the article is updated with the results. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting results once announced, per itnr. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting results. (am I just echoing Balaenoptera musculus today?) Rhodesisland (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Reading the BBC, they said it may be a case of months for the results. Close until then? Thanks, Matty.007 11:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD Bob HoskinsEdit

Article: Bob Hoskins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ITV, BBC, ABC, The Guardian, Variety

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hoskins was a well known English actor, who appeared in many films and won several awards for his performances including a BAFTA and Golden Globe. --JuneGloom Talk 12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I was about to add this, clicked edit and there it was! Totally support, the news has only just broken but has come from the agent of the actor himself. Miyagawa (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Internationally known. His article is translated into several dozen languages. — Wyliepedia 13:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This was also my reason for visiting this page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is what RD was made for, and a sad day indeed. Somchai Sun (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but only for RD. He is a notable but not convinced that he is at the very top of the acting field either.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Exactly what the section is intended for. Modest Genius talk 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 13:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "It's good to Support" (quoting from a line of one of his TV adverts), considering he was one of the best known British actors at the time and disagree with BabbaQ because he was then. Donnie Park (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose Really? I don't usually bang the "systemic bias" drum, but we're talking about an English actor who is not known as one of the leaders in his field. Meanwhile, people of greater importance from less covered nations can't get enough support. Just because you recognize the person who died doesn't mean they belong on RD. /minirant – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Other stuff exists. Also I looked at his career and awards and he is clearly notable enough in his field for RD, in my mind. You have validity in your mini rant though :P Somchai Sun (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "winning the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for his role in Mona Lisa" Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't object to this being posted - it seems from the tributes I've read and the awards he received that there is at least a reasonable case that he meets the death criteria - but I do question whether it should be posted less than an hour and a half after it was nominated. In the case of a famous person dying you may get people flocking to post their supports upon hearing the news just after the death has been announced, while those who might oppose may not be coming here to comment upon hearing it (or might not have heard it, particularly if they are in a different country). I think this is a particular risk in relation to be people from popular culture, whose fame often outstrips their significance. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Ahh, and a start class article is suddenly all right, after all the talk at RD: Hans Hollein below. Bravo! --ELEKHHT 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The article may be rated start class, but it really shouldn't be. It may be GA quality. Calidum 22:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree. I'd support this nomination, but posting it 90 minutes after nomination is not a good look, as with another recently. GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. Seems to be a no brainer. He may be not be Anthony Hopkins or Al Pacino, he's certainly notable enough for RD. As for this being posted "too soon," minimum posting times have been proposed before and rejected each time. Calidum 22:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose given the number of much more worthy candidates he pushed off the ticker. Otherwise support, even if he wasn't worthy to tie Andy Griffith's shoestrings. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
He didn't push anyone off [2] - RD was empty when Hoskins was added. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the magnitude of my oppose was directly proportional to the number he pushed overbourd, and still is. You are not going to trick me with your fancy maths. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Beware Poe's law. GoldenRing (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

April 29Edit


[Closed] RD: Al FeldsteinEdit

Now stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Al Feldstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN The AV Club

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He won several significant awards, including the Bram Stoker Award. --Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article update is minimal but probably appropriate for this sort of RD nomination. A very influential figure in American culture of the 70s and 80s, with spillover to other English-speaking countries. GoldenRing (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The AV Club has said "[his] tenure as the editor of Mad Magazine transformed it from a goofy comic book curiosity into arguably the most influential satirical voice of the 20th century." Worth a mention. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild Support Although the Bram Stoker award is not, say, an Emmy or Oscar, it is a big award for its genre and Feldstein's induction in the Comic Book Hall of Fame adds some weight too IMO. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Stale - unfortunately comments did not come in quick enough for a consensus to form until this was older than the oldest ITN blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] LA Clippers owner banned for lifeEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 16:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Donald Sterling (talk, history)
Blurb: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announces that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million USD after a recording of Sterling making racist comments is surfaced. as the NBA examines options for a forced sale.
Alternative blurb: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announces that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million USD after a recording of Sterling making racist comments is surfaced.
News source(s): (ABC News) BBC Irish Times NBC Le Monde Der Spiegel news.com.au New Zealand Herald Times of India

Article updated
 --Johnsemlak (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial racist gets caught. It happens. Just because this particular racist is an NBA commissionerowner, doesn't make it better or worse or more or less newsworthy, just more disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You should try reading the article first next time. Calidum 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, another priceless gem from your incredible purse of worldly advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean, your "Just because" kind of gave away that you didn't read the article - it's not the NBA commissioner. --162.95.216.223 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if it was the NBA commissioner it would have been a lot bigger... –HTD 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is notable not so much for the reason Sterling was punished but the fact that he was; this doesn't happen every day. This is getting significant international coverage, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe only in the US then. People are frequently suspended/banned etc for racist remarks in Europe. It's not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Are team owners frequently given lifetime bans, though? And are potentially forced to sell their team? I might not support if this was a player or fan, but owners seem different. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • For context, the PFA have made racist abuse a sackable offence, some footballers have already been sacked along with rugby players. Owners "seem" different? Surely they're just human beings too? Racist ones sometimes? Perhaps it's more shocking that this is a shock. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
          • If you're saying this shouldn't be a story, you might be right, but it is nevertheless, and in many places it is a top or near-top page story. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's in the news, but as I said, it's a standard racist getting caught out. Big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - certainly in the news here. While I see it as a huge overreaction to what I don't perceive as racism but rather a sad useless old man more concerned with his own public image than stamping it out, it's still a rare event in North America for a top league team owner to be forcefully removed and fined for remarks, let alone remarks recorded in a private conversation. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't perceive telling someone not to bring black men to games as racist? What on earth do you think racism is? Neljack (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe team owners were involved with that(and those were not lifetime bans from the sport). As I told TRM, I probably would not support if this was a player. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, according to the talk page of that article, we did on August 8 of last year. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But the biogenesis ITN was relevant, it had an impact on the game, on the results etc, this is just an old man talking crap, blown up because he happens to be an NBA owner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the Biogenesis scandal was posted, I oppose—apparently this isn't the first time he's done this. He was also investigated and sued in 2006 by the U.S. Dept. of Justice for much more than the current fine levied by the NBA. He was again sued in 2009 for employment discrimination. I see no difference between these previous lawsuits, investigations, etc. and the current instance. Just because the NBA finally realizes that he's racist and takes action does not make this story notable in any way whatsoever. 184.146.110.224 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we did post the Biogenesis Baseball Scandal. Andise1 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A lifetime ban for an owner is unusual for North American sports. The story is very much in the news right now. Calidum 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Basketball isn't a major sport in the UK, but the story is well reported over here. Significant enough that we ought to feature it on ITN methinks. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose arbitrary action by private entity acting as a law unto itself that will be played out in the courts. Not like he shot his girlfriend through the bathroom door--which we still haven't posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Private entities can levy whatever sanctions or punishments upon their members or employees that they see fit, for any reason that is not illegal or against a contract; I don't see why that is a reason to prevent posting this. I haven't read about any pending court cases in this matter yet. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Sears can ban you from its auto repair shop, but it can't bill you $2.5M and force you to sell your car because you told your girlfriend not to cavort with the pit crew. This will go to court, when it does we can post the results. Until then it's a private entity with a tort claim against a living person. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The NBA has a Constitution which allows these sorts of actions, which the owner would have to agree to abide by. The fine is the maximum allowed per that document. Sears doesn't make you abide by its constitution to be a customer. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So, should I assume you don't actually understand the point I am making? Or that you simply disagree and there's some issue of psychological gratification or compulsion behind continuing this? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You can assume whatever you wish. It is of little concern to me, just as any assumptions I would make about you are of little concern to you, I assume. I've moved on from this. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see this incident as that notable, especially when compared with the other recent racist banana incident. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major scandal/resulting action at the highest level in the world's best league in a popular sport. Has relevance beyond its setting. Radagast (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The story is unique based on the reaction, not just the racist statements themselves. President Obama commented,[3], major business sponsors pulled out[4], and league took the extreme response of publicly stating they will seek to force an owner to sell.[5]Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is national news and is on the front page of BBC. It's hard to ignore its significance. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless wiki-content improved. This is a hard one. There is nothing that significant about this story really. People get banned from commercial establishments all the time. The president commented, okay, and a very sizeable fine was given by the league. I could weakly support this on those merits, but the wiki-content here is very slim (three paragraphs, and who is "V. Stiviano"?) --hydrox (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Local business matter. Let's not give any further publicity to this odious little racist. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Parochial racist gets caught. Oh, somebody already said that. It happens in my country too. Never hit ITN before though. Why is this one important? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not just about the racism, but about the results of it; lifetime bans from a sport are a rarity. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's certainly "in the news", but I don't know if this rises to the level of importance to be featured on ITN. Canuck89 (have words with me) 02:15, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For me it is straddling the line between a business story and celebrity tittle-tattle. I might be tempted to support the former but clearly not the latter. My position was decided when I read of the supposed "sanctions" that had been applied - he is forbidden from even making contact with any NBA player. Does anyone think that that would be legally enforceable? Or even constitutional? It's not unusual for people to claim authority for actions that they do not possess, but without a rational analysis of what these claimed sanctions mean in reality it has to be an oppose. 3142 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't it be legally enforceable? The NBA can decide who is at its facilities and games and who can communicate with its employees/members. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Your employer does not have the right to direct "You will not meet X. They certainly don't have the right to determine whom a third party may or may not contact. Attempting to do so would probably fall under freedom of association making this action utterly meaningless. 3142 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Freedom of association only means that the government cannot make such a restriction; private entities like the NBA can tell its owners who they can and cannot associate with, or ban them from their property. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several opposes are saying that this happens all the time without giving any examples. This is the owner of an NBA team banned for life for attending NBA games including those of the team he owns, for racist behaviour. I'd like to see someone post an apples-to-apples analogous event. It's not just some random fan banned for life for hooliganism. And it's a lifetime ban, not just a ban for 5 or ten matches or whatever.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to side with Rambling Man. A significant story, but very much a local interest event. It may well be big in America, and I appreciate the coverage may be more intense over there, it's just the coverage elsewhere barely goes beyond a headline. Parochial it very much is. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For a "local interest event", this is getting a lot of worldwide coverage. The NBA has players from around the world, not just the US. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except it is on front pages.....and it's not just about what he did but the results of it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    Remember that anon who was saying the UEFA Champions League quarterfinals has to get in because it's the biggest sporting event of the moment? Yes, it was the biggest sporting event of the moment, but even BBC Sport's World Sport made this their banner story instead of Real Madrid's thrashing of Bayern. Perhaps if Bayern put up a fight it wouldn't be the case, but in almost cases of a Champions League game day, it's usually the lead story in that program. Not so this time. And that's BBC, in a country where basketball isn't popular. –HTD 09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    A day after Sterling banishment, this is still a fixture in BBC's sport program. This is remarkable. The BBC almost never covers basketball, and has an endless stream of football, rugby and cricket, the second followed in about 15 countries, the latter followed in about ten countries, but virtually ignored elsewhere. This pretty much shows that "the lack of interest" argument is complete and utter bullshit. –HTD 23:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am puzzled by the opposition to this. Like Johnsemlak I would like to see some examples of this "happening all the time" as is claimed. This is also getting lots of news coverage around the world, including in the big basketball nation of India (see above). Pardon the sarcasm, but this clearly is not a "local" story. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Eh, when was the last time an owner of a sports team was ever banned, and is now at the point where the league is forcing him to sell due to non-sporting reasons. Has that ever happened? –HTD 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you know? Does it matter? Being the first time for something doesn't necessarily make it significant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking. A sports owner being forced to sell on reasons other than sports is unusual. As for being the first, at least on this circumstance, of course it does! First African American baseball player, first man on the moon, heck even the British man to win Wimbledon since Fred Perry was important. This isn't "the first person to say racist remarks", this was the "first sports owner to be stripped of his ownership because of saying racist remarks". Forcefully stripping an owner of his team is something that has to be rare, even for other reasons. –HTD 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In the sort of equivalent league I know most about, the Australian Football League, most clubs aren't privately owned. But particularly after Nicky Winmar made a point in 1993 of showing racist members of the crowd his dark skin, the league cracked down on almost anything racist by almost anyone associated with the game, even including spectators. It's been a very successful program. Perhaps the significance of this is that American basketball might be finally catching up with the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, cracking down on spectators and even players should be easy. Cracking down on owners, not so much. At least American sporting events don't have regular occurrences of fans throwing bananas at the playing field, or have Athletic Bilbao's "policy" of only using players from their place. –HTD 12:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see this as a notable development. And, 331, you've said your bit. There is a limit to how often you need to repeat it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the unsolicited advice; however, like everyone else here, I will make whatever comments I deem appropriate to make. Feel free to ignore them. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A national story.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:IDONTLIKEIT? –HTD 12:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • No it is a matter of national and international relevance.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Do you realize what that argument is? –HTD 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You know fully well that "a national story" is not a valid oppose rationale.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Get over it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • You may want to tell Rob Ford Toronto is now part of the U.S. Calidum 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Too bad the Grizzlies left Vancouver. Just wait until the Euros get their own franchises... if players can put up daily transatlantic flights. –HTD 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DONTFEED... the person who made the remarks, not the nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's a bit disappointing how most of the oppose rationales basically boil down to WP:IDHT. For instance, the claims of "local interest" are clearly contradicted by the numerous international news sites included in the nomination header. It's one thing to oppose this on the grounds that it's receiving disproportionate coverage for what it is, but at least make the opposes valid.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Basketball is not that popular in the UK where I happen to dwell (though I am a Lakers fan - sorry if that offends anyone), however it has been all over the news here, mostly from people debating the racist comments this guy made - but racists get exposed for what they are all the time. That isn't notable. What's notable is that this guy has been banned for life from the NBA, been given the maximum fine possible and will more than likely be forced to sell his shares in the Clippers. That is news whether you like it or not...--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even those who are fans of the sport would struggle to name the owners of NBA teams. The reason for his removal is unusual, but it's still just a change in back-room staff for a sporting team. That's just not significant enough in my book. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning on the fence on this, but it is definitely more than just a "change in back-room staff". The ironic thing is that I suspect that a weaker action from the NBA would have been ITN worthy for the fallout that would have occurred. The NBA was on the verge of open revolt because of Sterling. Anything less than a lifetime ban was going to be trouble. Overall though, this is one of those stories that makes me wish ITN had separate tabs for things like sports, politics and general news. It is one of those mid-tier stories that could be posted in a secondary tab. Resolute 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with BabbaQ above, it's just a national story. Granted, Wikipedia is mostly read by US users, but there may be more newsworthy material than this waiting to be posted. Küñall (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

April 28Edit


[Closed] Internet Explorer security flawEdit

With the release of a new patch, and with no clear consensus to post in any case, this candidate isn't going anywhere fast. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Internet Explorer (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft announces a security bug in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11, affecting approximately 55% of browsers worldwide.
News source(s): Reuters, TIME, Chicago Tribune, BBC, Forbes, Wall Street Journal

Article updated
Nominator's comments: U.S. and U.K. governments (and their respective agencies: Dept. of Homeland Security and Computer Emergency Response Team) have issued advisories to avoid using Internet Explorer until fixed. The bug could lead to "the complete compromise" of an affected system. --70.26.173.33 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Slightly cynical comment Having ceased support for Windows XP a month ago, if Microsoft wanted to even more persuade customers to upgrade to a new OS now, a massive security flaw in XP that wasn't going to be fixed would be a great strategy, wouldn't it? Also, I'd like to see a technical source from with the IT world, as well as those more business and public oriented ones. Something that told us more about the real nature and seriousness of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is a flaw in IE, not XP. Stephen 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. IE is part of XP. My point still applies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No. IE is a bundled program that runs on XP. Your point is irrelevant. Stephen 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. My point is completely relevant. You have simply proved that you don't understand it. I'm sure others will HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You are completely ignorant of IT. That much has been proven. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you would be stunned at how I make a living. Do you actually have a comment on the nomination? HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
However much it pains me to say so, HiLo is correct that IE is a feature of WIN8, not a separate program. Just go ahead and try to delete it using uninstall from your control panel. You can deactivate it following a purposefully arcane process that has nothing to do with any actu deinstallation. It will still be there. They tell you you can then "reinstall" it. It doesn't reinstall fresh, it simply reactivates the deactivated files already on your hard drive. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo was talking about XP, not Windows8. That he can't tell the difference between an operating system and a bundled program that runs on the OS is probably something to do with our systematic bias. Stephen 10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, hard words, but thanks for a good laugh anyway. Note that, while I don't think IE was ever essential to XP kernel-land, it is not possible to entirely uninstall IE from XP ([6], [7]) because Microsoft (deliberately to make it hard to remove?) tied it into some fairly basic user-land desktop components. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. IIRC MS argued in court that the inclusion of a free web browser in Windows wasn't anti-competitive (against Netscape) because the browser was an integral part of the operating system. A cynic would say that they wove IE and its libraries as closely as possible into the operating system in order to make this argument. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case#Related_investigations, Removal of Internet Explorer, etc. Ah, good times. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a flaw in your logic - your suggestion would be more plausible if the flaw only hit IE versions 6 - 8, i.e. the ones that XP supports. Then if you were very cynical you could assume Microsoft might be trying to get them to upgrade. However, since in this case it is apparently present in all versions of IE right up to the latest then upgrading to Win7 or 8 wouldn't make any difference, if anything it might turn people off upgrading by showing the same vulnerabilities exist in all the versions of Windows. I think that was what Stephan was trying to get across. 92.30.133.120 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Whether or not one considers the web browser to be an integral part of the operating system (and Microsoft controversially argued in court back in 1998 that it was), both IE and MS Windows are published by Microsoft, which obviously controls them both. If this is a marketing strategy though, it seems like a footbullet one to me. So Weak Support. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a good point. You must have missed the point that I have already pointed out that Microsoft will fix the Win 7 and Win 8 versions, for free. They won't fix XP any more.
  • Support - highly notable bug affecting millions of people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Such bugs are patched and released almost every month by Microsoft on patch Tuesday. So why only this get special recognition? -Abhishikt (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Because a huge proportion of people till use XP, and this is the first time that bugs associated with XP won't be fixed for free by Microsoft. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on process If editors could avoid being rude about other editors as part of their comments, that would be a good thing IMO. I'm not just referring to this nomination. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't saying that IE constitutes 55% of all browsers a bit controversial? Various statistics place it in the range 20-58%.129.178.88.85 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Opinions vary depending on methodology etc. If we post this we should avoid using a specific 'market share' number in the blurb. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment per Nutlugs, the fact there's a security flaw in IE is never news, it's been a daily routine update service patch nonsense since the dawn of IE. What is the story here? Is it that those users still using XP will be royally shafted or is it something else? I'm not getting it yet.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
To me, shafting XP users is the whole point of this exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Microsoft releases critical fixes for all the IE versions almost every patch Tuesday. These do not get mentioned every time, then why this time? It seems the reason for more news coverage is that Microsoft is Not going to publicly release the fix for WinXP. This would be the case going forward. So I think this event is quite regularly occurring, but just because it got wider coverage, we shouldn't include it in ITN. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't refer to "patch Tuesday" for nothing, this is a monthly occurrence. The only difference now is that it occurs after the end of XP support but that is old news and not the underlying item. 3142 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I had a woman in her 80's call me about this in a panic today since she'd read it on her front page. I think wikipedia is a good place for people to come expecting objective coverage of this and the wider context, it's perfect for our mission at ITN and at WP. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – another Microsoft IE bug? really??? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:42, 30 April 2014
  • Support - story of international interest.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you actually know when the last flaw in IE was announced? Was that of international interest? HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support if the blurb is changed to "Microsoft announces that people still use Internet Explorer." –HTD 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm commenting here from Internet Explorer. I hope this edit gets to be saved before New Year's Eve. Küñall (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Update Microsoft have done an about turn on this and announced it will be patched for XP after all[8]. This bug is not otherwise exceptional in any regard so therefore it seems to me any notability it may have had is utterly destroyed. 3142 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that removes the smidgen of newsworthiness this had. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Bernie Ecclestone £1.2bn tax avoidanceEdit

No consensus to post. King of ♠ 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Bernie Ecclestone (talk, history) and Formula One (talk, history)
Blurb: Formula One CEO Bernie Ecclestone avoided £1.2bn ($2bn) tax bill
News source(s): BBC, Mirror, Telegraph

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Very large tax avoidance. Motorsport + business (Formula One Group) with an international aspect (F1 has visited 41 countries, and F1 is how BE made the money he's avoided tax on) --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't tax avoidance considered par for the course for larger corporations? We certainly wouldn't post any examples of U.S. corporations doing this. --WaltCip (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tax avoidance is indeed par for the course for multinational corporations - they avoid far more tax than this. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Companies and the rich avoiding taxes is not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with avoiding taxes. That's what accountants are for. Does this mean evasion? If so, can we use proper English? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, this isn't "evasion" since it appears to be legal.[9] Neljack (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Right - this is legal tax-avoidance. Important that we don't accuse him of tax evasion. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Neljack.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Man obeys the law" doesn't sound like a great blurb for ITN. --Jayron32 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If we're allowed to spin, then I'd go with "Rich man shirks massive tax bill, evades social and moral obligations" or maybe "One law for rich, another for poor".   Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Though legal, tax avoidance is widely considered to be immoral (I can provide WP:RS for that if needed, or see Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion). Stories don't need to be illegal in order to be notable here. This is a particularly egregious example of tax avoidance - some sources are reporting this as a record amount for UK personal tax avoidance. Large corporations avoiding tax - and the campaigns against them - definitely do make the news round here, although obviously YMMV depending on the editorial priorities of the news media that you read. IMO this is notable for F1 fans because money from F1 is being channelled into this shady offshore trust. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It's all perspective. If what he did is perfectly legal, what we have is "man doesn't voluntarily give a billion dollars to the government which he wasn't required to give them in the first place". That we want him to have given that money over is beside the point. If it is legal to avoid it, that's the exact same thing as saying he isn't required to pay it, which isn't news. People not doing things they aren't required to do isn't news. Now, if there was a law broken, or a fine levied, or a trial forthcoming, we may have something. But being pissed because he's not voluntarily paying money that it's not illegal not to pay is not a news story. --Jayron32 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's one side of the argument. RS say there is another. I think it would be too digressive for me to make the argument here, but there are plenty of WP:RS for tax avoidance being widely held to be immoral - it's not a WP:fringe view. Not everything that is legal is right or un-newsworthy (e.g. see lots of our other news stories about legal things).
The other angle on this story is that HMRC was wrong to settle for only £10m on a potential tax bill of £1.2bn. HMRC are pretty much admitting it was a mistake and saying they've changed their process. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Many rich people and/or companies avoid taxes. Why should we list this one and not others(such as Apple, Google, Gerard Depardieu, etc.)? 331dot (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact we declined to post Depardieu. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @331dot, if particularly notable examples come up in the future, I think we should list them. Consensus can change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb could read "Man gets rich paying as little tax as possible". Nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Karachi school explosionEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Karachi (talk, history) and Hand grenade (talk, history)
Blurb: ​3 boys killed by hand grenade in Karachi school explosion
News source(s): BBC, Business Recorder (Pakistan), DAWN, International News,
Nominator's comments: Of particular notability because its a tragic accident involving children. We have good articles on the location and the type of device. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely not something you hear about often in the context of school and children. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose shootings that kill a few schoolkids in the US and, equally, I will oppose a grenade blast that kills a few schoolkids in Pakistan. I can't see why the fact that children rather than adults were killed should automatically confer greater significance on it. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neljack said what I came here to say. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No article of its own, not a significant enough incident to be mentioned in the linked articles, let alone have a lengthy update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Crisco. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support typical American gun violence, just not in the US and not with a gun, so it doesn't count. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose no article and this certainly doesn't qualify as significant enough to impact either the Karachi or the hand grenade article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing. No consensus to post and story is growing stale. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] April 27–28, 2014 tornado outbreakEdit

Article: April 27–28, 2014 tornado outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: A tornado outbreak in the south-central United States kills at least 18 people.
Alternative blurb: ​A tornado outbreak associated with storms over much of the eastern United States kills more than 35 people.
News source(s): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-arkansas-tornado-20140428,0,4746133.story

 --Jinkinson talk to me 15:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Notable due to death toll and scale of damage. Article looks good. We may want to use Faulkner County, Arkansas in the blurb as that's the exact location of most of the deaths (I think). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support And agree that Faulkner County, Arkansas should be included in the blurb. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A lot of destruction, certainly in the news up here, death toll isn't all that substantial, but the number of towns levelled seems to be. However, wait until tonight (EST) at least to post or you'll get those stark raving mad Europeans in here (even though sleep is for the weak). - Floydian τ ¢ 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment' - article is very light on prose and has multiple completely empty sections. It is certainly not fit for posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, an (unfortunately) far too common event. As I have stated over the years, with at least some agreement from others here, ITN should not be posting every tornado breakout. There will be much worse ones in the coming months. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the score or so of people killed here were far less important than the score or so of people killed by Cyclone Ita. Given it only happened in the US, and in Red States especially, lets wait till one of the tornadoes makes it from Alabama to Toronto, then we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that an argument for an oppose?? GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that μηδείς was deploying WP:sarcasm. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Sarcasm is a biting attack sometimes employing irony. This was just plain irony. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time in a day or so I've had to invoke Poe's law to understand your !votes, μηδείς. GoldenRing (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Death toll of 18 should make this postable, IMO, wherever it happened. We don't want to overcorrect our systemic bias. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. This will probably be a growing story in the next few days with unfortunately many more deaths. Perhaps posting something like a, a series of tornadoes kills xx during a major storm outbreak. (well, not that, but something like that....) Rhodesisland (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support major disasters with high death tolls are ITN-worthy no matter where they occur. -Zanhe (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Willing to post, however, the article is seriously lacking some prose. At the moment, there's just a big table and many expand tags. --Tone 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed - the article needs a lot more prose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: death toll now at 28. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This could use a little more prose, at least two nice paragraphs would be good. People will indeed be coming here for comprehensive, non-sensationalist cover. I'll be busy outside the holodeck today, so forgive me if I can't devote too much time. But this should go up ASAP once we've got the prose. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (a) article is woeful with maintenance tags and entirely out of date (b) if we keep wanting to post regular US weather, we could use an ITNR for such common events with at least one tornado outbreak causing multiple fatalities in the US every year for the past few years. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • (a) I concede that the article could use some work and (b) are you serious? You know what else happens yearly but always makes its way onto ITN? The results of sports championships for MULTIPLE different sports and leagues, etc, yet storms that have now caused 34 deaths aren't notable? Give me a break. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should re-read it. I suggested that commonplace annual weather events should be placed onto ITN/R. I don't recall stating it wasn't notable, just that it happened frequently. Accordingly, I'll give you that break you've requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready The summary and mayflower sections (now in complete sentence form, more that surpass the three paragraph requirement for a new article. Altblrb mentions currently reported 34 Dead. There are arbitrary expansion needed markers, they can be removed by the posting admin if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article now has well more than the required prose content, no visible tags, over 30K in content, and reflects 35 deaths from 7 twisters as well as two drownings and destruction in almost every state from Nebraska to Louisiana to Florida with the North East to be hit today. Consensus is 7 to 2 in favor of postings. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that the storm has played it's way through more of the area, IMO the time is ripe to post. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every year several of these events seem to be nominated. No evidence this is of any more significance than any of the others. Tornadoes are obviously common in those parts. Maybe too many have been nominated. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A particularly devastating and noteworthy outbreak. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what some people seem to say about these things several times every year. Either you're wrong, or a lot of people have been writing an awful lot of crap here every tornado season. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
And....? We post sporting events every single year and those don't change at all. It's a notable event regardless of how often it may happen. Dozens of lives have been lost and tens of millions of people have been affected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - Ongoing "historic" floods in and around Pensacola, Florida as a result of the storm system. Needs expansion to cover the flood-event but the system is becoming more and more damaging as it continues eastward. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)*

Not ready - article is still light on prose... Perhaps it meets the bare minimum, but considering half the text is unreferenced (and orange tagged as such), it is definitely not ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support major and unusual weather event that caused massive devastation in the south. Secret account 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready The article has not a single citation needed tag. Every listed tornado is referenced in the leftmost column, as was the section that section that was temporarily marked as unreferenced, since it had been removed from the chart without the references being repeated as well. Not is there any rule that senetences and commentary within charts do not count ast text, but even ignoring that question, as of this edit all ITN requirements are exceeded. This is ready for immediate posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - article in much better shape now, thanks for the efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question My points above were ignored. We do seem to get several nominations every year for American tornadoes. This seems to have been posted on the numbers, which is pure systemic bias. Non-Americans have no way of telling if this really was more important than any other tornado nomination. I doubt if many Americans can tell. Can we please do this better? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't speak on behalf of what Americans know about Tornado outbreaks. You sound like someone who's never left Los Angeles. We east of the rockies invented the word from the roots much "ado" about things being "torn" up. If you need help understanding the impact, read the article, and look on a map where Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida and Louisiana are, and consider these states and the areas they bound are all suffering flooding related fatalities and damage, if not lethal tornadoes. The impact here is much wider than that of Hurricane Sandy. And storms like this occur every two or three years on average, although some single tornados are much worse depending on the map and bad luck. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposing this posting. I have no idea on it and am I'm expressing my confusion. I am concerned that we seem to see an awful lot of nominations here for tornadoes. Some of them must have been rubbish. I seem to recall posts like "A particularly devastating and noteworthy outbreak" several times last year. Were they bullshit? How do we pick the really worthy nominations in future? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, HiLo, then just do be assured this is a major less-than-once-a-year system, with much wider spread impact than Sandy, just not the storm surge of that storm which devastated coastal towns. There's no set way to measure these things. sometimes you have an outbreak in only two states that kills 80 people. Or just one tornado that kills 40. Sometimes there are 6 dead in a system that hits 8 states. Sometimes hurricanes spawn 100's of tornados. This doesn't compare to the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak with 324 dead which, I believe, was the worst since the 70's, but it certainly compares to Cyclone Ita, Hurricane Sandy, and most notable spring outbreaks. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe we have ever rejected a natural disaster that killed 35 people in any country. The US has a fairly large number of such tornadoes (perhaps 2/year on average), but I hardly think 2 stories a year on tornadoes is a huge number. Much of Asia has flooding that kills dozens of people multiple times a year and those stories have always been posted when nominated too (3 or 4 last year alone)... Basically, there is an unspoken rule that >~20 deaths=automatically notable enough (unless it is a traffic accident). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is a little muddled. Lead says "at least 35[1] fatalities.", infobox says "45 (+1 non-tornadic)" deaths and tables add up to 33. A little awkward and clumsy, needs some alignment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Egyptian death sentencesEdit

Now stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mohammed Badie (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Egyptian court sentences Mohammed Badie (pictured) to death, along with 682 other Muslim Brotherhood supporters amid ongoing unrest.
News source(s): Reuters New York Times Wall Street Journal

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I believe the notability of this is what qualifies it for ITN, not whether the executions will be carried out or not. And not everyday do 683 people get a death sentence, especially when it is the top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood among those sentenced. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think a similar event to this was proposed recently, and the consensus at that time seemed to be that this is only notable if the sentences are carried out. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A similar event (Bangladesh Rifles revolt) was also proposed here last year, and consensus was to add it. The last Egyptian sentences were 530+ and there were no high profile figures involved, unlike this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very high level of notability, international implications. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Fitzcarmalan, Balaenoptera musculus. If sentences are carried out, violent domestic reaction would seem a possibility. Sca (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Badie's article is orange-tagged and a more general target would be preferrable anyway (the other 680 people matter too). Unfortunately, the unrest article is also orange-tagged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, a stand-alone article is a viable solution. We have many articles on individual trials - no reason we can't have one on a "mass trial". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
oppose as a largely one-off kangaroo court. Don't want to sound oxymoronic, but they've done this fairly frequenctly in the last 1 year and Egypt IS NOT standing out in the news. (as for kangaroo court, I have no idea whats it is upto but can doubt its independence from the executie [10])
Let me partially rephrase tht. Basie is high-profile, but lets wait to see if its carried out. In the latter case, id hugely support it.Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: highly notable. To say that it was a "kangaroo court" is to say that it didn't follow due process; but its not having followed due process doesn't preclude its actions from being significant. It Is Me Here t / c 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with this reasoning. Abductive (reasoning) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and It Is Me Here. Neljack (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Presumably, it's unlikely all the sentences will be carried out, but the handing down of the sentences in this dubious, to say the least, procedure is, in Middle Eastern context, significant enough for posting, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of bluster. Last month we had "529 death sentences", 492 of which were commuted by the same court. Seems they like big headlines but don't follow through on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if and when 12 of them are carried out. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

April 27Edit


[Closed] India Ballistic Missile testEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India successfully test fires its anti-ballistic missile system..
News source(s): Al Jaz
Nominator's comments: India joins a select club of states with this new capacity...could possibly lead to an arms race noting Pakistan tested its nukes a mere days after India. --Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Question From reading our article, it doesn't look like this is their first successful test of the system. What aspect of this event is particularly novel? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The link highlighted it as "joining a club of stateS"...seems to have crossed a certain thresholdLihaas (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Macedonian general election, 2014Edit

Article: Macedonian general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Gjorge Ivanov (pictured) is re-elected as President of the Republic of Macedonia, while the ruling coalition led by VMRO-DPMNE win plurality in the Parliament.

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is the first time since 1994 the Presidential elections and a Parliamentary election in Macedonia to be held on the same day. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - When the results from Macedonia comes in.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - elections are ITN/R, so its rather pointless to "debate" the item before the results occur. The only factor to whether it is posted or not is the quality of the update, which obviously cant' be judged at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Macedonian media have announced victory for Ivanov in the presidential and bare majority for VMRO-DPMNE in the parliamentary election. The official results, however, will be announced tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready The article is updated with the official results from the State Electoral Commission. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Papal canonizationEdit

Articles: John XXIII (talk, history) and John Paul II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Catholic Church canonizes Popes John XXIII and John Paul II.
News source(s): CNN, etc

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The main article is currently in nascent state, so perhaps it would be safer to link merely the popes. --Brandmeistertalk 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Two well-known and influential former popes; getting lots of news coverage; interesting symbolism with the "liberal" John XXIII and the "conservative" John Paul II canonised together. Neljack (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I generally support each canonisation, especially when it deals with notable and influential people from relatively recent times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The main article linked above should be the primary focus. Compare that to the pseduo-stub of Kryptodrakon, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support surprised this hasn't been posted yet.Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. The articles are updated. There's a separate article about canonization as well but since it's very short at the moment, I prefer not to include it in the blurb. This can be changed later. --Tone 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on process Only an hour and a half to discuss - isn't that a bit too speedy? What about people in other time zones? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree, and post-posting weak oppose. I suppose I don't really care, but I have to wonder if we'd post similar declarations by other large religions, after just 1.5 hours of no oppose !votes. ToBk (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, this may be justified, but the process is not a good look. It really hasn't been discussed at all. HiLo48 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this has been in the news all week. A nice, super rare chance to post religious news. I was planning to nominate it, if necessary. Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above, and we do often post noms that get 4 quick supports and no opposes (that means 5-0 support including the nominator). μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
...and they are often very controversial afterwards. I agree with others that this process is not a good look. GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If they're controversial they can be pulled. There was obviously no way the highest award given by the world's largest institution to two of its prior leaders was not going to be posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's an acceptable process. We are supposed to operate by consensus. "No consensus to post" is very different to "consensus to pull." GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] South Korea PM resignsEdit

Individual nomination stale, but we have "Ongoing" ticker now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sinking of the MV Sewol (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Prime Minister of South Korea Jung Hong-won announces his resignation following growing criticism of the response to the sinking of the MV Sewol.
Alternative blurb: ​Amidst criticism of the government's response to the sinking of the MV Sewol, Prime Minister of South Korea Jung Hong-won resigns.
News source(s): (Al-Jazeera)

Article updated
 --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a very significant effect of the sinking. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. It appears that in South Korea the president is both head of state and head of government. Seeing that, and consider the article on the ship itself is already linked as part of the new 'ongoing field,' I'm leaning towards opposing this. Also, the article on Jung Hong-won is entirely insufficient for posting on the main page. Calidum 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - major development in the MV Sewol story. Naturally, the "ongoing" item will disappear if this succeeds. I suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A Prime Minister resigning over a disaster like this is pretty major. Neljack (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to oppose for now; I have now read that the PM has only offered to resign, it has not been accepted yet [11] so we should wait until it is(if it is). 331dot (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if/when he goes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article should say why he resigned (public pressure, etc.), not just that he did. The update is currently inadequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • List of Prime Ministers of South Korea shows there's some significant turnover on this position; Park's 2 immediate predecessors bad an average of 4 PMs each, although this would be Park's first replacement since she took office more than a year ago. –HTD 04:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. seems to me this needs to get posted as part of the overall story. The PM has resigned, it has been accepted, and turn over of the office isn't really applicable because of the reason for this particular resignation. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Tsvangirai suspended from own partyEdit

Now stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Movement for Democratic Change suspends former Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai amid allegations of corruption, furthering the split within the opposition party
Alternative blurb: ​Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is suspended by his own party, furthering the split within the opposition movement
News source(s): BBC Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Officially throwing Tsvangirai out of the party "fractionalizes" the opposition and will increase Robert Mugabe's political hold --Mvblair (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Unless it is a party actually in power, I don't think we typically post changes in leadership of political parties, especially if effects in the relevant nation are minimal.(Mugabe is still running the country and will continue to do so) I think that's the case here. I'm willing to reconsider given more information, but I don't support this right now. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per the fact that Tsvangirai has been a very covered political figure in his country.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – he is probably the best-known Zimbabwean opposition figure, so IMO it's significant. It Is Me Here t / c 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because he's one of the few possible rivals to Mugabe, who is in effect a dictator. IMO it's more notable than a change of leadership for an opposition party in most countries because the political situation in Zimbabwe is different to that of more democratic countries. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
oppose internal factionalisation and bickering within a party is hardly notable news. Nevermind that the MDC is now delegitimised as an "official opposition".Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The alt-blurb is OK. The blurb isn't. It MUST mention the country. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - article needs work (short lead, orange tagged section, infobox still says Tsvangirai leads the party). Tsvangirai's article could be an alternate target, but it is not updated and has serious issues, so probably not. Since we do not normally post political infighting, I would at least expect a high-quality article if we are going to make an exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

April 26Edit


[Closed] Atari games burial foundEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Atari video game burial (talk, history)
Blurb: Atari video games that were buried in 1983 are discovered in a New Mexican desert.
Alternative blurb: ​The Atari video game burial is confirmed true when video games are unburied from a New Mexican desert.
News source(s): IGN, Reuters Guardian BBC The Australian ABC (Australia)

Article updated
 [Soffredo]   19:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know how I feel about this. It's definitely interesting, but I'm not sure the news is important enough for ITN. DYK wouldn't appear to be an option here, I don't think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because finding this type of trash doesn't seem that important, even though it's kind of cool. Like, ahem, Bongwarrior said, it might be a great topic for "Did you know...?" if it were expanded quite a bit. Mvblair (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not really helpful to suggest something would make a good DYK when the article is already large and not new. The only way such an article could hit DYK is by becoming a Good Article. DYK is about recognizing content work, not merely interesting facts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact, it is already a good article, so even that route isn't available. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
My bad. I thought that if articles were expanded enough, they could become DYK. Mvblair (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That requires a 5x expansion, which I very much doubt can be pulled from this event. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this will be of great interest to people born before Jimmy Carter was president. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is interesting, different and a big story in the history of video gaming. It is in the news and the article is in good shape, we aren't taking away a DYK, and there is no more important story this would be denying space to. To my mind it is therefore exactly the sort of thing that we should be posting on ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would love to support this as I'm one of the editors for it and it does reflect a major event in the video game industry, but I would want to see more international coverage of the event to justify it better for ITN. (It is a shame this is unable to go DYK , that's where I would have pushed it.) --MASEM (t) 00:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Found some UK stories. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a classic example of the interests of a typical Wikipedian, rather than the general public. Archaeologists find all sorts of fascinating things in past peoples' garbage all the time. We ignore almost all of it. To post this trivia would put our systemic biases fully on display. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that women, non-technical people, non-college graduates, young and old video game players, non-Christians, (you get the point) wouldn't be interested in this? How do you know that? (English speaking is kinda required). 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Further, systemic bias is an argument to post stories relevant to those groups, not to prohibit ones that the "average wikipedian" might be interested in. They are here, too. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the point is that, not surprisingly, an internet project like this attracts a disproportionate number of people who are interested in tech stuff. Neljack (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And that means we shouldn't have the occasional story that might interest them? It's not like we post video game stories every day, or even once a month. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is making some news in Australia, too. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a decent article on this, a news story to highlight it, and a subject that many readers are interested in. Seems like a good candidate for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Sure, it's not the most important story going right now. But it's getting pretty good coverage as 331dot's links show. We have a pretty good article on the subject. And it would be nice to post something that doesn't involve mass deaths or kidnappings. Calidum 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, weird but not important. Perhaps is suitable for DYK but certainly not for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Considerably wide interest from an industry which we rarely post (even then only the greatest successes). That a company considered it more profitable to bury games and systems rather than sell them... well, I'm sure those who are versed in business theory could find something to analyze. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A niche slice of geekery but more curiosity than front page news, for me doktorb wordsdeeds 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a counter to systemic bias claims: according to the archives ITN very rarely posts stories about about video games, the only ones I can find were Call of Duty: Black Ops in 2010 and Grand Theft Auto V in 2013, both for breaking sales records. Of course video games appear more often in other sections of the Main Page, but how often is there going to be news from this sector to post, especially news that isn't just one game making more money than a previous game...? 92.30.173.5 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per doktorbuk and Nsk92 Rhodesisland (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as archaeological discoveries go, this would not appear to be a particularly important one. I don't think it gives us any great new insight into the past. In fact, I suspect it will have very little impact. So I can't see how the significance criterion is met. HiLo48 is also on the money with his comment about the average Wikipedian v. the average person, something that particularly needs to be borne in mind when evaluating tech stories. Neljack (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To be fair, this is a reminder of a significant financial event, North American video game crash of 1983, which would further influence the international video game market through today. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many above: niche story not suitable for ITN. It Is Me Here t / c — Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Per all of the opposes above. Too obscure. Sca (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sca Video games are played around the world by millions, hardly an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
331dot, how does the widespread playing of video games affect life on Planet Earth? Sca (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement that "life on Planet Earth" be affected to be posted to ITN, only that something be in the news which can highlight an article that readers might be interested in. My point was that video games are not an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too niche per HiLo48, Neljack, It Is Me Here and others above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Atari led the home videogame revolution, and its demise in 1983 was huge news that would certainly have made ITN when it happened. This is like "finding the body". Opposes because it is trash are like saying we shouldn't post 9/11 because the towers were then just ruins, or if Jimmy Hoffa's body were found it was just a run of the mill skeleton. The story here is the illumination of a very notable 31 year-old mystery. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There's very little reason to link this with 9/11, Medeis. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you've graduated at least secondary school, you might ask for a refund of your tuition on the basis of not having been taught the difference between an analogy and an equation, Doktorb. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should consult a dictionary to discover the difference in meaning between "link" and "equate", μηδείς. And does the government really charge schoolkids tuition fees in America? Surely even the US isn't that crazily right-wing? Neljack (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that the U.S. has private colleges, governments in other countries charge for tuition as well. The only difference is that they do so in the form of across-the-board taxation. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Simply too trivial, and not headline news coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with commenters above that this is too trivial for ITN. It's a pretty nice article, though Küñall (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Too trivial" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and shouldn't be enough to prevent this from being posted. This is a news item with (what even some who oppose this concede is) a decent article to highlight, which is the purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, "Too trivial" is a judgement we frequently make here. Mainstream media frequently cover Hollywood romances and babies, and in my country recently, royal tours. Thankfully, we don't post them here, They are too trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a big difference between opposing something because we are not a tabloid news ticker and opposing something because it deals with video games, which is essentially how I interpret most of the opposition here. I don't see why video games are any less valid a subject to post about; millions play video games of all nationalities, ages, races, and genders. Further, in dismissing this as "trivial" the fact that we have a decent article to highlight about a notable historical event (the main purpose of ITN) is being ignored. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO "too trivial" means "not notable enough" which, though subjective, is not quite the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to make a notability argument then I at least am all ears. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You can certainly hold that opinion, though I disagree. Without an explanation as to why, "not notable enough" could also be IDONTLIKEIT. I won't regurgitate the arguments that have been made already. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I guess I just don't get it. Atari couldn't sell a rotten title so they sent the ones they couldn't sell to landfill. Someone's dug through the landfill and found them. What's the story here exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There was not certainty that this dump of games existed, and it is representative of a notable time in the history of video games, the 1983 crash. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Is the uncertainty supposed to create some sense of excitement about this? I still don't see it. I'd guess that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about what's in most landfills around the world; the only slightly surprising thing really is that they had any idea at all where to look. I'm still not seeing it as a big deal. Perhaps I was too young in 1983 to really get it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing. No consensus to post and story is growing stale. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

April 24Edit


[Ready] RD: Hans HolleinEdit

Article: Hans Hollein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Frankfurter Rundschau, Die Welt, ORF, Spiegel, La Vanguardia, Washington Post, LA Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hollein was a key figure of Postmodern architecture, acknowledged internationally with the Pritzker Architecture Prize ("often referred to as the Nobel Prize of architecture".) Broad media coverage. --ELEKHHT 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once article is updated to reflect his death. Obits currently appearing in the media (e.g. Wash Post) make him look notable to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe this man meets DC2(very important in his field) and merits posting, once sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is longer. At present the article says nothing about his style, influences, his impact/legacy, nor his cause of death. Who were his professors? What design work did he do? Abductive (reasoning) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You can say is succinct, but not that it says "nothing" about his work. One can spend easily half an hour by reading the article carefully, following the links to his works (all key works are listed), looking at the pictures. Will add to it as I find time, as will others, but this is a good start class article. Precise cause of death hasn't been specified other than 'severe illness', but at age 80 is not a surprise, nor very relevant. --ELEKHHT 23:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The readers are not going to look through the links. ITN and ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work. ITN and RD are not an attempt to be a news service, nor a way to draw attention to articles that are half-finished. Abductive (reasoning) 01:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my first RD nomination, so I wasn't aware that "ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work", particularly as I couldn't see that in the criteria. --ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, don't be sorry - thank you for your useful nomination. The purpose of ITN is * To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. * To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events. * To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. * To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. (WP:ITN). The 'featured article' section is for highlighting wikipedia's best work; Your nomination was entirely appropriate in my view. Looking forward to your future nominations!   Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I too would like to see a more extensive article before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Me too. Help appreciated. --ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am neutral if the awards section is referenced, but could support if the article is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some interesting little buildings, but no major office building, apartment complexes skyscrapers--mainly just art museums and the conspicuous consumption of bank--i.e., no real effect outside a self-selecton pretigious clique. μηδείς (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a bank headquarters is a corporate vanity project, as are museums. No one seems to have sought him out for money making commercial and residential products. It's like homoring the pink mohawk rather than Vidal Sassoon's invention of the elegant bt practical ready-to-wear haircut. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - ah, he should have died in a train derailment, would be up now with a full blurb... --ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    A train crash that killed one person would rarely have an article, let alone a blurb on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Just follow the link above. Interestingly that's a shorter article, but you considered it "decent start-class article, it is ready for posting". --ELEKHHT 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, it is almost exactly the same size - 2250 bytes of prose vs. 2350. More relevantly, an article's class is not determined by length, but rather completeness. A very notable subject could be incomplete even with 20k of prose. I expect a RD candidate to be reasonably complete (C/B class), whereas a breaking news story can't be complete by nature and thus a start class article is the expectation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining this. Good to understand the logic behind. So the measure of being worthwhile for placing an item on the main page is not how much useful information is there, but how complete the article is relative to its potential to be complete. --ELEKHHT 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable European architect. The article could be extended though. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the article and its update meet the RD requirements (as soon as the other prizes are referenced). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable architect, though the article needs work. "Vanity projects" make ITN all the time; how about all those national competitions or tournaments? "Canada has the best hockey team". "The US has the best basketball team". "Kenya has the best runners". All possible "vanity project" interpretations of such competitions, yet in no way disparaging their news value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think the fact that Kenya has the best runners is a vanity project I do not think that word means what you think it means. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Inconceivable! --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What does Kenya have to do with this nomination, other than delaying the discussion until the RD is no longer news? And what does the alleged "vanity" POV has to do with it? Anyone who reads this succinct article with a bit of attention would realise that your assumptions above are factually wrong: (1) of course many of his commercial clients sought him out for a profit, (2) museums can and are often public projects - not corporate ones, and (3) besides shops and museums he also designed apartment buildings and commercial office buildings. I understand though that the average person's attention span is constantly decreasing (currently average time spent on Wikipedia is less than 5 minutes, compared to 30min on facebook), so readers can't even bother reading until the end a compact article. --ELEKHHT 07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Connie MarreroEdit

No sign of anything close to a slightest nudge of a chance of a glimpse of a hope of a consensus to post, even the nominator agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Connie Marrero (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Connie Marrero dies at the age of 102.

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 I don't know much about baseball, but this guy was the oldest living former Major League Baseball player at the time of his death. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not clear to me how he meets the RD criteria, but like you, I know nothing about baseball. As for being the oldest living, someone has to be.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "oldest living..." is always going to be one of the most likely to die. Otherwise, obviously a good baseballer, but not outstanding in the league. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and HiLo, unless we can get some info on how he meets the RD criteria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unremarkable baseball player, played 4 mostly unremarkable years in the Major Leagues, and some good years in a Cuban league. Someone's got to be the oldest at some point, and that person also has to die at some point. Neither is particularly remarkable. --Jayron32 09:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Being the oldest isn't by itself enough to meet the RD criteria, unless that fact alone somehow makes them very important in their field, which it doesn't here. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling of a "no" for this one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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


No consensus to post doktorb wordsdeeds 04:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hillsborough disaster editing controversyEdit

Article: Hillsborough disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​UK government computers may have been used to vandalize the Wikipedia article about the Hillsborough disaster.
News source(s): "Hillsborough insults added on Wikipedia from Government computers". Liverpool Echo. 24 April 2014.; "Insulting revisions to Wikipedia entry on Hillsborough made from Government computers". The Telegraph. 24 April 2014.; "Insults on Hillsborough Wikipedia page 'sent from Whitehall'". The Guardian. 24 April 2014. and "Hillsborough Wikipedia posts: Government pledges 'urgent inquiries'". BBC News. 25 April 2014.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Controversy linking a football (soccer) disaster, the UK government and Wikipedia. --Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not big news here in the UK (e.g. it's not in the BBC News top 10 most read stories right now). I don't think we should give stories extra credit for involving wikipedia. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Question - Which top 10 are you referring to? The BBC have just published a piece about the response from the Cabinet Office which appears to be atnumber 4 on the most read box at the right hand side. → Hillsborough Wikipedia posts were 'sickening', Cabinet Office says. A Guardian piece about the families response is at number 8 on their most viewed list. It seems to be fairly big news at the moment. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We're looking at the same one, I see it at number 4 now too. I'm still not sure it's notable for our purposes though - this obviously isn't a government spokesperson or the official government position. Story is just that someone using a government computer has vandalised a wikipedia page in a way which disrespects the dead. This is a PR problem for the Cabinet Office, but is it really any more than that? Nothing - outside of Wikipedia - seems to have actually happened. IIUC the edits were made in 2009 and 2012, the story is happening now because the Liverpool Echo has just noticed them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing. Resolute 17:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not terribly relevant to the UK government, Wikipedia or the Hillsborough disaster. Many news outlets in the UK are running a "new" Hillsborough story everyday it seems, for reasons unknown. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid it's bloody obvious why "new" stories are running every day, but it still doesn't make this article suitable for ITN. It is creeping up though (second on the UK BBC News homepage)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I mean it in the sense of "they're really making too many stories about this". Every tearful testimony about a victim gets reported on the BBC in great detail, for some reason. Not being insensitive here but it's just...excessive. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • To each, their own. This isn't relevant to the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Noted COI on Wikipedia is not a news-breaking story. I'm sure there's a proper page on WP that has, as Resolute put it, navel gazing for this type of stuff. (This is ignoring the time frame issue, simply that this is not an ITN) --MASEM (t) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed there is, see Wikipedia:Press coverage --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any story with 'may have been' blurb is an oppose for nothingness. I 'may have been' on the moon while making this post. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 19:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

News update: not just Hillsborough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaenoptera musculus (talkcontribs) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


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

April 23Edit


[Posted] 2014 Katanga train derailmentEdit

Article: 2014 Katanga train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train derails in Katanga, Democratic Republic of the Congo, killing at least 48 people.
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable train derailment with many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Blurb should be "at least 63" per BBC. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: also nominated by Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 00:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, needs to be longer. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the death toll. Neljack (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Insufficient article at this time. I would expect a minimum of three well developed paragraphs before it is featured. I may work on it in the morning if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Event is notable, article is nearly there. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per Neljack. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because the article seems to have been fleshed out a little more. Despite it still being small, it is noteworthy, well-sourced, and has a nice infobox. Mvblair (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    The article is exactly the same as it was yesterday when first nominated - one paragraph plus one sentence. Writing a start class article is not very hard, and is not too much to ask. Since no one can be bothered to improve the article, I guess it is up to me... Please do not post this until it is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - now that the article has been built into a decent start-class article, it is ready for posting. The death toll has been revised down to 48, so I changed the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please update the death toll as per this. Andise1 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Mark ShandEdit

No consensus to post; does not meet RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mark Shand (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Matty.007 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to meet any of the RD criteria. Not regarded as a hugely important figure in the field of conservation here in the UK, as far as I know. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment care to tell us why he'd meet the RD criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Headline UK news, the Duchess of Cornwall's brother, wrote a BBC documentary, fairly high up in his field from what I can gather. Matty.007 18:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems like most of notability is from being brother of royalty. Not for RD. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Major office in power, being brother in law of next in line to British throne? Thanks, Matty.007 19:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Unless we're talking a King Ralph situation, I don't believe he is even in line for the throne. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Brother in law to Charles. Matty.007 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but this nom clearly doesn't meet the RD criteria and I see no justification for a blurb either. Pro-Monarchy British news sources do not change this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "Pro-Monarchy British news sources"? Matty.007 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not meet the death criteria. "Brother of a royal" doesn't count, and his career doesn't seem to make him "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Politics of the Palestinian National AuthorityEdit

Article: Politics of the Palestinian National Authority (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After a 7 year rift, Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad agree to a national unity government amidst peace talks and will lead to an election.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: As far as state (or whatever you want to call it) politics go, this was a pretty notable rift that seems resolved after years and a war. And the talks for notability. Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in concept, awaiting article to judge before actual support. The event is surely ITN worthy, we just need an article and update which is likewise. --Jayron32 15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think Islamic Jihad needs to be included in the blurb. Bellemora (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I don't see where the article was updated. It's notable and important, but the article does not reflect any recent developments. Mvblair (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A significant deal after all this time. Neljack (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, pending update, notable development. Brandmeistertalk 07:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the first 'agreement' to heal this rift that has been announced. Similar agreements came out of conferences in Cairo and Doha over the past few years; this seems just another in the same line. What will be significant is if the deal actually comes off; I think the right time for posting this will be when the unity government is formed, which is supposed to be within the next six weeks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per GoldenRing. Wait until the formation of the government (and perhaps, an article?) first. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until this is translated into action, per GoldenRing and Brigade Piron. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 22Edit


Record drug salesEdit

Articles: Gilead Sciences (talk, history) and Sofosbuvir (talk, history)
Blurb: Gilead Sciences reports sales of US$2.27 billion for its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, the most ever for a drug during its first quarter on the market.
News source(s): Reuters, NY Times, WSJ

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: In addition to being a record breaking figure, the high sales of this (super expensive) drug have industry wide implications. If a company can get away with a $1000 price tag for a innovative new drug, then surely others will try. Thus, this is a good chance to post some underrepresented business news. Article(s) will need updated, which I will take care of this evening most likely. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like when The Eagles started charging $200 for their concerts. The rest quickly followed suit. I'm neutral but leaning support on this, but only because the drug itself has been in the news lately and is a promising treatment for what was previously a life sentence. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose low-level business news. If this is supposed to be about Hep C or something other than revenue, the blurb needs to be changed.84.250.106.213 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Can you please define what is "high-level" business news, as every business story offered is opposed for one reason or another. I honestly have no clue what you mean... How often does a product set industry sales record? That is the half story here. The other half is that the success of the new picing strategy will have long term impacts on the industry, which is the kind of thing people typically say they want to see. That is an extremely rare combination of factors.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I appreciate that more business news would be good here, but somehow, "highest ever sales for the first quarter after release," seems a bit too specific to me. Products set industry sales records all the time, I should think. GoldenRing (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Boko Haram kidnappingEdit

Articles: Boko Haram (talk, history) and 2014 Chibok kidnapping (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 230 teenage females are kidnapped by Boko Haram.
Alternative blurb: ​More than 230 female students are declared missing after a mass kidnapping in Borno State, Nigeria
News source(s): Fox

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, massive number of females abducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - As these are presumably female humans, can we call the women, or girls, or something, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Like...and pretty much what were discussing in talk about RDLihaas (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you excel with incomprehensible commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thought about nominating this last night, but the kidnapping actually took place on April 14. Evidentally, original reports said 80ish victims were taken but all recovered quickly so the story didn't make it out of Nigeria. Some parents are now claiming a bunch of people are missing and that the gov't is covering it up (or possibly that the gov't just had bad info). Tough to call the story "stale" since very few people knew about it before yesterday, but also tough to call it "fresh" considering the kidnapping happened a week ago... I'd like to here some more opinions on how to handle this, as I am utterly undecided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. If this only just broke in the English press it is not stale. Same as if we discovered a poem by a greek poetess published 2500 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It broke several days ago (nearly a wek), the numbder just got updatedLihaas (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose—stale. First entered English media as early as 18 April 2014 from CNN with information regarding the 234 kidnapped girls. This is not breaking news; this is coming very late into the scene. 184.146.107.202 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    You'll notice the CNN story is "last update April 22". Most likely, it originally said "80 girls". (The piece isn't really about the kidnapping but Boko Haram in general, which is consistent with the original story barely being noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with rewrite Something along the lines of "230 female students are declared missing following a kidnapping by Boko Haram in Borno State, Nigeria." (Using The Guardian's numbers) That way, we can cover the latest update the story, without pretending the kidnap is recent. The article also needs to be rewritten to reflect this, of course. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
comment this is possible stale since it happened a week ago.Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment This broke in English media a while ago (they were saying 100 girls). I thought about nominating it at the time but it was just after the previous Boko Haram story, and some people were of the opinion that we should cover the conflict as a whole rather than each individual incident. That said, if we have good a good article or section on this specific incident then I'd probably support Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I understand this story is stale, but that's not because the story was simply "missed" or initially ignored by Western Media: It's just been developing a little slowly. Read into that what you will, but is the "staleness" of this story justification enough for it to not be posted? --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • After some thought, support and use an blurb similar to that suggested by User:Smurrayinchester. It isn't our fault it took a while for the news to get out/story to develop. I have no problem posting this as a April 21 item. An article now exists and several editors (Ashishlohorung, Gareth E Kegg, and myself) are now working on it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This incident is the worst thing that we can imagine that could happen in any society whether it is east or west. What I was trying to explain from the first is that this story has not been covered properly by mainstream medias. I am not sure the reason behind that but I know this needs to be a hot topic for discussion and media coverage. For that reason I created the article. It deserves top attention. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Media do seem wrong to have given it so little coverage. That it came so soon after the bombing in the capital may be the reason for that; but it doesn't make this event any less notable in itself. We now have a solid article on this so I propose we post it ASAP. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with the altblurb. This is a relatively slow-burning story now, shamefully, but it's definitely in the news. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would prefer not to post this since I updated the article. It has been marked "ready" now (not by me), with pretty obvious consensus, for 18 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Go for it Thaddeus. Even without you comment the consensus would be clear. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

- Posted Smurrayinchester 09:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Commment. This is actually now stale, since it happened on 15th April. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Did you read the discussion? The whole debate was about whether it was OK to post now (when the # is kidnappees emerged) or not (since eth actual event happened a wewek ago). We decided it was OK to post now with an alert blurb that reflected new info had emerged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Much oppose and very stale. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WISE 0855–0714Edit

Article: WISE 0855–0714 (talk, history)
Blurb: Kevin Luhman discovers WISE 0855–0714 the nearest free floating planetary mass object 7 light years away.
News source(s): http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/786/2/L18/

Article updated
 --Nestrs (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really seeing this in the news anywhere, and the article is nowhere near the quality/length required to meet the minimum standards for ITN inclusion. Snappy name for the "planetary mass object" mind you...The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The article now uses the shorter title instead of WISE J085510.83–071442.5. Nestrs (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is In The News, not In The Primary Literature. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this isn't showing up in regular news. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support this if/when the item does hit the news, and if we can add a bit more detail to the article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose In astronomical terms, not especially impressive. Closer brown dwarfs have been discovered (although in a binary system, rather than alone: Luhman 16). There are (according to theory) lots of brown dwarfs floating around in space - so far the WISE data has revealed over one hundred in our neighbourhood. The problem is that they are cold, dark and don't weigh much (in a relative sense!), which makes them very difficult to pick up against the background. Smurrayinchester 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

April 21Edit


Riyadh compound bombings convinctionsEdit

Article: Riyadh compound bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Five people are sentenced to death and 37 others given prison time for their roles in the 2003 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
News source(s): BBC
  • Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusB&action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BRiyadh+compound+bombings%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Riyadh+compound+bombings&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: A resolution the one of the more famous terrorist attacks of the last 15 years. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sorry to be going through and opposing lots of your noms, Thaddeus; I promise it isn't personal. This one seems to me not significant in current world news. The bombing itself was significant, sure; this is the cleanup afterwards. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in YemenEdit

Articles: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (talk, history) and Unmanned combat air vehicle (talk, history)
Blurb: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula hit by 'unprecedented' wave of US drone strikes, training camp 'completely destroyed'.
Alternative blurb: ​A large number of US drone strikes on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula kill dozens of militants and destroy a training camp.
News source(s): abc, Guardian, BBC, CNN, Reuters, Guardian, Reuters, WP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large wave of drone attacks on AQAP over the past 3 days, some sources say 'unprecedented'. Number of deaths is not confirmed but seems to be around 60-70 people including at least 3 civilians. Follows a recent video released by AQAP. One analysis hereBalaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as the article does not seem to have been updated at all. Otherwise I'd support this. I've added an altblurb that at least adds some verbs to the sentence. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support now the article has been updated. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on reliability and notability. As we don't actually know the extent of drone operations in the world, it's impossible for us to determine whether or not a particular event is "large" or "unprecendented". And without those qualifiers, this article becomes "drones attack target", which no one thinks is notable.128.214.172.232 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Main article updated, drone article doesn't need update. "Massive and unprecedented" is quote from Yemeni government via CNN, make of it what you will... This is definitely a series of attacks over multiple days on multiple targets, with casualties somewhere between 40 and 70. Image provided is the Black flag of jihad which we use on the AQAP page but may want to think twice about using on the Main Page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
NYT says "the largest barrage of airstrikes carried out in Yemen this year ... and one of the largest strikes carried out since President Obama outlined a new strategy last May for targeting Qaeda militants in battlefields outside Afghanistan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely no that flag to front page, it has only tangential relation to the event, at best. Since even the nominator seems to question it, I have commented the image off. --hydrox (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Boston MarathonEdit

Article: 2014 Boston Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: Meb Keflezighi of the United States and Rita Jeptoo of Kenya win the 2014 Boston Marathon.
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, Meb Keflezighi wins the men's Boston Marathon and Rita Jeptoo wins the women's race.
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Blurb will have to be revised to normal format for a dual gender competition, I am not sure what that is. I am also updating the article. There are pictures available for both winners if desired.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Question would we normally post both men and women's results? Or is it considered one race? --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    We normally post both winners, see altblurb. The article will need more prose on the race. See 2014 London Marathon as an example of what we are looking for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Excellent, thanks. I wasn't sure how it went, I have been (slowly) expanding the race section. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable per ITN/R & good articles. I've edited 2014 Boston Marathon into the past tense. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted ITNR and article of adequate quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Would it be appropriate to put a cropped pic from one of the articles (maybe Rita Jeptoo, since we usually run male pics. A female pic would be nice). It should be pretty easy to take one like File:Rita jeptoo 2013 boston marathon.jpg and crop it to show her face better. I've done this before, but I always mess something up, and David Levy has to have words with me over it... --Jayron32 18:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if my messages have come across as rude. My intent was only to inform you of the issues. —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, not at all. It's a statement of my own inability to do it correct. If I do something wrong, you're always invited to fix it. --Jayron32 20:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    If you crop and upload a picture to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg (on Wikipedia not Commons), I'll do the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have uploded a local cropped version to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have updated it as a crop from File:Rita Jeptoo in 2014 Boston Marathon.jpg which is actually from the 2014 Marathon, and she is looking towards the page, more MOS complaint-like. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've updated ITN's image. —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hes Eritrean...traeachery! give up the Hhabeshas...never mind that im not residing where I was born ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 20Edit


[posted to RD] Rubin CarterEdit

Article: Rubin Carter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Rubin "Hurricane" Carter dies at the age of 76.
News source(s): Globe and mail NBC Sports

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 I don't know if this would qualify for a full blurb, but he was quite well known, in particular for his wrongful conviction, to the point of having a significant movie made about him. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD - subject has had multiple songs, books, and movies made about him. There are a few unreferenced paragraphs in the article - hopefully those can be fixed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I assume the criteria being asserted is DC2 (very important figure in his or her field) but in this case is it being claimed they are important in the boxing field or the legal field(for being wrongly convicted and his work afterwards), or a combination? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I would say more significant as someone wrongly convicted, and his work thereafter. He is probably more well know for that (at least these days), although my knowledge of boxing is not significant, in particular boxing in the 1960s. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The person doesn't seem to have achieved fame in his field. Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's like opposing Rosa Parks because she didn't do any significant secretarial work. The fact that he was a boxer is just a sidebar. Like Rosa Parks, Rubin Carter was a major lightning rod in the American Civil Rights movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as fascinating, encyclopedic subject with high reader interest, subject influential in two fields. Article needs tenses changed and could use better referencing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I just went over it and I think all the tenses are updated, although the referencing does need work. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending further update. "Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society." Really now? I'm so glad that promoting awareness of wrongful convictions does absolutely nothing to advance anything. Maybe I'll go act in some two-bit musical TV show instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is the death of the Hurricane.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Interesting crossover between sports and crime/law topics in additional to someone with a biographical film. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Well known figure. No opposition to this being a full blurb, if there is consensus to do so. Calidum 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for RD Weak because famous primarily for what was done to him rather than for what he did. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentHurricane (Bob Dylan song) was one of Bob's best:
To see him obviously framed
Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed
To live in a land where justice is a game...
Sca (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
R.I.P. Rubin, ride on where the trout streams flow and the air is nice.. --hydrox (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Id say Blowin in the wing, but yes his was one of the first awakening to the police state that we are now in (or approaching) Mind you we should always keep our standards FAR higher than N. Korea et al instead of approaching itLihaas (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] UkraineEdit

Article: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk, history)
Blurb: Unrest in Ukraine turns deadly despite an interim agreement.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well the lat blurb dropped off the page after a recent psate of activity in the news, but this is still in the nes. We could possibly have a sticky? --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - same issue re Korean Ferry, discussion below. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose blurb acting as sticky. Neutral on a two word "Ukrainian unrest" sticky next to "more news". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"At least" three killed near Sloviansk early Easter Sunday, despite "truce." [12] [13] I don't see how we can ignore this. Sca (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use one of the ITN bullet-points for 'ongoing' news items, in a combined blurb ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea. Perhaps suggest on talk adding a "other ongoing news: X, Y, Z" line akin to the RD line? Certainly not something we can decide without discussion as it would be a rather significant change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support sticky This is an ongoing situation with lots of news, and lots of interest. We've done this in the past (Syria most recently) and this certainly seems to merit one. --Jayron32 02:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought we tried to avoid stickies these days? The 'ongoing ticker' could be of use, mind... doktorb wordsdeeds 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The ongoing ticker idea is now being discussed on talk. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Three to five" killed by Ukrainian forces April 24 near Slaviansk. [14] Sca (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19Edit


Iran nuclear dealEdit

Article: Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iran announced a deal has been struck to "redesign" the Arak nuclear plant
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well a breakthrough has been ,ade and its not just a delay. Seems notable after eyars of bickering. Probably more, when netanyahu hears about makes som e rambling statement/. --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait So far, media are reporting this as "Iran state TV says", "Iran Vice President says", "Iranian official says", and similar. I think we should wait until statements from the other side in the negotiations confirm what the Iranian side is saying. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh Iran agrees to deals it plans to ignore entirely every so often just to keep the international community off its back for a little while. There's nothing to suppose this is anything more than "Iran says 'sure, we'll agree to stop doing that' while it keeps on doing it anyways". --Jayron32 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, unless you have evidence that the Iranian government has entered into this agreement in bad faith, that's really just speculation. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on our personal views of the Iranian regime. If there is an agreement, then clearly the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany think that there is a prospect that Iran will actually carry it out, or else they wouldn't agree to it. It's also worth noting that there has been a change in government since most of the previous negotiations - the new President is significantly more moderate. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Point taken. --Jayron32 01:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Per Neljack, it is not up to us to decide if Iran will follow through, and thus it looks like a significant agreement. However, the level of coverage I'm seeing is not that great so I can only weakly support. The article is not updated, so my support is conditional on an update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18Edit


[Closed] 2014 Guerrero earthquakeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Guerrero earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 7.2 magnitude earthquake hits Guerrero, Mexico.
Alternative blurb: ​A 7.5 magnitude earthquake hits Guerrero, Mexico.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, TIME, The Guardian, CNN

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake affecting tourist areas like Acapulco and major hubs such as Mexico City. Not quite clear yet the magnitude of the earthquake. --70.26.175.165 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose Initial reports are stating there's no known fatalities or major damage, but that's it. Mind you, the reports from Mexico City, far from the quakes epicenter, are light, and it will likely take some time for those near the epicenter to report in, but we're also talking about more rural Mexico there, so would not expect much there as well. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of six hours ago, the BBC reported "There are no reports of casualties or significant damage". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if existing reports of no deaths and no serious damage turn out to be accurate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 7.0 is the usual lower limit for an article, not for posting to ITN. There seems to be ongoing earthquake activity on the planet right now, perhaps one will come along that kills a lot of people so it can be posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] LADEE crashes into the MoonEdit

Article: Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The LADEE spacecraft ends its mission by intentionally crashing into the Moon
Alternative blurb: ​NASA ends the LADEE spacecraft mission by intentionally crashing it into the Moon
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's not every day that NASA deliberately crashes something into the Moon. I'll start work on the article in a moment. --Modest Genius talk 20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Sad day indeed. *cough* I mean, LADEE does seem to be a prominent enough spacecraft. Weak support I guess. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – doesn't really seem like science "news", so much as a procedural fact about a particular mission reaching a particular phase. IMO it would be more newsworthy if NASA publishes some interesting findings from the mission. It Is Me Here t / c 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - did it do or discover anything particularly novel or important? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes: it was the first mission to use long-distance laser communication and made major discoveries about the thin atmosphere of the Moon. Because it was a short mission, little has been published yet and lots of analysis is still to be done, but it was clearly a success in both scientific and technological senses. Modest Genius talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the crash landing was not intended to kick up material for study, so it is just a routine event. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Deliberately destroying $280m space probes is not a 'routine event'. You can argue the significance if you like, but not that it's routine! Modest Genius talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Change the title of this section to "LADEE space mission successfully ends as planned on the surface of the moon". Emphasise the mission, not the crash. Making it positive might elicit more positive responses. 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the spacecraft didn't intentionally crash into the moon. A suicidal spacecraft would be news. Bellemora (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Do read the source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph of lead... "The mission ended on April 18, 2014, when LADEE was intentionally crashed into the far side of the Moon." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "was intentionally crashed" not "intentionally crashed". The intention was NASA's not the spacecraft's. Bellemora (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (That's why I added the altblurb.) Bellemora (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per Modest Genius' and Bellemora's reasonings, but change the "it" to "the spacecraft". Rhodesisland (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD as well, as LADEE Spacecraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
  • Marked Ready well supported, well updated, suggest RD is okay instead of blurb, but the item should be posted either way as the admin determines. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD posting Adding this to RD seems a little "jokey" to me. It might even seem a little derogatory to the people listed in RD. This is the end of a mission by NASA not a death and should be posted as we would/have other mission endings. Still Support posting ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - the consensus is a bit hard to read since three options were offered (blurb, RD, no post), but there seems to be enough support for some kind of post to justify posting. Among those who supported, a full blurb is preferred, so that is what I did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the Aug 2012 RfC that established RD, User:ThaddeusB, three-way votes were to be viewed as an oppose consensus if total opposes outweighed total supports of any type, RD or blurb. And supports for a full blurb were to be counted as supports for, RD if full blurb did not gain consensus outright. I am not disagreeing with your decision, just pointing out that posting of some sort was indeed called for here. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
True on RDs in general (thanks for reminding me). This was kind of a unique situation though, as some posters (per talk) are clearly opposed to non-human RDs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Opposition based on such literal-mindedness seem more pathological than logical. There's a reason unique craft are referred to as she, and such notable animals and craft that meet their demise certainly deserve more attention than little old ladies who never did anything except die at 116 y/o. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] South Sudan UN base stormedEdit

Articles: United_Nations_Mission_in_South_Sudan#2014 (talk, history) and South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–14) (talk, history)
Blurb: UN base in Bor, South Sudan attacked in violence between Nuer and Dinka peoples, 58 people killed including 48 civilians.
Alternative blurb: UN base in Bor attacked in South Sudanese conflict, 58 die including 48 civilians.
News source(s): abc, BBC, Guardian, Guardian

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: 58 civilian refugees shot dead within UN base. UN secretary-general calls it a war crime. (correction: 48 civilians + 10 attackers) --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More notable is the take over of the oilfields than this. This particular event has already lef to increased security there and isnot as unstable. Also there is a nother article out there that we posted in December,.
I support the posting of something to do with S. Sudan, but not the blurb proposed. The take over of the oil fields and that Aguer silly commentary/stupidity) is more indicative of instabilityLihaas (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What was the Aguer silly commentary/stupidity ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)'
  • 'Support This was a major attack on civilians working with the United Nations, i.e. neutral folks, not participants in the civil war. High death toll. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per HiLo; attacks on UN facilities/missions are notable, along with the significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons above. The article could use a lot more bulk, but it is interesting enough for me to click on a couple of links that brings a lot more information. Mvblair (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment orange maintenance tag still exists in target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not certain that all 58 of those killed were civilians, it seems that most of them were but a few of them may have been among the attackers, which would make them sort-of not civilians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Newer reports indicate 58 deaths of which 48 were civilians and 10 attackers. Further detail in the article. UN security council has issued a statement calling the attack a war crime. I'm amending the blurb to correct erroneous '58 civilians'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
comment UNMISS is a broader scope, the directly relevant article is South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) which really ought to be South Sudanese civil war, as sources are increasingly referring to it.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We could use both - I've put this as the altblurb: "UN base in Bor attacked in South Sudanese conflict, 58 die including 48 civilians". I've added South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–14) to the template above pro tem, as article2, needing updating. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In that cse take my [mild] objection as a support. Resolvedit all and its unanimous. Someone pleas emark ready if the requisite 2-3 sentences updateS are there.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
TRM has noted the existance of problems that do not yet seem to be resolved. --Jayron32 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The second article was since added...? Post with that and then bold the other when its done?Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is the "blurb" in headlinese? This isn't normal practice, is it? 58 people, including 48 civilians, die in an attack on the UN base in Bor, South Sudan. Bellemora (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support adding support for when the articles are ready. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done a minimal update on the second article (South sudanese conflict) but really this set of related articles needs substantial revision/re-organising/merging/something (South Sudanese conflict (2013–14), Ethnic violence in South Sudan (2011–present), Sudanese nomadic conflicts) - so we might want to stick to the original blurb and just use the UNMISS article for ITN. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Update? — BBC quotes UN report saying "hundreds" killed at Bentiu last week.[15] Sca (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted a version of the attack on the UN base. If a different/more up-to-date blurb is desired, I would suggest making a new nomination --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Algerian presidentEdit

Article: Algerian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is re-elected in Algeria.
Alternative blurb: Abdelaziz Bouteflika is re-elected as President of Algeria.

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Notable per ITN/R, article is OK. Blurb: suggest we wikilink Algeria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It would be better to link the more directly relevant President of Algeria if we are going down that road. See altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. On ITNR, and the article has been updated and is decent enough quality to post. Modest Genius talk 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted (having fixed all the bare references). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mount Everest avalancheEdit

Article: 2014 Mount Everest avalanche (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least twelve Sherpas are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest.
Alternative blurb: ​At least twelve Nepalese guides are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest.
News source(s): BBC CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A terrible loss of the workhorses who get rich Westerners to the summit, and the worst loss-of-life in a single event on the world's highest mountain. Stub article needs work. Not sure we've posted a mountaineering ITN ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - per TRMs reasoning. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that using the last major Everest climbing loss (1996?) article as an example, this short article will likely grow as investigators determine what went wrong in time. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
lean oppose, but weakly article needs improvement. And the loss of life on its own is not notable, per precedent, but if its a famous first then i would support it as a minority topicLihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Which Everest/avalanche precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Being a "famous first" isn't an ITN requirement. Probably 90% of what we post is not a first. That said this is "famous" (being widely reported around the world) and a "first" (most deaths ever on Everest). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very sad event. I like mountaineering, but there are many similar sad events around the world almost every week where 10 - 20 people lose their lives. I don't see this story as being particularly widely reported or prominent compared to other items currently in the news. On the plus side, this is the worst mountaineering disaster on Everest, but there have been worse accidents on other mountains, such as 43 dead on Mt. Lenin.[16] Jehochman Talk 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's more about the victims really, and for diversity here at ITN that we're always looking for. We posted a plane crash in which three people died... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you are looking at, but the sources in the article alone show this is being covered in depth by some of the best newspapers in the world. See NY Times for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support People lose their lives accidentally in traffic collisions, airplane crashes or bomb blasts fairly frequent, but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest. The death toll is also high for one such accident, albeit not if compared to accidents of different kind, and the news receives attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"... but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest" I'd say one in ten attempts resulting in death is quite common. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Difference being these guys were preparing the mountain for tourists, earning next-to-nothing for doing so. And this is the worst death toll in a single day, would you suggest that we wouldn't have posted the 1996 Mount Everest disaster if ITN had been around? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, deaths on Everest are commonplace. More people are climbing nowadays, meaning that the number of dead is consistent with the risk. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's the multiple deaths associated with a single natural "disaster" (the avalache), while they were in the middle of a job they were doing. Yes, people die attempting to climb Everett on their own violation, one could argue that's Darwin's law in play, but this is far different from that. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I withdraw my oppose. I heard an in-depth story on NPR about how these guys don't have sufficient life insurance for the task. That costs as interesting secondary analysis for me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems clearly notable as the largest number of people to ever die in one event on Mount Everest. While people die every year on Everest, more than 2 or 3 people dying in a single event is very unusual. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this was any other mountain, would we even think about posting it? People die on Everest all the time (sadly). So many in one incident is unusual, but twelve is still a small number in the grand scheme of things. We can't post every avalanche that kills a dozen people, and I don't see why being on Everest makes this any more significant. Modest Genius talk 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's precisely because it's on Everest, and that it involves the locals, that makes this significant. They were only there to pave the way for rich bastards from first world countries, who I hope will now find a way to support their families forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons given; Everest is more notable than other mountains being the tallest in the world, so disasters there are more notable than if they occurred elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is borderline, and of interest in a record book sort of way. But the article, even though it has been stretched into three "paragraphs" is really only one, and it seems doubtful anything more than an entry in a list is really warranted here notabilitiwise. Prior events on Everest have involved the deliberate abandonment of climbers. Here there was simply a natural event, no evidence of human malfeasance. 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
    The article has already been expanded and no doubt there will be much more on this over the coming days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Deadliest accident ever on the world's highest mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - some of the arguments above are quite strange. Of course it is more notable because it happened on Everest (and 12-16 dead in any avalanche is already significant). Additionally, this is drawing attention to the plight of the Sherpa people, something few tourist climbers ever consider, and even fewer regular people are even aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    BTW, I am not sure "Sherpas" is technically correct. It is correct in the sense that the term is often used as a synonym for climbing guide, but not all guides are ethnically Sherpa (most Everest guides are, but some are members of other ethnic groups). Its unclear to me if all of the 12+ killed here were Sherpa. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready, consensus is clear and update sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because although the immediate cause was a natural disaster, the indirect cause was exploitative tourism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention Needed as an oppose, I feel safe in saying that with an 11-4 support, this should be posted ven by the nominator or updater at this point, unless there's some technical problem I missed with the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted as clear consensus exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel as though the blurb should be changed to:
"At least twelve Sherpas are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest."
i.e. The word avalanche should be bolded and linked instead of killed. It just seems more consistent with the other news stories. Thoughts? 66.249.84.233 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
support, because 'avalanche' more specific. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Changed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Half thought about that when I posted it but thought that someone may have considered suggesting something different during the voluminous nomination process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
comment## Im not saying this was under dispute to post as there was a majority in support, but theres at least a COI in the nominator posting it. Theres plenty of admins who can psot.Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, consensus was pretty strong (against me), and one opposer had already said they wouldn't object to the nominator posting it themsevles. I think we've fallen into a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap here - many of the arguments above were essentially 'they're poor an exploited, so of course we should post it'. I disagree with that reasoning, but not with the mechanics of judging consensus and actually posting it. Modest Genius talk 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I can speak only for myself, but my support had nothing to do with the plight of the Sherpas, but actually the fact that the avalanche was drawing attention to that plight. That is, having a secondary effect beyond the body count. Ideally that is what we look for in any disaster. (I would have also supported it if 12 western climbers died in a single event on Everest, and I'm sure others would have too.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My oppose as well had nothing to do with the victims being Sherpas. Given the overwhelming consensus and the fact that even opposes like myself could se it, and the dearth of active admins here, there was no reason an involved party should act after this rather decent interval. Had the poster reverted his own vote, or whatever its called, just for the sake of appearances, there'd still have been overeffingwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd have posted it if I wasn't on a phone at the weekend. That The Rambling Man got to it first therefore makes no difference to the end result, and no harm was done. Stephen 02:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite, I waited 11 hours from when this was marked Ready to posting it. "Theres plenty of admins who can psot" doesn't seem to be true in this instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17Edit


[Posted] Human cloneEdit

Article: Human cloning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientist announce the first human embryonic clone derived from adult cells.
Alternative blurb: Human embryonic clone cells are created by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilised egg cell with one from an adult cell.


al2: Adult human DNA is cloned for the first time within an unfertilized egg.
News source(s):
TIME, WSJ, The Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either a great or terrible breakthrough depending on one's POV, but clearly highly significant either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't say "human clone", readers will think there is a baby. They created some stem cells. Given the embarrassing incident with posting the last stem cell thing, and the South Korean fraud incident, would it not be preferable to Wait for confirmation by another lab? Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I changed it to "human embryonic clone" - please suggest better wording if you can. As to timing, the story is in the news now, and is being covered by the cream of the crop news sources. There will barely be a blip when it is confirmed (which due to the legal situation of cloning might not be anytime soon either). I feel now is the best time to post; using language like "announce" implies it hasn't been confirmed yet. (Incidentally, I am not sure what you are referencing when you say South Korean fraud.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Have a look at Hwang Woo-suk, particularly the Controversies section. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As a note given this is a scientific item, this is a story that comes from publication of the research in a peer-reversed journal (per the Telegraph's article), as opposed to a lab making the jump before scrutiny has been applied. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good point. Peer review implies a certain (but not perfect) level of review has taken place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like the blurb to be more precise. These guys didn't simply create an embryo from adult cells. They used a normal human egg as the basis of their work. The Telegraph article says: "The technique works by removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a skin cell. An electric shock causes the cells to begin dividing until they form a ‘blastocyst’ – a small ball of a few hundred cells." It's important to say that that this process still involves a normal human egg. How about the blurb saying: "Scientists announce a human embryonic clone from adult tissue by replacing the nucleus of a normal unfertilised egg with the nucleus of an adult skin cell."? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sounds good - I shortened/tweaked it a bit and put it as the alt blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have trimmed even more. Also, I made it clear that there is no baby. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (with altblurb) major technical achievement, and links are a gateway to many nice articles. I will point out that "cloning" has both a rather dry technical meaning, and a very sensational popular meaning, and could confuse readers. I have changed the altblurb to more precisely reflect what's going on here, and to be more succinct. BR128.214.214.31 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support revised blurbs. As said above, cloning has a different meaning in popular usage than in scientific (that is, when I see "cloning," I automatically think scientists created a t-rex or something). The revised blurbs do not reflect that popular connotation and are good in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talkcontribs)
  • Support - cloning,, hmm interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will work on the article in a few hours - it is not ready for posting at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 - because it's the clearest explanation of what this particular breakthrough is, to my mind. Agree with User:Mvblair that we want to avoid implying the 'boba fett' kind of cloning. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 after the article is updated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated and marked ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted]: Gabriel García Márquez diedEdit

Article: Gabriel García Márquez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez (pictured) dies at the age of 87.
News source(s): [17]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I think this should get a full blurb Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per death criterion 2, 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field'. Nobel Prize for Literature, world figure in his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for full blurb — One of the Spanish literature giants. I think his death should be posted as a full blurb. He is widely regarded as the most popular writer in Spanish since Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th century. [18] ComputerJA () 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting to RD for now, probably a full blurb is in place when there's a bit more update. --Tone 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tone: Thanks for the speedy posting. Good call on your part. ComputerJA () 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb was a key member of the Latin American Boom and won a Nobel Prize; one of the most important authors in the past century. SpencerT♦C 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb I have updated the article to a 5-lines paragraph. It is already tagged as a good article. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb common sense, one of the great figures of Spanish literature. Secret account 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb per Computer JA.
  • Not Updated a shoe-in for a full blurb, but the article is still in the present tense. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Márquez was definitely one of the most sound names in both Spanish-language and modern literature and definitely one of the greatest and most popular writers of our generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready The article now appears to stand in a good shape and the death section is sufficiently updated to go on the main page. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I have very high standards for a blurb, but I think Marquez meets them. Undoubtedly one of the most important writers of the last half-century. Many people would say he was the most important Spanish-language writer since Cervantes. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Seeing the news coverage and reading about him, I do think a blurb is warranted. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Nobel laureate, most important Latin American writer ever, and who hasn't read One Hundred Years of Solitude on the subway? Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, the passing of a literary giant. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The overwhelming consensus here for a full blurb is pretty convincing. Let's get it up asap. Redverton (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted per overwhelming consensus here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good call and good response. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler-186fEdit

Article: Kepler-186f (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA announces the discovery of Kepler-186f, the first habitable earth-sized exoplanet.
Alternative blurb: NASA announces the discovery of Kepler-186f, the first Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting in its habitable zone.
News source(s): (Globe and Mail), (Science Magazine)
  • Nom. --bender235 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, article already looking good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support—significant scientific discovery pertaining to space exploration and finding life outside of Earth. 184.146.116.16 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Astredita (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Dammit, I was about to nominate this! Oh well... Anyway, this is clearly a significant discovery (like Enceladus' ocean). Jinkinson talk to me 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Blurb is incorrect - there is no way to know if a planet is habitable or not. Being in the habitable zone just means it might be habitable. Please don't equate the two on the home page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    I concur, it should say habitable zone. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article says "near" its habitable zone. Does that mean it lies just outside the zone? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Before that point in the article, the article says it is in the HZ. Where is it in the HZ? Near the outer edge. Astredita (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • This detail definitely needs cleared up (in the article) before the story is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The word "near" has been replaced with "so although it is within the habitable zone it is near the outer edge of the zone Astredita (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues seem to be resolved in the article, posting. --Tone 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16Edit


[Closed] [RD] Karpal SinghEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Karpal Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/04/17/Karpal-Singh-dies-car-accident/

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet? Note; If this is an RD nomination, a proposed blurb is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going for RD nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As 331dot asks, which of the RD criteria does this gentleman meet? In any case, the article needs to be updated to reflect the fact he has died, tense changes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Karpal Singh gained some fame in Australia and New Zealand for defending citizens of those countries accused of frug trafficking. It's mentioned in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Say no to frugs. Stephen 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Are we saying he is very important to the legal field, then? He was also twice charged with sedition which seems (from reading the article) to be a unique situation. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Seems to have been a significant figure in Malaysian politics, as well as being known internationally for his criminal law work. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No rationale, neither the death itself or the career itself meets ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I too do not see a satisfactory rationale at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per those concerned over how this nomination meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ditto The Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Juno proteinEdit

Article: Juno (protein) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover Juno, an egg membrane protein that facilitates fertilisation in mammals.
News source(s): Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Nature, Telegraph, The Independent

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks important. --Brandmeistertalk 20:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have tried to improve the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and important discovery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some concerns: the researchers say that the gene is named Folr4 and propose renaming it Juno. I am unsure if they have the authority to do such a rename. Quite unusually, there is no Wikipedia article for Folr4. The stub at Juno (protein) is missing the Template:Infobox protein that would go a long way towards rounding out the article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yah, perhaps move the article to Folr4 for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    That was my thinking. When whatever committee gets around to renaming it Juno the article can always be moved back. Abductive (reasoning) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - this looks interesting, but I wouldn't say it looks important; the discovery is important for our understanding of the mechanics of mammalian reproduction but it's not really going to change anything, is it? If it is going to change something, I'd like to see some indication of what in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • According to findings, female mice without that protein (and, most likely, humans as well) become infertile, so I'd say it's a milestone discovery. Brandmeistertalk 08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • How much of a milestone surely depends on what proportion of infetility cases are caused by the lack of the protien. If it's only the cause of infertility for a tiny fraction of those affected, then this isn't that practically important. MChesterMC (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Saying that female mice without the protein become infertile is not the same thing as saying it is a cause of infertility unless you also show that there are naturally-occurring individuals who lack that protein. If the headline is actually 'Scientists discover major cause of infertility' then my vote changes to support - but that's not what I'm seeing here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Interesting, and this paper has certainly gone towards the top of my to-read list, but until it's been shown to be strongly involved in human infertility etc I don't see what the wider appeal is. Regarding the above comment of "and, most likely, humans as well", that is for the moment completely and utterly unfounded, until shown otherwise. Fgf10 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Discovery is interesting if not world-shattering, article is good if a bit technical for the lay reader. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support historically a much more important development than the Everest fall, may explain many case of infertility. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Korean ferry sinkingEdit

Article: 2014 South Korean ferry capsizing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A ferry carrying more than 470 people, including 350 students, capsizes off South Korea.
Alternative blurb: ​A ferry with more than 450 people aboard capsizes off South Korea, leaving at least 4 dead and 284 missing.
Alternative blurb II: ​A ferry with more than 450 people aboard capsizes near Jindo Island off South Korea, leaving at least 4 dead and 284 missing.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing story as it apparently just occurred with sunrise there now. Its reported as severly listing (saw a video of it at 90 degrees or thereabouts). Im off to sleep, but someone can keep an eye on it --Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Noting that there's more than just students on the ferry. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose From the reports, there is an orderly rescue process going on in place, no deaths reported as of yet. Sounds like there was time for them to warn passangers and alert coast guard units for rescue. If this turns more tragic, that might mean something. Changing to Tentative support due to lack of information incoming Full Support --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • All the students and teachers have now been rescued. [19]. So yeah, still looking like this isn't going to be a significant ITN story. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Conflicting reports. It looks like the Reuters story has been revised since you read it. "But it later described those figures as a miscalculation, turning what had at first appeared to be a largely successful rescue operation into potentially a major disaster." Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, definitely some initial sloppy reporting and/or attempts to downplay the incident. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • [20] One confirmed death, and initial reports are saying the ship ran aground. I'll keep to tentative oppose but there's a possibility here. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Now two confirmed dead, [21], in addition to confusion in the reports of whom rescued. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, considering support if it turns out to be a deadly (+10) incident. Küñall (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment as of a few minutes ago, confirmation that at least 290 people were unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the missing people part. If it does turn out that they all magically turn up unharmed, then consider this an oppose vote. Either way, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded a lot before it can go live. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are 350 students worth mentioning in the blurb? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Because they were the bulk of the known passangers on the ship (it was a school trip to a nearby island), and this is being highlighted by most press sources. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Children in danger often considered more serious than adults in danger. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until article can give a reasonable summary of the incident and casualty numbers are approximately known. --LukeSurl t c 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 300+ missing children is a lot IMO. Suggest wikilink South Korea as that's a pretty good article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    We don't normally link country names and other common terms. See WP:OVERLINK --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Suggest we discuss at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates#Wikify_country_names_in_news_blurbs?, to avoid derailing the Korean Ferry discussion here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post now. Fun fact: If this was an Irish ship, someone would've cried "US biaz" 2 hours ago, leading to its imnmediate posting. –HTD 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As was this..Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — I don't mind mentioning the students, but I think we should avoid for the time being saying how many died, since it's a developing story. But it should be posted forthwith due to the large number on board. Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding a second alt that gives a better geographic link for reference. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you include the headline with "students" why not make it "high-school students" or "schoolchildren" which will be more informative than the blanket term. Bellemora (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Support use of specific location, "children" rather than "students" (also more specific). Avoid bodycount because data may change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Support pending a little more cleanup on the article / sectional breakdown -- Tawker (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Confirmed casualties are low at the moment, but likely to rise. The 2014 Oso mudslide was posted when the confirmed number of dead was relatively low, this situation is no different imo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's true about the Oso mudslide, this should go up soon, especially now eight hours have passed and there are hundreds still "missing". This is an ITN story regardless of the number of deaths now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update? — Blurb says nine dead, 280 missing. Per Reuters, now 14 dead, 282 missing.[22] (As of 1400 UTC, BBC, NYT, Guardian still say nine dead). Sca (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It it probably better to wait until a full account of passangers (alive or dead) has been established, otherwise we will be updating each time the tally changes. We have the "at least" line to imply that the story is developing. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, these numbers are in a high state of flux, let's just go with "at least" and be a little conservative, early reports were 100% wrong, so nothing to suggest that these won't be equally dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why I suggested yesterday that we leave the number of dead out for the time being. However, the blurb as posted is, predictably, now outdated. Of course, we could lapse into an extended series of fatality updates, but I still think a blurb without fatalities would be better until this episode comes to fruition. Sca (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"At least 4" is not wrong nor outdated. This is SOP for how to handle developing news stories at ITN, as to use lower-bounds so that we don't have to stay up to the minute. A user looking for information on the ferry incident will likely be aware to click through to the article to learn more and find the more updated numbers here. And when there are known fatalities, injuries, or missing persons with a accident, not providing the number that are known looks very weird. "with a number dead and missing" reads wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be SOP at ITN, but that doesn't make it optimal for readers. (True, "at least" is widely used; nevertheless, it's a sort of weasel word phrase.) And BTW, at 1600 UTC the AP said 20 dead. [23] Sca (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember, ITN is not a news ticker, it is to highlight articles with stories that are in the news. As long as we're not presenting factually wrong info (and 20 is "at least 4" here, so we're good), we're fine. I do believe that we have had issues in the past when a story blurb was edited "on the spot" with some disastrous effects, hence why we wait and check on updates, and particularly in this story where the initial reports were "oh, the boat tipped but people were able to get out" and now have become much more disastrous, it's better to get all assured information. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
20 ≠ 4Sca (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point. "20" is "at least 4". I would be agreeing if we were off by a huge magnitude (if that was 200 dead, not just 20), but the difference between 20 and 4 is still small to not be a big issue. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No, not missing the pt. — "at least four" was technically true. I'm just saying that, from the pt. of view of readers, I don't think it was accurate info.
I see we're now updated to "at least 14." I suspect such incremental increases could go on for days. Sca (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
25 now. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bump? Should we bump this up the page? It's fallen off the bottom of our list but it's still very much a current news story in the media - e.g. the rescue/salvage (and 8 sub-articles and videos) is top story on the BBC News website this evening. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say all the items on the template currently are very much still in the news, so I'm not sure what you would bump as "less fresh" --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we take up more space / bullet points or is the amount of space assigned to each section of the Main Page a matter of precarious wikipolitics? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
ITN is the section that is easiest to change the size of on the fly to balance the right- and left-hand columns on the mainpage, so we usually have to adjust to what others are doing. Part of the problem is DYK went from 7 to 6 hooks per update recently due to lack of available hooks (but mostly we've just had a lot of news). Maybe we could convince OTD to take up a bit less space since DYK is shorter now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: — "Body count reaches 113." [24] AP says 121. [25] Sca (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 15Edit


[Posted] RD: Sir Owen WoodhouseEdit

Article: Owen Woodhouse (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [26] [27]

Nominator's comments: Sir Owen Woodhouse was a highly distinguished New Zealand judge who became President of the Court of Appeal (which was then the highest court in the country). But he was best known as the "father of ACC", having been the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Accident Compensation and the author of its "Woodhouse Report" that recommended the system. The scheme was a world-first and quite revolutionary - it abolished the right to sue in personal injury cases and instituted a statutory no-fault accident compensation system administered by an independent government agency. It has had a major impact on New Zealand society, politics and law. He was awarded the Order of New Zealand, the country's highest honour (and one with only 20-odd members at a time). After the news of his death was announced Parliament took the highly unusual step of interrupting its proceedings to pay tribute to Sir Owen - a testament to the impact he had and the respect in which he was held. There are few people in the country who would dispute Sir Owen's significant contribution and impact on New Zealand, as Death Criterion #2 puts it. --Neljack (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm not really seeing anything here beyond importance in New Zealand, and the second criteria mentions them being widely-known, which I am not seeing for the late Sir Woodhouse beyond the island of New Zealand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Support Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
From the top of the page - "Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)#
New Zealand has more than one island. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
My fault, as I knew that already but forgot about it. Also, I have struck my vote after reading the non-attack support votes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What did you forget? That New Zealand has more than one island, or that nominations referring to only a single country are fine? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Except for U.S. noms, which as we know, constitute systemic bias.128.227.239.198 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Stop crying special treatment. It doesn't exist and you know it: You have editors acting out of bad faith all the time here because of so-called "country specific systemic biases". It's all complete crap and needs to stop. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom - seems a very significant figure in NZ society. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Reading the article, he does seem to meet DC2, given his honors and recognition he has gotten after his death. This seems similar to the Harradine nom we just posted. Article seems to me to be cited if a tad short, but I don't think it's too short for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If parliament interrupting its proceedings is indeed unusual then that seems to establish him as being of national importance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support To balance the idiotic post from Kevin Rutherford above. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support In response to an oppose above, DC#2 says widely regarded not widely known.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the paragraph on the Commission on Accident Compensation is unreferenced. Since that is a big part of his legacy (per nom), it definitely needs referenced. A few other items also need referenced. Support on merits ocne article is improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on it, but note that the biography section is currently a copyvio of [28]. Isa (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. I'd posted this seconds before this and reverted. Stephen 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, hopefully. Isa (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. Posted. Do I need to reset the time for an RD? Meh, it's only semi-protected, so I'm sure someone else can see to it if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Some admins reset the timer for RDs, some don't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone who helped! Neljack (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Transgender new legal status in IndiaEdit

Articles: Transgender (talk, history) and Supreme Court of India (talk, history)
Blurb: Transgender recognised as 'third gender' by Supreme Court, India
Alternative blurb: Transgender and Hijra recognised as 'third gender' by Supreme Court, India
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, WP, Times of India, Reuters, WSJ

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: A relatively low-profile news story on the world stage, but of great importance to the people concerned, and of broader world importance in that the whole region seems to be moving towards having 3 genders in law (India follows Nepal and Bangladesh in this). Also interesting in the context of India's recent court ruling which made homosexual sex illegal (see the BBC article). We have decent articles on Transgender (B-class), the Supreme Court of India (C-class), and India itself (FA-class) - this is a chance to show them off.

UPDATE: Also Third gender (C-class, refimprove banner) and Hijra (South Asia) (B-class, copyedit banner) (thanks Fgf10). UPDATE2: Wikilink to Portal:Transgender also an option. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A highly significant decision indeed. Given the population of India, it should affected quite a lot of people. Neljack (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm correct in thinking this is a global first? Also, would it be better to link to hijra? Fgf10 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
They're not the first nation to do it but they're among the first. A additional link to hijra would indeed be an excellent idea. It's B-class but has warning banners so might need a bit of work. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support With India's population and cultural history, this is a groundbreaking and monumental decision. AgneCheese/Wine 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. its not a famous firstLihaas (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For a country of India's size and global significance with 1 billion+ people, nearly everything they do is a famous first. And I say this as an American. AgneCheese/Wine 15:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the largest countries on Earth legally recognizes transgenders as a third gender? A country which has recently banned homosexuality? Significant. Important. Post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support For a country like India with its long and complex history with gender politics, of course it's notable... doktorb wordsdeeds 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Quetsion - where is the update? I am having trouble finidng it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Important decision that has global implications. However I share the question above as to exactly what article has been updated to reflect this for a link on the main page? I do see a 1 sentence update at Transgender#Asia. Do we have a legal-type article summarising the supreme court case (similar to some other countries court cases?) CaptRik (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We have (minimal) updates to Transgender - more updating is needed - but do we want to go with Transgender as the main article or would it be better to choose Hijra (South Asia), Legal aspects of transsexualism, Third gender or even Supreme Court of India#Recent important cases? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As to acknowledge, more updating is necessary. An article on the case would be ideal, but Hijra is also a reasonable target. The main transgender article is probably not ideal for a significant update. As it needs to cover the entire world, there should be minimal detail about any one situation (althoguh more than 1 sentence would be OK). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Case details are now at Supreme Court of India#Recognition of transgender as .27third_gender.27 in law. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there is just a one-line update ("In April 2014, the Supreme Court of India declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law.") in the transgender article and no updates in the other articles. Definitely important, but that's not reflected on Wikipedia. Mvblair (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important decision that needs recognition on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely of great significance given India's population size and culture. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite what reliable sources in the West say, hijra are not transgender. I propose this alternative - "Hijra (often called transgender) recognised as 'third gender' by Supreme Court, India" Yes this is good news but third gender is not transgender. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Judge's ruling specifically says "transgender", Hindustan Times says "transgender",[29] Times of India says "transgender"[30]. Would "Transgender (including some Hijra)" be accurate? Or should we omit Hijra, after all? 'Third gender' in new Indian law may not mean have exactly the same definition as our article Third gender, in which case perhaps we should not wikilink it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Reading the actual ruling itself, it specifically says "Hirajas" as well as transgender. Wording is "Tripathy says that non-recognition of the identity of Hijras, a TG [transgender] community, as a third gender, denies them the right of equality before the law ..." I don't have a secondary source on this yet, primary source is [31]. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that the reliable sources are incorrect. It is difficult to explain, but to say transgender is to assume that there are two genders and that they can be mixed. The concept of hijra is third gender. Western countries do not even have a concept of third gender, so they just say transgender. I know the Indian papers also say transgender because of Western influence. The rights are going to hijra or third gender people. I advocate for use of the term hijra, which is correct. Third gender is also correct. Practically all transgender people in the Western world wish to pass as one gender or the other; hijra are not as deeply interested in this and have different cultural desires. It would be most respectful to use the local term, "hijra", which cannot be translated to English. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There are people in India who are great supporters of rights for hijras and in opposition to rights for transgender or gay people, and see nothing odd about this. That would be one way to explain the distinction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. How do you think we should phrase our blurb? (You've already made a perfectly good suggestion above, my question is redundant). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There are growing numbers of people in the West who identify outside of the gender binary; genderqueer, agender, etc. Some of these people identify as transgender, some don't. Regardless, the fact is that the India Supreme Court decision itself specifically includes the term transgender, even if that is due to Western influence as you claim. For that reason I believe the Transgender article is indeed relevant to this ruling, as are the articles on Third gender and Hijra (South Asia). Funcrunch (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The ruling goes into a lot of detail on this issue - more than we can possibly capture in a blurb. The key ruling is para 129, which gives a section (129.1) for "Hijras, Eunuchs" and a section (129.2) for "Transgender persons". So the judge seems to treat them as separate categories of person which are both affected by this ruling. [32] Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think everyone here understands my position. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of now Reading the BBC article this seems to have nothing to do with recognizing or legalizing Hijra (unsure of plural term), but with declaring them a protected class with set asides. How is the like legalizing or criminalizing homosexuality? It seems to be more like saying you can't discriminate against old people, or the fact that US federal job contracts give preference to bids by black owned businesses. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You're totally right, it's just like saying you can't discriminate on grounds of age or race. Previously in India you could legally discriminate on 'third sex' grounds - the court has now declared such discrimination illegal - that's the 'legal recognition'. I.e. people of third gender have been 'recognised' as a legally protected group. It's not that they were illegal before, it's that they're now defined as a protected minority, and that they no longer have to declare themselves to be either male or female on official paperwork (e.g. passport). That's my understanding at least. You're also right that it's not the same as legalising or criminalising homosexuality - that's just a related topic. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted an active voice version of the Alt blurb as μηδείς was commenting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, rephrase is perfection itself.  . Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Query I thought this happened weeks ago? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
This particular decision is new, dated April 15. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the article hijra and transgender are interchangeable for the broad stroke of the ruling. If hijra are singled out in the headline then eunuchs should be too as they are mentioned side by side in the specific clause. Regardless, if hijra is left in it should be lowercased as it is a common noun describing a class of people rather than a proper noun. Bellemora (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I made hijra lower case. The "hijra and transgender" phrasing was chosen based on this disscussion, so I am hesitant to change it without more input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Request. Could we maybe change "individuals" ---> "people"? Formerip (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Request We are indeed talking about individuals, not a people. One can't interchange, for example, the French people and French individuals and mean the same thing. Individuals is the proper word here. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Medeis, you're just plain wrong here, because there is no definite article in the phrase. "French people" means the same thing as "French individuals", it's just that it is more usual. Formerip (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And nooo..., but you are all sorts of wrong, Former, lol. The American people elected Obama. The American individuals didn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth changing. Any formulation is going to sound awkward. The basic problem is that the third gender doesn't have a collective noun in English - we have 'men', 'women' and 'transgender individuals' or 'transgender people' or 'transgender persons.' None of them flow well. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] April 2014 lunar eclipseEdit

Article: April 2014 lunar eclipse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A total lunar eclipse occurs, which makes the moon appear blood red.
Alternative blurb: ​A total lunar eclipse occurs over most of the Western Hemisphere including east Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Ocean, and North and South America.
News source(s): http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-lunar-eclipse-blood-moon-20140411,0,2273021.story

Nominator's comments: It's weird nominating something that hasn't happened yet. Nevertheless this seems to be an unusual eclipse, and there are supposed to be only 85 in the entire 21st century.[33] --Jinkinson talk to me 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Notable event, good article. No reason why we can't think ahead. Suggest amend blurb to "Total lunar eclipse visible from western hemisphere" (and wait to post it until it is visible) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Near-global interest, but we'd better be quick about this. Sca (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and as sca says we should post this asap as you want Wikipedia readers to see this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Should really be a 3 day header though. The day before, the day and the day after...Seems inappropriate to have it up too long. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To those advocating a quick post: what d you suggets as a blurb? The current suggestion certainly shuldn't be used before the eclipse starts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, relevant. CaptRik (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, globally relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support no brainer. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Now this is the sort of thing worthy of being nominated. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (proposed) more informative and prose. 70.26.172.189 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Timing comment - I assume we are waiting until the eclipse starts to post since most have not advocated for an earlier posting. I agree with that decision since it would be unprecendented (asaik) to post somethign ahead of time on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well unless anyone vehemently disagrees, I'm all for breaking precedent, and posting a blurb with 'will occur' today, changing to 'occurred' this evening. Stephen 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting after the fact would be silly in this case. A few hours or so before it starts will not hurt ITN's reputation for an event that people can prepare to see for themselves. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I check a bunch of the previous eclipses. It doesn't look like any of them were posted ahead of time. I would say post as it starts in present tense. That said, if anyone feels strongly about posting sooner, go for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I wrote the article so someone else should make the call. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it another "timing" issue is that we are discussing this under the April 14 heading, but it will be April 15 (UTC) when it occurs? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it will be April 15 (UTC) in eight minutes time, and our system should automatically generate the new date header. Maybe I'll just move the whole conversation then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please post this now, so readers will see this before they wake up tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Posted There seems to be no great objection to posting early. Stephen 01:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Belated early posting support - It's nice to see that something that is ITN is posted without the unreasonable objections of timing. This eclipse was in the news leading up to its occurrence, and eclipses are predicted to the day and time of day for the next century and beyond. These events are best informed ahead of time, as proactive reporting as opposed to reactive reporting that is required of unexpected events that generally constitute ITN. I'll note that we are now in one of the eight lunar eclipse tetrads of this century: This will occur three more times, each six months apart, over the next 18 months. Perhaps this should be ITN/R, and if so, the question is whether or not to set a new precedent of posting them 24-48 hours before the event. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

April 14Edit


[Posted] NSA Stories take Pulitzer PrizeEdit

Articles: 2014 Pulitzer Prize (talk, history) and Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: Washington Post and Guardian share the 2014 Pulitzer Prize
Alternative blurb: ​The winners of 2014 Pulitzer Prizes are named. The Washington Post and The Guardian win the main prize, for coverage of the NSA surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden (pictured). 2nd Altblurb: The Washington Post and The Guardian win the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, for coverage of the NSA surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden.
News source(s): Pulitzer, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Personal comment - Global news event, about a global news event. Seems like a solid ITN. Please debate as always though. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Providing an alt blurb - there are many Pulitizers named but clearly the WaPost/Guardian for the NSA matters are the headlines here. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Source? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, just added those. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have completed the framework of the article. I have sources of all awards and will also add to nom now. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the alt blurb masem, obviously use which ever is most apt. The headlines are about the NSA thing, but the exhaustive list is also important. I have switched the NYTimes source for Pulitzer as its the direct page, on a primary source, and the BBC one references the NSA thing as the headline. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposed so long as Snowden is pictured, support otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree the image of Snowden is not a critical element here. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Nominate a more appropriate image and explain why. The headline is the NSA story, which came from Snowden IIRC. Open to argument. Chicago tribune is already using this image in its google header. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... And we have free images of Pultzer himself (which I support) and the Prize. If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
File:Gen pulitzer.jpg - Theres this of course. I have no idea what your personal issue is μηδείς, but you are deeming me belligerent, while clearly instigating s--- without provocation. If you enjoy conflict resolution by all means continue. Im here to work on this, not to play word games with librarians. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If I've learned anything from my experience at ITN, it's this. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Using Snowden's photo is a coatrack - this is meant to celebrate the various Pulitzer winners, and not the substance of the stories they covered. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You dont really have rationale for that. Everyone is using the picture, even people that are against him. Besides, the article is not leaning on him other to say the stories based on his revelations won the main award. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. And just because "everyone" is using the picture doesn't mean we get to too, we are more neutral than that again because we are not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. There is a second level of this story developing, in that some are stating that the fact that these reports got the Pulitzer means that Snowden's actions should be considered far from traitorious , but's that a point of opinion and not an ITN story. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that a picture of Snowden is a coatrack or biased. It is related to the story. The relevant questions are whether it is sufficiently closely related to the story and whether there is a more appropriate image to use. Neljack (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Snowden has zero to do with the ITN/C story : that the Pulitzer committee awarded the WATimes and Guarding for their reporting excellence. The story that they reported on, the NSA survillence stuff based on Snowden's leaks, is a separate topic and giving that any more weight than just the topic of the news reporting (such as by using the picture of Snowden) is coatracking. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Snowden picture; he is not the story. Support listing the Pulitzer winners in principle(wondering if it should be ITNR) as a notable and widely covered award in journalism. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. The headline leads back to Snowden. The article itself will have no picture of snowden and will only have mention of the NSA series of stories in the description. The article is up now in frame work form, and has no great references to snowden. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
My personal views on Snowden are irrelevant; I oppose using his image because he is not the story; the winners of the Prize are. If the article has no picture of him, neither should an ITN entry. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You would prefer to concentrate on the guardian and the washington post? Snowden is synonymous with the series of stories that won the prize. Thats why everyone is using his image. Seems like irrational consensus. The headline concerns snowden, whilst obviously the exhaustive article concerns the prize winners in total. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've explained my position; explaining it again isn't going to help anyone. I would submit the same goes for you. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Article is essentially ready to go. Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to [[34]] in admin for adjudication. If you guys are right, then fair enough, my bad. If not, then I guess well find out the hard way. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You can ask anyone you wish to weigh in, but no admin or any user has the final authority to "adjudicate" anything here; decisions are made by consensus. You not liking the consensus doesn't mean it is irrational. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Every online news story has some picture attached to it no matter how vaguely related. That is hardly a reason for us to do likewise - we are not a newspaper and are not trying to draw reads to boost our ad rates. Its pretty clear no one wants the Snowden pic, but by all means keep arguing the point so no one can debate what is really important - the merits of the story. Also we don't work on being "right" we work on consensus.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Theyve mostly chosen to lead with his picture, because the series featuring his revelations won the main prize. And an irrational consensus is an irrational consensus. There are many reason why these occur, but its not my issue. A nomination has been made, and if the picture thing is an irrational consensus for whatever reason, then it is. If its a legit one under the rules of ITN, then it is. You arent about to push me into changing the picture everyone is using, because of an unproven, unjustified revulsion against snowden for irrational reasons by 3 men and a dog, on a sub section of a NFP site. The media consensus is to use that picture as it logically follows the winner of the main prize. Im not bothered either way. I have no investment here. You guys are acting on your names. Im just reflecting the coverage is see on this from all major american and world media outlets. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there some reason you have falsely described to us what that url links to, User:Count Iblis? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The Pulitzer Prize committee is the one that singled them out for the main prize, not us. "This is the first time the main prize has been shared by two news organisations since 1990, when the medal was awarded to both the Washington Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer." Randomcommentor (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
We also haven't posted these awards in past years. That's part of why I'm concerned people only want this on the front page because of their feelings on the NSA. Calidum 01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The prizes are significant and were widely covered in Latin American media outlets (from what I saw in the afternoon). ComputerJA () 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support modified Alt blurb mentioning WaPo, Guardian and the NSA leak but there is little need to mention Snowden and even far less of a need to picture. If we need a picture, the prize itself will do nicely. I would also support including the Pulitzers on ITN/R. AgneCheese/Wine 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominated for ITN/R --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support main blurb. The Pulitzer is a top-level award with a storied history, and the articles for both the Prize itself and for the winners are encyclopedic. People interested in who won can click on the article. There's no reason to make the blurb as long as it is in the alt blurb. I am agnostic on the picture. Have ITN candidates gotten a lot more chatty or am I imagining this?84.250.106.213 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Global significance of underlying NSA news story, Pulitzer is world's leading journalism prize, award of Pulitzer to these journalists gives moral legitimacy to Snowden's leak and their reporting of it. Likely widespread far-reaching implications for future policy and law worldwide. IMO the most important Pulitzer since the Pentagon Papers. Snowden photo is fine with me, an alternative would be likewise fine. As the underlying story is about the NSA, how about using the NSA logo (fair use) or (for something a bit more fun) the NROL-39 'Giant Squid' mission patch ? Or the Pulitzer Prize itself. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no change in the underlying Snowden story as a result of the reporters getting the Pulitzer. It is coatracking to say that that story is much more important as the ITN item. As I mentioned above, there is a second thread from the Pulitzer win that begs the question if Snowden being tagged a traitor is invalidated by the story, but that's more a talking-heads discussion and not any strong action that is really a news story. It's clear that the Snowden story is the most important Pultizer given this year and thus the reason to highlight it compared to any other Pultizer awarded. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.   Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - industry prize of high repute, story of great importance. Snowden helped create the story, so his picture isn't somehow an obscure lap doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Short version of the blurb please. Formerip (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but the blurb needs to say "Pulitzer Prize for Public Service". There are multiple Pulitzer Prizes, and I was left mystified as to what the "main prize" is. It's not explained in the article. Frankly the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction is the Pulitzer that I think of first. Neljack (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support — In some ways this highly controversial episode was the top story of 2013.
Suggested 2nd Alt. Blurb: "The Washington Post and The Guardian win the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, for coverage of the NSA surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden."
Illustration: The proffered pic. of Snowden has been seen so many times that it's a bromide. (The Guardian uses a different but similar pic. of Snowden, while WX Post uses a newsroom shot of its reporters.) Of the three logos suggested above, only the Pulitzer medal is really apropos, though it's not visually intriguing. Suggest we go with either the medal or no illustration. Sca (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Footnote: Guardian quotes Snowden comments on award, including: "This decision reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can." [35] Shades of Watergate... Sca (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Statue of Joseph Pulitzer (Fort Jay, New York).jpg
Alternative Image I've just uploaded to wikimedia a possible alternative image, it's a statue of Joseph Pulitzer, license cc-by-sa, photo credit Pete Toscano. If we use it then we probably want to crop it a bit, and we will need to credit it which will take up a bit of space. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Balaenoptera musculus is to be complimented on resourcefulness, but I'm afraid no image or likeness of Joseph Pulitzer would be recognizable without a cutline (caption), which ITN doesn't really afford. Sca (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There might be a problem with that image. US does not have freedom of panorama so a photograph of a statue located in a public place and still under copyright is a non-free derivative work. I cannot find when that statue was installed or made, but given that 1) it was likely made after Pulitzer's death (in the 1910s) and 2) the creator (who I don't know) likely lived past 1924 (which 90+life would made it expire), this image is more likely non-free and can't be used. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Commons affirms the statue is still under copyright, so this can't be free. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Pulizer article is very much not ready for mainpage posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated and marked ready. I have added some text to the Pulitzer article and Isanae fixed the formatting to match previous years. There is no need to use any picture as a newer item already has one.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, someone needs to make a few templates for that, it wasn't much fun :) Isanae (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment — Decidedly odd that the posted blurb doesn't say, "by Edward Snowden." Is there a personal antipathy to Snowden at play here? To be sure, he's a controversial figure, and as mentioned above I agree with not running his mug, but this whole story never would have happened without him — he played the central role. What's up? Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Abuja twin bombingsEdit

Article: April 2014 Abuja attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 71 people are killed and 124 injured in twin bomb blasts in Abuja, Nigeria.
Alternative blurb: Boko Haram conducts a series of deadly attacks across Nigeria.
News source(s): BBC NBC News

Article updated

 The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Seems to be a notable attack. Is this related to the other Nigeria incident nominated below? 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Smfh. Its like yesterday all over again...Is it safe to say the story blew up in nigeria?77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Please be careful with your language. GoldenRing (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • BBC says it might be the same group but they don't have a strong affirmation yet. However, this is outside their current region of activity so if it was them, this is an unusual incident. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The president of nigeria just said it was boko haram. As you guys have repeatedly told me my nominee was about an ongoing conflict, may I direct you to my "Boko Haram Attacks" Nominee, also from today, 2 below. Thank you.
  • Strong support. Obviously. Check out the story 2 nominees below RM. This is in a different part of the country, but one may assume a connection is not improbable. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support a general blurb about this group conducting a series of attacks like the one I propose above(though I'm not set on the wording or linking) if there are sufficient updates. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We need to stop straying from this nomination and filling the place up with text. IP now blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Frankly I dont care who does this story. Combine nominees or close one of them down. This group has killed "135 people" and gone on to kill "74" more, hours later. Lets get an article up about this months attacks, before the world finds a different free format to get their information from. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want an immediate posting, Wikinews is thataway-- if you want a decent article to highlight and a proper blurb to match, this will get done in time. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I want someone to get their tie out of the shredder and lets go to work. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Instead of demanding that others do work that you want done, why not just do it? Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Because you are confusing the issue, minimising the issue and obfuscating the relevance of the issue.

Boko Haram have killed 135 people - hours ago. Now they have killed 71 more.

And you want to nominate as relevant because CNN are now covering it and they used a bomb this time.

Whats notable is not that CNN are covering it and they used a bomb. Whats notable is this terrorist group is escalating attacks and launching an assault on the state of nigeria, and they have been in the process of doing so for some time now, while you marvel over a bomb.

Again BBC, AJZ, and Reuters have had this story already for hours. I have been telling you ad infinitum to consider your position, and instead, once again, you have waited for the american networks and a shinny bomb to marvel at. They already done killed 135 people hours ago, as you will see in the nominee right below this one. Who cares if its by bomb or by bullet.

The story is the group are intensifying attacks on the state of nigeria, and you shouldnt need an IP editor to tell you that. Once again, many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • PS - I actually have s--- to do today. I will leave this one with you guys and see what you come up with. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I nominated a story no one was interested in, about this group killing 135 people hours ago, and then on the same day, you are nominating a the same basic chain of events because a bomb went off and the alphabets are all over it. Its a little cheap, all due respect RM.

Im repeatedly getting told killing 135 people isnt notable because theres a lack of media interest and its an ongoing conflict. Even though the government is making statements and BBC, AJZ and Reauters are all over it. Now a bomb goes off and American media is on it, and its a separate nom, even though its just another attack by this group that already killed 135 people hours ago. Nevertheless I will happily contribute to the story, while you claim the nomination, of the same group, in the same spate of attack, that I highlighted 2 nominees down. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Would reasonably support a story about the spat of violence over the last few days (I think there's three separate incidents now? ) with Boko Haram highlighted as the story, but this needs to be updated to add these. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Any way this story goes, we are walking down a path that leads to the larger context of recent attacks. Thats where this story goes. The only way it doesnt go there, is if Boko Haram didnt do it, and as we are dealing with terrorists, confirmation through claimed or proven responsibility is an extremely difficult thing. We either get a confession from BH or we await some kind of trial? We need to establish precedence and link the recent attacks and bomb, which is inexorably part of them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion "Boko Haram caused bus station explosion, says Nigerian President Jonathan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant, I suggest that we rephrase the blurb to the text that I've put in quotes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The salient point is that the president, like everyone else in nigeria is placing this attack, not as some kind of anomaly, but into the wider context of the Boko Haram attacks, that as Masem rightly states, have been going on for days now. The presidents quotes are on the article, because i put them there, and he is quite clear in his rhetoric.

In fact he categorically places the attacks into the greater narrative of boko harams spate of violence "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.". But who ever is dealing with the article has cut short the presidents quote, unjustifiably for what reason?? Have re edited it in, as the full presidents quote is obviously more important than trying to alter the story to fit the nomination or the obsession that this bomb is some kind of special event, divorced from the 135 people they just killed hours ago. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose opinion based blurb. State facts only. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We shouldn't ascribe it to BH unless/until we have confirmation from a reliable source that it was them. In the meantime we can either
  1. say BH are 'suspected' (or 'accused', 'blamed', etc), or
  2. we can report that the president says it was BH, or
  3. we can not mention BH at all.
Personally I prefer option 2, because it allows us to put this attack in the context of the wider/ongoing BH attacks without yet ascribing (in Wikipedia's voice) responsibility for this latest attack. Also option 1 is a bit weasel-wordy (IMO) - if they're accused then we should say who accuses them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

^ Ok I added - Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan visited the scene of the blast, where he appeared to blame Boko Haram for the explosion, saying "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.".[7]

The attack comes a day after Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna claimed the group had killed 135 civilians in north east Nigeria in the week preceding the blast. [8]

Hows that? You draw them into it, through sourced quotes from BBC and two government leaders. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Strongly support the alternative blurb. In any other conflict, we are updating information on attacks in this situation. The fact we slept on this groups activities, doesnt justify treating the bomb as an anomaly now that we have woken up to them. The president and the people of nigeria are experiencing this as the latest in a very recent escalation of attacks. This is reflected in their quotes and there is no point attempting to massage this basic fact out of article coverage. Yes the conflict is protracted, but the intensification and escalation in attacks is a few days/hours old. Thats my case. The alternative is we keep running into the bigger picture, while attempting to make this all about the bomb. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


  • IP77, please, please, please stop obfuscating the nominations with walls of text and personal commentary. That's not what this is about. I don't care for your opinion or accusations of being "cheap", I just want to get on with suitable nominations and sensible discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest you stop addressing me in disparaging tone and then censoring the reply. You essentially stole my nomination from 2 down, posted on the same day, and then hid behind consensus to fashion your own article. Did you not think it worth reading that there was a nomination only 2 spaces below the one you posted?

Dont address me and censor me. You have shown no moral position to chasten anyone. As for being productive, Ive researched this story extensively and have contributed half the article. I was advocating for its inclusion hours before you posted your nomination. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Different events, conflated by you. Please stop it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Its the same spate of attacks as corroborated by the president of nigeria, and reported in BBC, AJZ, Reuters, and now the american networks.Please stop appealing to moderation, when you dont have the common courtesy to give credit to contributors or check other peoples entries before posting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Well congratulations to you for wrecking a process that, while a little wonky, used to work. You have the floor. I have no energy to deal with editors like you. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • all dude respect. I found a story no one here wanted, because there was little interest from the American networks. There was ample evidence of interest from BBC, AJZ, and Reuters. Then as part of this spate of attacks, that no one was interested in, a bomb goes of 1 The American networks report 2 You jump in with a duplicate nomination focused on the bomb and ignoring the fact they just killed 135 people, and any interpretation or article about the bomb, inexorably goes back to the larger context of the boko haram terrorist attacks, that my nomination focused on. And now you have consensus for your nomination, because a bomb went off! I wont be your scapegoat. You did this. You want to appeal to moderation and act like ive done ill, but I contributed half your article and was the only person here advocating a nomination about this group, hours ago, when no one else was interested. You want me out of your nomination. fine. Go ahead with it, and kindly blame someone else as the president of nigeria names the group and draws the bombings into the exact same spate of attacks my own nomination was focused on. Go ahead and take the nomination. It is far easier to attack an unknown than it is to clean your own name. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • It has been pointed out several times that WP's "In the News" is not to simply replicate stories that are headlines in the newspaper. We have a way to highlight news stories that are subjects of notable articles, and your postings have been trying to subvert that process after you've been told that there's a way we do things here. As WPians, the last thing we're here to do is correct political injustice in the world, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
          • You're not in a position to tell anyone anything masem. The format is the guide, not you. Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with it, before making spurious remarks and accusations...The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - major terrorist attack. Article needs more work though. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've worked on the article, I believe it meets the minimum standard required for inclusion on ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
obvious support on scale, article meets mimimum requirements too.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Random mass murder. Sca (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Brian HarradineEdit

Article: Brian Harradine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-14/tasmanian-senator-brian-harradine-dies/5388874

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: As well as being Australia's longest-serving independent senator, for long periods Harradine held the balance of power in the federal parliament, which he used to influence policy in areas such as abortion (where his strong Catholic faith led to him taking a firm anti-abortion stance) and Aboriginal land rights. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support. The article seems kind of slim(though I don't feel inappropriately so) for someone with the influence HiLo describes, but I do think "longest serving Independent politician" meets DC2. No tags in article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD A very significant figure in Australian politics over several decades. I'm surprised that the article is so slim, but then his independence immediately precluded him from high office and I don't think he's had any major scandal attached to him. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) well it is in th einterest of globalizing to put this tchap on here and I support, we also need more such people from the non-English worlsd like east timor or sometingLihaas (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD seems notable and prominent enough in the field of Australian politics. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - referencing is so-so. I would either expect a longer article or a better referenced one. (I.E. I can sometimes overlook a few misisng citations, but when there is only 3 paragraphs total it is not too much to ask for everything to be referenced.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, what? A senator, not the top of his field. His article is slim suggesting lack of impact and lack of interest. His article gets only 16 page views a day. When long-serving US Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. died last year he was not nominated. There have been presidents of some nations who didn't make it on RD. Abductive (reasoning) 15:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't any ordinary senator; the longest serving independent senator in Australian history. That isn't easy to do in a parliamentary system where those not in political parties can normally do little. If the field is Australian politics, this would seem to meet DC2. While I think the nominator often takes the issue too far, there is also a legitimate systemic bias issue here. We did post Daniel Inouye in December of 2012. Page views are not the be-all-end-all. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But not the longest serving. Just because he was an Independent (which is somewhat of a thing in Australian politics) doesn't mean anything. And the very notion that ITN doesn't post Australian material is silly. If Olivia Newton-John were to die tomorrow, there would be no systemic bias against posting. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It means everything, but I guess we will just have to disagree there. I don't think the idea of systemic bias is "silly"; can you point out the last Australian story posted? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD as 331dot suggests, an unusual notability from being an independent senator for such a period. As for the hyperbole from Abductive, I too would be interested in the last (non-cricket) Australian story posted! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hyperbole? I state simple facts: 16 page views a day, vs 600 a day for Daniel Inouye (who I would not and did not vote for ITN). Assertions of BIAS against Australia need to be backed up by failed nominations, not the length of time since something happened there. Here are some recent successful Australia-related noms election results, government split, Aboriginal artist and one failed: Governor-General which failed because just a figurehead and longstanding consensus against such posting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Keith Dunstan wasn't posted. Olivia Newton-John is an appalling example of who WOULD be posted. Why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? Systemic bias anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with entertainers? Are they not serious enough? Look, you think a lady who sang songs and appeared in movies is bad? Talk about BIAS! Politicians are magically better subjects for In The News? People who matter should be posted. An obscure journalist? Please. A long out of office politician? Please. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Bias? LOL. I think Olivia Newton-John is terrific. But why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? And Keith Dunstan was definitely NOT an obscure journalist. For several decades he was the best known writer at Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper. But I'll admit he never made it big in Hollywood, which seems to be an essential criterion for Abductive to approve a posting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Real strawman, dude, real strawman. First you call her appalling, then terrific. Then you say my criterion is Hollywood, when it is, in fact, that the person needs to meet the criteria for RD, which is "top of their field", not effing longevity. Abductive (reasoning) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Page views shouldn't be the top most consideration here. Part of the purpose of ITN is to highlight articles to get people to read them. Also, we do not know how many worthy articles could get nominated that don't because users fear the systemic bias. I'm not sure I would consider September "recent" but I do appreciate you checking. I agree 100% that not posting this is a systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I just demonstrated that there is no bias. Do you seriously think that people here have it in for Aussies? Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No, not people. Only you. And it's not all Australians you have it in for. It's only those who haven't made it big in Hollywood. Would you have supported posting Don Bradman's death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware that "page views" suddenly became part of the ITN/C criteria. Fantastic new update, news to me, sounds like hype, but we should never believe that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
One does not have to "have it in for Aussies" to still be engaging in systemic bias. That's why it's called systemic. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While ordinarily I would agree that the death of a senator from old age is not really ITN-worthy (especially since there are often heads of state who are not featured), but being the longest serving independent senator is noteworthy just as Robert Byrd being the longest serving US Senator was noted. Byrd was not only featured when he passed in June 2010, but he also got a picture slot. AgneCheese/Wine 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    To my shame its seems I supported posting Byrd. The arguments then against posting him sound like mine now, which means I have grown to a more hardline view of non-executive politicians. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but the article could still do with a few more citations and a bit more material on his political impact/achievements. I'll have a look at what I can do. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Good to see the article up there now. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Nigeria : Boko Haram attacksEdit

Closing duplicate nomination. SpencerT♦C 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Boko Haram (talk, history) and Nigeria (talk, history)
Blurb: ​100s killed in Boko Haram attacks
Alternative blurb: ​We ‘ll defeat Boko Haram – Nigerian President.
News source(s): BBCAJZReutersBBCVanguard
Nominator's comments: Number and regional significance. Blind spot on the map. Note to moderator of title, used the towns name and lowest current estimate. Lets not turn africa into one homogenised killing field. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per BBC, 1500 have been killed in Boko Haram since the start of the year, so this is nothing new (akin to the continued violence in Syria + Ukraine) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You do realize Boko Haram is the name of the islamist terrorists, not of a place? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
They are attacking Amchaka in Borno Masem77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please reference BBC source claiming 1500 killed. Has this been covered here, like the Ukraine and Syria conflicts were undoubtedly? I was not aware Nigeria was at war, and there doesnt seem to be much mention of it in articles either. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Right in your source : "At least 1,500 people, half of them civilian, have been killed in the restive north-eastern region this year, according to Amnesty International.". --MASEM (t) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • So source is Amnesty International. Feels like Boko Haram have a license to kill with no wikipedia article and very little media interest. Africa...SMFH77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • There is a WP article on Boko Haram (you've linked it) and there is documented all the known major attacks they've done - this should be added to it, but you can't expect WP to correct media-bias (or lack of coverage) nor world problems. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I do expect it to reflect internationally significant stories. Nigeria is one of africas fastest growing nations and has one of the largest populations on the planet. Africa is a populous region. Killing 100s of africans is an internationally significant thing. I dont expect wikipedia to save the world. Nor do I expect wikipedia to ignore internationally significant stories that affect a great many people, because its easier to reflect western media narratives and interests. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are 3 of the most popular and credible news networks on the planet. Thats more than enough evidence to justify inclusion on merit of sourcing and news reporting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no, we are not always going to reflect international headlines. If you want to do that, go to Wikinews. We're trying to focus on encyclopedic articles here, some which will be about certain events, but in this case, this individual event (the attacks today) is not notable but the ongoing conflict is. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
              • You are meant to be directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. You are meant to be supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Ive demonstrated wide interest by the fact its a massive population, an internationally significant story and its covered by three of the most credible and popular news networks on planet earth. ITN is not InTheNeigbourhood masem. And you are not supporting making wikipedia a great encyclopedia by making it localised and ignorant to the rest of the planet. You dont get the casting vote on if attacks are interesting or not. Thats your opinion. Fair dues. Lets others make their arguments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • Masem - 13 of those incidents on the Boko Haram article have their own adjoined articles and non of the ones I saw have a body count of 135 civilians. Your argument of "meh africa, wikipedia dont care", doesnt hold water. I just demonstrated precendence for exceptional treatment of individual incidents, and this has the highest ostensible body count on that whole page of incidents. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • But not all of them. And again, we need the article before it can be ITN, this small an update to the Boko Harem article would not be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'OK WHO IS Messing WITH MY TITLE?' Plz explain why. Too tired to debate this but originally reads "Boko Harem kill scores in Amchaka, Nigeria." If you are going to change title, plz explain why? Thank you kindly. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I did explain in the edit summary: these should be short and neutral; "kill scores" is not neutral even if they are a terrorist group. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Masem you thought Boko harem was a place. Kindly desist from editing my title, and get someone else to do it, if it infringes. I am using BBC, Al Jareera headlines. The lowest estimate is approaching 70 which is scores. Will seek third party if you continue to vandalise my title. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Masem that title is lifted direct from BBC. Do not change without third party admin. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 'Thank you masem' - if the titles out of line, by all means seek recourse. I will understand. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone may change the title at any time; Masem is quite correct that it should be short and neutral. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Part of an ongoing conflict, so we don't need to post every battle with a death toll(just like Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) Not yet seeing wide coverage of this, either(BBC, A-J and Reuters are not the whole universe). As Masem suggested, we are not responsible for what the media reports nor are we a news ticker. It is also difficult to support with no article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Is it a battle or a terrorist attack? Notable incidents do indeed have their pages in wikipedia in this conflict at least anecdotally the body count here is the highest at a glance on that page. BBC/AJZ/Reuters are indeed not the centre of the universe, it seems the are more like captain kirk mapping that universe while USMI are all about WIMBYism on vulcan (!). :D BBC, Reuters and AJZ demonstrate the story has widespread interest imho. It shoudnt depend on one countries media to legitimise the stories. As fast as you are to tell us we are not a news ticker, or zealous missionary's of "truth", ITN is categorically defined by the directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest...and indeed supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. All of these things support reflecting stories of worldwide significance, and not just "things that have an american commercial media interest". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • This is ITN; posting here does depend on the media legitimizing a story. I don't look at just one country's media. I stand by my views and I will have no further comment on this matter.331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Can I quote you on that? The Worlds Media =/= americas provincial media bubble. Theres a whole world out there, and there is no need to clear a story with 5% of it, in order for it to be widespread, or wide interest or relevant to ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Would support posting an article on the conflict as a whole, with this as the specific news item, if we had a good example of such an article. Our lack of a suitable article on this important topic clearly does reflect our regional bias - although that is not the fault of contributors to this page. An article on the wider conflict is here: Islamist insurgency in Nigeria but it needs to be fleshed out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Much as I see a slightly different picture, if this massacre was risiding in a different location, wikipedia has actually tracked the conflict quite well, on second glance. New articles can and have been made for specific incidents and the BBC/AJZ/Reuters trio have covered conflict quite well. The story is perhaps lacking western direct "interests", so it follows a lack of WMI. It still has demonstrable widespread interest to wikipedia users world wide. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another trivial IP nomination. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion about another nomination. SpencerT♦C 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The last time you said that, a city burned down in chile.

Welcome to Wikipedia You might notice the subject on the top of the main page, under the header "In The News"

Anther pitiful miscalculation by Lugnuts... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You got lucky. Let's face it, you were overdue. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish you would stop saying "the entire city burned down" because that is patently false. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish you would stop misquoting someone right next to the actual quote.' #BasicF---Stuff

Indeed the entire city did not burn down. 1000 homes did, 20 people died and the entire city was labelled a disaster zone. When do entire cities burn down? The Great Fire of London didnt burn down the 'entire' city. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting you so much as paraphrasing you; "city burns down" suggests "entire" and not part of a city. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Were you paraphrasing me incorrectly in quotation marks, with more words than I originally said? Reuters Heres a helpful handbook, to go with your wikipedia belt. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is my favourite part - Please recite a million times - Quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant word or clause, and then only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in any way. Selective use of quotes can be unbalanced. Be sure that quotes you use are representative of what the speaker is saying and that you describe body language (a smile or a wink) that may affect the sense of what is being reported. When quoting an individual always give the context or circumstances of the quote.- Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not writing an essay, publishing a paper, or being graded. This is a casual conversation where we have a different interpretation of something, which I will continue to do as I see fit, just as you would. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Im pretty sure that latitude falls shy of falsely quoting someone right next to the original quote, by adding in a word you deem appropriate ammunition to attack their position. Just a moment ago you were protesting your right to your position. Kindly stop misrepresenting mine in fabricated quotes right next to the original excerpt you are misrepresenting. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This just in 71 people are killed and 124 injured in twin bomb blasts in Abuja, Nigeria. I see a great career in journalism for you Lugnuts, when you get done being an amateur librarian that just slept on a city getting burned into a disaster zone and a spate of terrorist attacks CNN that killed 100s of people. :D Good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That is way out of order. Please go and read WP:CIVIL. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The guy is going out of his way to be obnoxious and has been wrong now on two big stories, one of which some other dude is essentially taking credit for nominating. Stop sending me wiki directives and learn some manners. Site is quite clear about being polite to people, rather than instigating s---, and then hiding behind a greater knowledge of customs when people respond. Go ask Balaenoptera musculus. This guy is going out of his way to be rude, and to initiate rudeness, without provocation. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems the denizens of WP:ANI took a different view. We are actually trying to help you get on here, and I hoped you'd take my comment in that spirit; antagonizing other editors, however much they might be in the wrong, isn't going to help in a consensus-based project. I hope you take your block in that spirit, too; it is meant to help educate you in the standards of the community. Go easy. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Outrageous! Sca (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

April 13Edit


[Posted] MastersEdit

Article: 2014 Masters Tournament (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Bubba Watson wins the Masters Tournament.
Alternative blurb: ​In golf, Bubba Watson wins The US Masters.
News source(s): [36]

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 ----Bongwarrior (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would expect to see at least two paragraphs of text in the final round section (covering the overall result) such as was done in the 2013 Masters article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hate golf. Would rather see boxing. Elitist, under watched, over rated, culturally obnoxious, featuring a wonderful over representation of privileged monoculturality vs working class, popular across the world, contested across the world, olympic sport, featuring a diverse array of cultures and peoples. I know its obligatory, but would rather see the boxing, as more people probably gave a s---. Google Trends Google Trends77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not oppose nominations that are ITN/R. If you have an issue with an event which is ITN/R, then you must propose its removal on the ITN/R page. Andise1 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to note, Google Trends isn't as far as I know how ITN is decided, also, golf is more popular than boxing according to it]. Thanks, Matty.007 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether 77.101.41.108 likes golf or not is irrelevant; this is ITNR. If you don't want golf there, propose its removal at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well at least we know not to talk about golf in front of them in the future. Always good to know more about your fellow wikipedians! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well obviously I dont like it, but Im not going to snipe on the article, because I dont like golf. All the best with it editors. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please... ...put the name of the country in the blurb. Other countries have Masters Tournaments too. Yes, I know the blurb just reflects the name of the article, but that doesn't make it right. Just proves our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"In golf" ought to make the confusion minimal, unless there are other golf masters that I am unaware of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The European Tour has 4 or 5 events every year with "Masters" in the title, including tournaments in Portugal and Qatar, and the Omega European Masters, though "The Masters" is fairly well understood to mean Augusta, some European sources call it the US Masters to distinguish it from the European tournament in Switzerland. Courcelles 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Same in Australia, which also has its own Masters tournament. The US one, not surprisingly, is called the, yes, you guessed it, the US Masters! Come on, it would do nobody any harm at all to include the name of the country. Fighting this is endorsing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You might be right but you don't need to link to systemic bias every time you type it, especially within a few lines of each other. Instead of beating the systemic bias drum to death you could just point out that "The Masters" could be confused with other tournaments with the name first. I also don't think politely pointing out their reasoning is "fighting this". Not everything is a systemic bias issue, as not everyone is aware of everything in the world. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. An awful lot are only aware of American things, and NOT aware of our [[systemic bias}}, and that's part of our systemic bias. Linking it helps them learn about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
My point is that before beating that drum you have just started by pointing out the possibility of confusion, which is there regardless of systemic bias. You don't need to start the battle with the biggest guns; assume good faith that people aren't out, intentionally or otherwise, to be biased. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the Masters article is beefed up a little bit. Also agree that it would do no harm to call it the "US Masters" in the blurb, after all our article on the tournament itself says "The Masters Tournament, also known as The Masters or The US Masters..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb ITN/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talkcontribs) 10:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with putting "US Masters", but just FYI we simply posted "The Masters" last year and in 2012 and 2011. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support, state country We can improve on previous years by no longer assuming that if no country is mentioned then the country is the USA. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For goodness sake must we capitulate to every possible demand that HiLo makes? The piped article quite clearly states where the Masters is held. Include both titles in the blurb if absolutely necessary, just like the article does, but to seriously call this an example of systemic bias? Just drop it already. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's highly unlikely this story is going to be confused with any other golf tournaments...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But since it'll do no harm at all and since our own article offers "The US Masters" as an alternative and acceptable title, there should be no issue with the alt blurb, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The point about systematic bias is a good one. The assumption that if no country is mentioned then the country is assumed to be the USA is a very clear example of systematic bias, in my opinion. The merits of the person putting forward the argument are not relevant here - if you have a conduct complaint then take it to WP:RFC/U. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Balaenoptera musculus The systemic bias gun didn't need to be brought out immediately; simply noting the potential confusion was sufficient. Looking for systemic bias everywhere means one will find it everywhere. "The Masters" only is assumed to be from the US if users do that themselves; however, it is confusing with other "Masters" tournaments. That's the bottom line. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the potential confusion is sufficient reason to state the country. All users should however feel free to raise whatever arguments they like in whatever order they choose. The 'systematic bias' argument is not one which is illegitimate or should be held back, in fact the evidence for it is (in my opinion) rather strong (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Arguments that get overused weaken over time; systemic bias should be saved for instances when it is actually needed. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. I an unconvinced that we should mangle the name of the tournament. There are many international participants, so it is not a US-only championship. The Masters is held in Augusta, Georgia every year. Yes, it is not a bad idea to say where an event happened, but in this case that fact is not critical. By clicking the link the user can learn all about it. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just be aware that a certain user will be along to beat the systemic bias drum, even though that isn't the most important argument in favor of adding the nation(to avoid confusion). 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But does anyone really refer to it as "The Masters Tournament"? I don't think so either. It should be "The US Masters." Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously? All that virtual ink spilled over literally 3 characters? If there is a potential for confusion, even a small one, and it can be solved by adding 3 chars, there is no real reason not to do it. Meanwhile, the real issue - that the update was very minimal - went nearly undiscussed. Get your priorities straight people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Still an issue with the name, can someone in the US clarify if this is ever called "Masters Tournament" in general parlance? It's certainly not called that in Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK "Masters Tournament" is the official name, but I don't think most people call it that in general parlance, no. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? To anybody that knows golf, there is only one real "Masters" because it is one of the four majors. Anyone arguing about this is just trying to make trouble based on anti-American bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 (talk)

So, ITN is just for people who know golf? Right? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope the users pushing to call this the U.S. Masters also decide to complain when we post the "Open Championship" in July. Calidum 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a silly simplification too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Calidum 02:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So if you don't know golf, why would you care about the event at all? If you do know golf, how could you ever get confused? Click the link and it tells you more information. What a miracle. I guarantee people will push for "Open Championship" to not be called "British Open Championship". People causing needless trouble. How much information do people need to be given? There will always be someone who doesn't understand or makes assumptions. We should also focus on the needs of native English-speakers first and foremost.

Hey,want to learn something today? Most Australians are native English speakers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So why do you need to be spoon-fed information? If you see an ITN about golf, and you are a little confused, click the link and watch the magic happen. For clarification, I'm Canadian not American.
Then, being a smart Canadian, can you please sign your posts in future by typing ~~~~ at the end? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment IIRC this was posted as the US Masters but now seems to have gone back to being the Masters. Some error perhaps? Or have I mis-remembered? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] BoxingEdit

No consensus to post this, and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Boxing, Filipino Manny Pacquiao defeats American Timothy Bradley to obtain the WBO Welterweight title.
News source(s): ESPN CBS News CNN The Guardian

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Boxing is currently not represented in ITN, and I believe that it is a sport which gains significant coverage and is notable enough to be in ITN. Andise1 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Qualified Opposition - Hard to establish a bench mark for cultural significance in boxing. Far more important stories going on. Can we also cover UFC while were at it, as thats never been featured. It was a big event, so there are some plus points, but London Marathon is probably more significant. I dont think this was a fight for the ages, but it was arguably one of a handful of fights qualified to be deemed fights of the year. Title changed hands, but Champion had no tenure. Was Bradleys first loss, so I guess that helps. 36 people died in mexico and its deemed trivial. This seems pretty trivial. On the other hand, all sport is trivial and needs to be represented none the less. The article would presumably be good and informative as these things are easy to do. The fight was truly international, and boxing is probably under represented considering its global status as a sport of interest and participation in all corners of the earth. Tepid opposition. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think UFC should be covered, then feel free to nominate it here at ITN. You claim this was a big event, yet you also claim that there are "far more important stories going on." You also claim that the "London Marathon is probably more significant.", which may be true, but is not a valid reason to oppose this event. Plenty of items at ITN are more significant than other items at ITN, yet one item isn't not posted because another item is more significant. You also claim "I dont think this was a fight for the ages", which may be true, but neither are annual events we feature like The Masters and Wimbledon. I also want to point out that the significance of other nominations, such as the bus crash, are not relevant in nominations aside from their own. You seemed to contradict yourself quite a bit in your oppose.Andise1 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, plz no UFC,. Thats a fake b--- sport if ever I saw one. Im not your biggest opponent. Save your fire for the next guy Andise1. Tepid opposition is more like "meh". Wimbledon is like once a year and is the recognised biggie tournament in tennis. There are another 3 majors, but there you go. Tennis is arguably far more popular than boxing, but then boxing is PPV. Im not your biggest fan or critic, so just take it as a "meh" and prepare for the naysayers. My opinion is divided, not exactly contradictory. Its quite a left field suggestion and its not easy to work out in the context of sporting events. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Obvious question How many boxing organising bodies are there these days claiming to create world champions? If there is more than one, it cannot be our job to decide which one is more important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You cant avoid assigning a degree of arbitrary merit in these things. Anecdotally Pac was considered top 1 or 2 P4P for many years and Bradley is in that bunch just behind that. The biggest issue is working out the significance of a big boxing match to boxing. Its not like the UCL or the Superbowl. PPV figures often tell you how big the fight is, and thats a dirty road to go down. The belt is somewhat legit, but the weight range is not undisputed, as you have mayweather right there, refusing to fight pac and vice versa. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of sanctioning organizations, but there are generally recognized to be 4 major ones: The WBO, WBC, WBA, and IBF. This would qualify in the boxing world as a major championship. Welterweight#Current champions lists the champions of the 4 sanctioning bodies. --Jayron32 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Four, but why can't it be our job to decide which matches (not which organizations) are the most important? That is what we do with every story that comes around. Boxing fans don't need some organization to tell them "this is an important match" - they already know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's four boxing organising bodies, multiplied by how many wieght divisions? We have a number up in the 20s at least. We won't post them all. Choosing any will involve masses of unsourced POV. No way we should be posting any of this disorganised rubbish. That turns my position into a clear... HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There are plenty of (knowledgeable) lists of the best pound-for-pound fighters. A rule like two of the top 5 on those a list could be used. It might be subjective - most of our decisions are - but it wouldn't be without sources. And of course, there is always the level of media attention that can be used as a guide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There's probably somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen professional boxers whose matches are likely to attract international attention, such as Wladimir Klitschko, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., etc. There's no inherent need to post every title defense by at every weightclass, or even every fight by these fighters. However, certain fights would garner ITN attention. For example, Klitschko currently holds 3 of the 4 major titles; should he get the fourth he would be the first Undisputed Heavyweight Champion (widely regarded as the most important title in Boxing) in 15 years. Likewise, the results of a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight would attract enough attention worldwide to be worthy of posting; such a fight has been hyped for many years now, and if it were to occur, it would garner enough media attention sui generis and on its own, to be worthy of posting. --Jayron32 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's actually easy to determine which fights are "big"; the same way we decide which tennis or golf tournament is big. The fights which have the biggest purse are "big". A world title fight for any of the flyweight titles in the middle of nowhere isn't big. A world title fight in Vegas could very well be, but I dunno if it's automatically ITN material. Now I dunno how big the purse was on this one. –HTD 02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the ever reliable Bleacher Report, The purse for this fight was $26 million dollars, with Pacquiao earning $20 million, and Bradley $6 million. This was less than the 2012 fight. Pacquiao was also to have his share of the PPV earnings; in 2012 he likely earned about $12 million from PPV buys on his fight with Rios last year. Compare to the purse for the Masters, where Bubba Watson got $1.62 million, or at the 2013 Wimbledon where Andy Murray won 1.6 million pounds, but both weren't beaten up. –HTD 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (See above) HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - in boxing circles, this was considered the most anticipated match of the year. I was considering nominating it myself (despite nevr watching boxing, I knew it was a big match). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This and the marathon are probably sporting events of this week, worldwide, if i put my mr planet hat on. Boxing is truly an international sport, if a male dominated one, riddled with corruption. Just please, no UFC as thats not a real sport. Period.

Nominator and thad do have a point. If one was to template two sporting events for this week, id be inclined to favour the london marathon and this fight. If it was 1, Id still be inclined to favor the marathon. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of sports stories nominated in a week is irrelevant. Each sporting event should be assessed individually and not on the basis of whether there are other sports stories being nominated or posted at the same time. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Like i said Andise1. - qualified meh. Concentrate on the nay sayers, because to me its bordering on 50/50. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on shaky grounds because boxing just isn't that big anymore. As somebody who has a love/hate relationship with boxing, I would like to see a story about Pacquiao on the front page because most boxing analysts (of which I'm not) seem to say that Pacquiao is one of the top fighters of all time, but this would be at least his 6th major title, and that kind of diminishes the value of it, in my opinion. Mvblair (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A Manny Pacquiao fight has been described as the Super Bowl in the Philippines only it happens twice a year. That means it's actually (A LOT) bigger than the NCAA tournament or the boat race in the US or UK. Now the question is if Pacquiao fights should be on ITN, and if yes, which? I haven't checked every Pacquiao ITN, but it seems we've posted if Pacquiao begins a new "tuple" champion. Pacquiao, with all of the 4 major sanctioning bodies, and tens of smaller ones, is the only Octuple champion in history. In this fight, he won back the WBO welterweight title he lost to Bradley in 2012, so he didn't win a new title in a separate weight division. I could not look into the future, but I'd guess that the next Pacquiao ITN that we should if he wins a new title in a different weight division he hasn't won before, or if he and Mayweather finally goes at it. –HTD 02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Manny is practically the patron saint of the Philippines and this is a big fight in boxing I believe, although I haven't seen a mtch since I was at my grampop's on a film reel. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another boxing match, just one of the four(?) welterweight world titles... If we start posting changes to world titles in boxing, we'd need a ticker. And the target article is barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree the fact there is no single boxing authority issuing titles and boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the article as it currently stands (very short). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think boxing in some circles is much more popular than some ppl realize. At my work there was more 'watercooler' talk about the fight than the NCAA or the soccer. Certainly for many people boxing is considered to corrupt and too violent to pay attention to but not everyone feels that way.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Overland Park KS attacksEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting occurs at a Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas, U.S., and another shooting occurs at a Jewish retirement center in a nearby city. Three people are killed. A gunman is arrested.
Alternative blurb: ​Something about anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism
News source(s): [37] ABC
Nominator's comments: Gun crime / anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism. Staying out of this one, I'll nominate for debate, so we dont get hesitance about parochial noms and let you guys sort it out. Personally would question if scale warrants inclusion, but maybe it has cultural significance in the US Media. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly not notable enough. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm undecided on this one myself, but in what way is this clearly not notable enough? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Three deaths. Simply not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Boston Marathon was 3 civilians. Sikh temple shooting was 6, and was considered an act of terrorism. Woolwich murders were 0 civilians 1 soldier and was erroneously reported as terrorism for a long time. I do think things like this are terrorism, however unfashionable it sounds, whatever religion was assailed and however few the victims. Will probably be categorized as a hate crime, but i dont see much difference between this and the sikh temple thing. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Reading the reports, this appears to be "crazy white man goes crazy, shoots up things" as opposed to anything planned out with any sense of terrorism. EG, this is comparable to the Fort Hood incident or the PA school knife stabbing, which neither was ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; unless developments show this was an organized conspiracy, this (while horrifying and tragic) doesn't rise to the level of noteworthiness for ITN. Right now it looks like one guy with a gun and a screw loose. Willing to reconsider if information changes. --Jayron32 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if it was a conspiracy. There are plenty of conspiracies to murder people, some of which are racist attacks. Unless quite a few more people die, they aren't ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am heartened by the fact that there was already a Wikipedia article on the suspect. This suggests that the number of people who would actually do such a thing are vanishingly rare. I can't see posting this, though. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: shootings, tragically, are not irregular in the US, as was mentioned, unless there was some greater plan, there is no special reason for inclusion for this article. Thanks, Matty.007 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Acayucan bus crashEdit

No consensus to post and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Acayucan bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus en route from Villahermosa to Mexico City crashes into a tractor-trailer and catches fire, killing at least 36 people.
News source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/at-least-30-reported-dead-in-mexico-bus-crash/2014/04/13/9c2004ec-c322-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html
Nominator's comments: It was significant enough to attract the attention of the president of Mexico, so it should be significant enough for ITN. --Jinkinson talk to me 19:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Random traffic accident, which we shouldn't even have articles about. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So an earthquake that kills 5 people is notable and should be posted on ITN, but an automobile crash that kills 7 times as many is neither. Got it. (Facepalm) Jinkinson talk to me 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There's monetary damage and the fact that earthquakes can't be prevented in addition to the fact that tracking earthquakes indicates long-term interest in geologic events, compared to traffic accidents that are typically have no significant long-term impact and can be prevented. This is what WP:NOT#NEWS is about. Death count is never a factor. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Realistically though, death count is a factor. Also one wonders at the media reaction if this happened in New York or London. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not. ITN is to highlight WP articles that are topics of current news. Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT, traffic accidents are too common - even with death counts in the dozens - to be considered as notable topics that should not have standalone articles on WP (Wikinews, yes, but not here). That's why one piece of advice we use here is that we are not supposed to be reflecting a news ticker, but being careful about its selection. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If enough people die, it will be ITN, regardless of what you say. Im not arguing with your position regards traffic accidents, only commenting on the nature of thing. If a tidal wave kills 2 people it wont be ITN. If it kills 280,000 like the one ten years ago, im sure we will be reading about it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No, again, that's not the metric. It's the encyclopedic nature of the event. A natural disaster on the scale large enough to kill someone is also likely going to have caused serious property damage, and will be something that geologists/scientists/civil engineers will study to understand and prevent similar damage in the future. A traffic accident is a very isolated event in the larger scheme of things. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The death toll is a factor, merely saying it is not does not make it so. It isn't the only factor and there is no magic level of deaths that makes something automatically notable, but if you think the death toll doesn't have any bearing on something's long term impact you are mistaken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not dismissing the death toll but that's secondary to whether the event is encyclopedic in the first place, and it's also going to depend on the nature of an event. If, somehow, a road traffic accident caused the death of hundreds, that might be something. More clearing the notion that death toll should be considered a critical factor in comparing the value of various ITN stories. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 50/50 The death total is particularly high, but traffic accidents do happen every day. Contrasting this with the forest fire in chile, the fire killed half the amount, but turned the city into a disaster zone. This has ruined many lives too, but is a localised disaster by comparison. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible crash, but no notable cause or victims, no long term impact on society besides the victims, I.e., not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Needs more celebrity. If Ultimate Warrior had been on the bus, or it had crashed into Peaches Geldof, that would be notable. But 30 dead mexicans just isnt a news story. #f---theworldwelivein. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, it is just a news story. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless it posthumously inspires legislation that limits such deaths, as a result of public outcry. Then it becomes retrospectively significant culturally, based on the assumption of cultural significance at the time. ie Dunblane attacks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    Individual celebrity (and non-celebrity) deaths are posted based on the impact of the person's career not the death itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
IP:77 is just trolling, Thaddeus. There are logical responses to his non-sequitur, but the effort isn't warranted in this case, as it just encourages it. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Saying rude things when no one can pronounce your name is trolling. I was making a point, but essentially I agree with the naysayers on this one. Road accidents are prevalent. Unless Randy Savage is in the car, or it kills treble figures, its unlikely to make ITN. 36 is a lot though, regardless of everything. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There are some very odd arguments being made against this. First there's the argument that traffic accidents are too common: well guess what - earthquakes are also very common. In fact, there are more than 1000 earthquakes every day. So by this reasoning we shouldn't post any earthquakes. But while most earthquakes, like most traffic accidents, are utterly non-notable, that is no reason to refrain from posting earthquakes or traffic accidents that are significant. Then there's the argument that death toll is not a factor. That is saying that whether a traffic accident kill 0, 36 or 360 people has no bearing of its notability. That is absurd. We would never apply that to other disasters - nobody thinks that an earthquake that kills nobody is as notable as one that kills thousands. Of course, it's not the only factor, but it is an important one.
Frankly, there is a great deal of prejudice against "traffic accidents". Virtually any other disaster that killed this many people would be posted. But apparently it is different if it is a "traffic accident". And while the argument about widespread damage to property might be relevant for natural disasters - earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc - it doesn't apply to train or air disasters. Nor does the argument that traffic accidents are preventable - air or even train disasters don't get objected to on this score.
Nobody has been able to articulate a good reason why we should treat road accidents in a particularly unfavourable manner. This disaster killed three dozen people. It is getting widespread international media coverage. That is enough to make it notable and ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia and trying to document topics with long-term, global significance. A "routine" traffic accident (a paradoxical statement yes, but you get my gist) is not going to have any significance beyond the short term time frame and local area. It will have a short burst of coverage, but it highly doubtful that next week we'll see much mention of it. This is not considered a notable event per WP:N + WP:NEVENT. As such, while it is "in the news", it is not the type of news we cover, and thus why we should not have articles on these things. And if we shouldn't have an article on the event, then by no means should it be at ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Neljack is right. widespread international media coverage, a massive number of deaths for a crash. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article has been sent to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is too short and certainly can't be posted while it's at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, per The Rambling Man. Matty.007 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment, not because it isn't notable but because the article isn't strong enough. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I still oppose this for ITN, but the AfD is an overwhelming keep, and we have posted AfD candidates before. If merely proposing an AfD, which lasts 7 days min, were grounds for disqualifying a nomination, any old editor could veto any nom simply by placing an AfD tag on the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that when this happened in the past (posted noms with AfD's) the AfD's were snow closed by the posting admin. Should this nomination, which I Oppose, be posted, the closing admin could certainly close this AfD, which is doomed to keepture. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarification required perhaps this needs to go to RFC or at least be discussed at WT:ITN (I'll start a thread there shortly), but are we content to post items with an AFD template at the top? I have no dog in the fight, but if I was a first-time visitor to Wikipedia's main page, clicked on an ITN item to discover the top half of the article emblazoned with a "This article is being considered for deletion" tag, I'd wonder just what the hell was going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've initiated a discussion here, I'm not sure an admin posting an ITN item has any kind of carte blanche to snow close an AFD, the processes being 100% independent of one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2014 North Pole MarathonEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Barneo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Mike Wardian wins the 2014 North Pole Marathon held at ice camp Barneo
News source(s): ITV News, BBC News, Barneo News

Both articles need updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Count Iblis (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article makes no mention of Wardian, makes a "future" note of a "marathon" on 9 April, and has maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its definitely news from a different part of the world than we are used to hearing from, but other than that, I dont really see it as significant. Will await the coming civil war between the polar bears and the wolverines. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless/until article improved. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose More record trivia than news. Thue (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] BLM/NevadaEdit

No consensus to post and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bundy standoff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: In a standoff between the last rancher in Nevada and the BLM, the United States government accedes to protester demands and relinquishes court ordained seizure of land and cattle.
News source(s): [38][39]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias), but when the government acceded to protester demands in Ukraine, Yemen, etc that was posted here and indeed WP called it a "revolution". This is along those lines...some are terming it the "second civil war" even (im not going that far, but there is some acrivity brewing around (look at the BLM page)) --Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor legal dispute; this sort of thing is not uncommon in the western US where the federal government owns most of the land. The BLM has also not given up on enforcing the court orders; the movement was to prevent a violent confrontation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Article has been significantly improved, well done Lihaas, but the story is still parochial and of seriously limited interest and impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. ! "I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias)" Why be predictable. Lets use this. :D Now if youll all support the chile fire and the marathon, we can have tea and biscuits like gentlemen. Nominator - this is a genuinely interesting story, but seems a little small scale in comparison to current events, in my humble opinion. Thank you for bringing the dispute to a wider audience and will read with great interest as soon as I have some time. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support showcases the recent militarization of bureaucratic agencies from the federal to local level, with federal Bureau of Land Management's own internal sniper division training guns on family members armed with cameras and the sheriff saying protesters better be ready for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The protesters ain't just packing cameras(and have threatened to violently overthrow the government). 331dot (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The family had threatened no such thing, and I am unaware of any source attributing that to protestors, although the family does call the feds, whov've seized 134 of their cattle, thieves, and called for them to be "hung" in public opinion.. The BLM does not dispute that it dispatched its own armed agents in SUV's and helicopters prior to the huge public response as a result of the media coverage. Regardless, this is a showcase of coercive state action within the US against civilians in civil matters, no different from NSA spying, just potentially more deadly. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I said the protesters made the threat, not the family; That said, the protesters have included militia groups from all over the West CNN states at least some were armed and The Guardian states that Bundy said "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" Someone also stated ""Range War begins tomorrow at Bundy ranch at 9.30am. We going to get the job done!"331dot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you have the chronology wrong. The feds showed up with snipers, and trained their guns on the family when no protestors had yet shown up, and the family was only photographing the actions of the feds. Then the news broke, and all sorts of protestors showed up, and the family, emboldened, posted things to heir website that I would not have posted. Then the feds said after the fact that the threats from the protestors was the reason they showed up with guns. That is patently false. But the reason this issue is notable is not the dispute or later developments, but the fact that the BoLM, a strictly bureaucratic division of the strictly bureaucratic Department of the Interior, showed up with its own unconstitutional enforcement squad in the first place, rather than getting a warrant to bring in the state constabulary, or the militia or military for an insurrection. It's as if the BBC showed up with its own snipers to take out an unlicensed TV, or the National Health had snipers with guns trained on a patient protesting her discharge from hospital. The matter is a civil one in a Western Country with a cherished history of the rule of law with civil regulators using armed force without warrant against citizens not charged with any crime. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in commenting further but it probably wouldn't be relevant, so I will just thank you for your comments. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Youll rue the day when another IL president created war in his own country ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where to begin.. From the article, it's not even clear what has happened – apparently the nominated "news" is that the authorities temporarily called off a law enforcement operation due to safety concerns. If you look at the edit history and talk page, the article's neutrality is being contested. Including the suggested blurb, which seems to misrepresent the current situation in favor of one side of the dispute. --hydrox (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
NO, the news is the profile not the halt. Operations are created and halted everyday, but most don't create such temprement.
Also no neutrality contested..Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whoever called this the "second civil war" should be nominated for a "hyperbole of the year" award. If another civil war breaks out, feel free to nominate that and you will have my strong support. Until then, no. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 London MarathonEdit

Article: 2014 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: William Kipsang wins the 2014 London Marathon and sets a course record. Edna Kiplagat, Marcel Hug and Tatyana McFadden also win their races.
Alternative blurb: William Kipsang wins the 2014 London Marathon Mens Elite race, setting a new course record. Edna Kiplagat wins the Womens Elite Marathon, Marcel Hug wins the Mens Wheelchair Marathon and Tatyana McFadden wins the Womens Wheelchair Marathon, also setting a course record.
alt2: William Kipsang sets a men's course record and wins the London Marathon, while Edna Kiplagat wins the women's race.
News source(s): ABC News

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --77.101.41.108 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support and I swapped the blurb for the (standards-conforming) altblurb. I would normally oppose this, but a record was set this year.128.214.214.26 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is ITNR and gets posted every year, as being on ITNR means it is automatically considered notable; if you oppose its presence there, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Was looking under athletics and running on on ITNR or probably wouldnt have posted. Remove it as a nominee if you feel its redundant because of prior inclusion 331dot. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR items still need to be posted here, for discussion about the blurb and article quality. Being on ITNR only means notability and its merits of posting are presumed, unlike non-ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose much of the prose in the target article is in the incorrect tense and no prose at all appears to exist for the result which we're publishing here, do we not also publish the winner of the women's race? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That was my understanding (re the women's race); I'm not sure when that got removed as it was originally in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ive now changed the prose on the original article. Also I had a different blurb, but someone changed it. Someone has edited out the womens, and two wheelchair winners, which were originally to be included. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article will need prose on the race itself, not just a list of the results. I will do this at some point today if no one gets to it first. We do normally list the men's and women's winners (but not wheelchair winners), and I support mentioned the course record as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    See 2013 London Marathon for an idea of the amount of expected prose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Thad, have done the first paragraph from template, although require help with picture.
  • Note to all. Brits are likely to exaggerate the importance of Mo Farah competing. He brought publicity and crowds, but little else with regards to the elite competitive context of the race. He did reasonably well for a brit, but did not achieve any measure of relevance in the competitive narrative of the race. The british papers are all about Mo, when in reality he was not important in the races actual competition, others than the publicity and crowds he brought. Great athlete, but lets not get distracted by his participation. Strongly recommend trading on American media accounts for this one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? This is an ITN/R article, so it's got nothing at all to do with Mo Farah or any other runner. You need to spend some time reading about what ITN before making so many fundamental faux pas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
People are editing the article. You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. 1 It "has" nothing to do with Mo farah. 2 spend some time reading about what ITN "is". You talk about faux pas, but you cant even type clear English. Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, this has nothing to do with Farah, and the idea that you'd advocate using American press as a preference is appalling and demonstrates your lack of understanding of this entire process. Take some time out to read about it son. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Im editing the article and using different media articles as reference. A lot of the british ones are focused on Mo, rather than focusing on the race itself. If this is the wrong place to mention that, then fair enough, you have me there. would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS, before advising on the latter directives about the specific section we are in. Many thanks and have a nice evening. I have enjoyed reading a few of your articles, although I may have to edit some of those commas out. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, firstly, you need to, well, stop complaining about, um, the commas. Secondly, I suspect POS means "piece of shit", could you confirm? Thirdly, the point remains, there's nothing here at all to do with Farah, and certainly no advice to stick to American news outlets should be followed in any way. Many thanks, and have a nice, well, evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner. Will endeavour to stick to the format and use anything that doesn't focus the story on the guy that came 8th. Thanks for the heads up. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well Bill and I are close, and Aguero more so, but could you clarify that I understood POS correctly? British sources e.g. the BBC don't focus on Farah at all. Perhaps you're tired? Many thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Purveyor of snideness. BBC Put down those rose tints and have a good night old man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine about all this, I didn't suggest you were a POS or even mentioned Farah, in fact all I said was that the article quality was inadequate. It's still inadequate. If you can be bothered to do anything, please do, if not, have a good night yourself old chap. Sounds like you need the sleep. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You just woke me up tremendously. Feel free to jump in with some of those wikimedal level edits, and thanks for your comments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Calm down, lads. Please be civil, assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated - unless there are specific objections, the article should now meet minimum quality standards and be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated - got rid of the MPs, smoothed farahs story into the context of the race, and tried to weigh up performances according to merit. Review. The MP thing is saved in the talk pages if you have to have it, but the british public hate MPs and frankly they are right to. There were objectively more significant records amongst the public if you want to reflect that. Also the public part of the race traditionally reflects the public and not celebrities or MPs. but its still there in talk. Article looks crisp. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone sadly died after collapsing at the finish line. Added the detail. Theres lots of information about people attempting obscure records and celebrities and mps taking part. Will probably mention, as its a big public participation event. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thad::: I moved it around a little bit, but i'm happy with it now, if you are. trust me on the members of parliament/members of public thing. Its the best way of expressing it, keeping your entry and reference, without creating an elitist dynamic in a traditionally mixed race. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment still only seeing the Elite men in the blurb. Article has been satisfactorily updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point Someone changed the original article. Will swiftly resolve. Many thanks.77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    We don't normally post the wheelchair winners. See alt II. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted I tweaked the blurb a bit to fit the standard form for these sort of events. But consensus to post seems obvious at this point, and the article looks to be in good shape. --Jayron32 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Valparaiso wildfireEdit

Article: 2014 Valparaíso wildfire (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A wildfire (pictured) destroys several areas of the Chilean city of Valparaíso, killing at least sixteen people.
Alternative blurb: ​A wildfire (pictured) in Valparaiso, Chile has forced the evacuation of the city and killed at least 11 people.
News source(s): BBC NBC NewsAl Jazeera ABC News Fox News CBS News RT News CNN News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 --77.101.41.108 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose with no article to evaluate or update(such as a specific article about this fire, not wildfires in general). The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles about subjects in the news. Looking at some other news sites I'm not seeing much coverage of this fire so I would be interested in seeing other news stories about it. Blurb also needs to be properly linked and bolded. I'm willing to reconsider if these suggestions are taken into account. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Give me a call when this IP editor gets bored of all these pointless nominations and starts to read the guidance. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Play the ball, not the man. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion
* How rude. Better clear your calender for the foreseeable future if that's your attitude. Not a fan of self important amateur librarians or cult mentalities on a supposedly free web platform. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I might not have said something in that manner, but I understand the sentiment. You're making a lot of nominations but not demonstrating that you are reading and learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest the format seems somewhat redundant as one must edit or create a new article to reflect news stories not covered on wikipedia, which are many. Im not even sure I am allowed to edit some of these wikipedia articles or to create new ones as I am editing on an IP account. Furthermore I am not convinced that this whole thing isnt terribly provincial, as many of these stories would be covered if in a different region. However that last guy seemed very rude, and has really inspired me to contribute a bit more to these pages in the way of international stories that might otherwise be missed. Please thank lugnuts for the pep talk. I was indeed starting to lose interest, but he sure has made me interested now. I dont know who the we in "what we are looking for" refers to, but ill admit i was in perfect ignorance that you guys owned wikipedia and the internet. When i say "what we are looking for", im thinking of the worlds internet users, not a bunch of amateur librarians - all dude respect. Perhaps your contributions are not what we are looking for, signed the planet. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "We" is the Wikipedia community who comes here to discuss what is posted to ITN. That includes you at the moment- but you need to do a better job of showing us that you are learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. You are free to edit any article that isn't protected; creating an article requires IP users to ask for assistance (perhaps at Wikipedia:Articles for creation). 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well thats where the conflict lies. I dont answer to you. I answer to my understanding of the format on a free internet platform. Your contention is that im doing it wrong. My contention is that when i click "In the news" I dont see an adequate representation or reflection of the worlds major news stories. There are two possible explanations for this. 1 The population/consensus etc is horribly skewed by over representation in one region. 2 The articles that are indeed ready to go reflect this. I dont want a wikipedia badge. I dont want to be your friend. I want to see some accuracy and reflection of the worlds major news stories in the ITN section of my wikipedia. Im not righting wrong, I am attempting to write some accuracy into a supposedly global format. The world spins, and here are its major news stories day to day. You guys are complaining that the wikipedia articles dont exist to cover these stories or that these stories are pointless. I honestly dont think the stories are pointless or that a rock awards ceremony is worth more than a city in chile getting burned into a disaster area. If you guys think different, then well that is a genuine point of contention. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If you act like you own the place you are going to be sorely disappointed. Your understanding of "the format on a free internet platform" is severely lacking. Being concerned with systemic bias is a valid concern, but that does not negate the need to do things in the correct manner. That includes understanding the purpose of ITN, which you haven't really demonstrated yet. If you are going to be a regular contributor here, that is something that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I do own the place, as do you, as does every other sod online. The public own the place/ wikimedia foundation does. My only concern is rather than reflect the worlds news, the geographical bias behind article coverage, and consensus bloc, means important stories are being relegated behind NCAA basketball and the boat race. You think I have some explaining to do? A city in Chile just burned to a disaster zone and ITN is NCAA from last week and the boat race... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No one owns the place; decisions are made by consensus(which was the point of my link above). It's fine to be concerned about systemic bias, but that doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else here. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage; if we get an article, I could support. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage"... theres me thinking it was pointless.77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We still need an article. ITN is for highlighting articles. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative support if there was an article. 11 people have now died, and its still out of control, with Valparsio evacuated and w/o power now. But we need an article, say, 2014 Chilean wildfires, to be able to use this as ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The point im making is the consensus is a geographical bloc, and the articles reflect the regional nature of the editors. furthermore theres the english language bias and the gender bias. Im not arguing that my opinion is worth more, im arguing that parochialism is a real issue that turns ITN into In The Neighbourhood.

Lets move past this. The story will gain traction as BBC and Reuters have both featured it, and it happened when much of the western world was asleep. Now if I was to write an article Im sure people would do their best to attack it. The fire really does approach the kind of notability that requires an article in my honest opinion.

All major news networks now covering it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We cannot control who comes here and who does not come here to discuss nominations; we can only be mindful of systemic bias. I haven't yet seen disagreement that this fire merits an article, but we still need one before considering posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I posit that this incident is far more important than our little squabbles and earnestly and humbly invite any editors that are interested to create an article to support inclusion of this important story. If you want me to work on it with you, I will do that, but of course experienced editors are more likely to want sole ownership of the article.

Either way, its an important story, and if you are reading this and you want it, its yours. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No one can assert ownership of an article. 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Total support. I completely disagree with the early commenters above. Systemic bias are common in major US/Europe news agencies. The Valparaíso news is big here. The fire has killed more people than the earthquake earlier this month did. The city has been declared a disaster zone (that means, that the army occupies the place to ensure protection of residents and that stuff). I can't see why this shouldn't be posted. Yes, it's missing an article, which should be named 2014 Valparaíso wildfire (since there are other notable wildfires in Chile that occurred this year and that may -perhaps- merit an article later. I can contribute with a photograph if you wish, though I'm not available to write an article. (Updated: By the way, President Bachelet said that this may be "the worst fire in Valparaíso" [40]) (2nd update: Added a photograph. More will be available later at commons:Category:2014 Valparaíso wildfire) Küñall (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Küñall, as stated above, this is now getting wider coverage than it was earlier, which I pointed out. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed. Küñall (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Kunall - If you can safely get a picture from where you are, on to wikipedia, without breaking copyright or endangering yourself, it can go straight in the header. I completely agree with you on bias, but lets not get sidetracked again.

331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it. The whole point of why ITN was set up was for stories like this post 9/11. Nevertheless, lets not get side tracked again. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not "ignorant" to state that there (at the time) was little news coverage. We cannot control what the media discusses. Fundamentally an ITN posting must be In the news. This is also not a news ticker but a place to highlight articles about events in the news; we don't post things before they are 1) ready to be posted and 2) have consensus to do so.. Go to Wikinews if you want to post news stories ASAP. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can upload a photograph, yes. But let's not exaggerate, the city was not completely burned down as you state. It has devastated some four or five hills once fulfilled with houses of poor people. Local media is reporting now 16 dead. Küñall (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the American Alphabets were literally in bed time hours and most of the posters seemed to be preoccupied with sniping at me or trading on a misunderstanding of the severity of events. Again, instead of trying to get the last word in, lets get on with this thing. We are arguing while the poor blokes city burns to the ground. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough Kunall. We are trading on what news we can get. Please upload photo if safe and we can move on under best practice from there. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not "trying to get the last word"; I am trying to correct your erroneous impressions- such as "arguing while the city burns to the ground" which 1) is not yet an accurate statement and 2) belies our purpose here, which is not to instantly post stories before they are ready. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagreed 331 dot. BBC, Reuters and AJZ already had the story. Were you literally waiting for the american networks/posters to wake up and legitimise it? 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction : The city hasnt burned to the ground. 500 plus homes have, 17 people have been killed and the entire city has been declared a disaster zone by the Chilean leader. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot survey all forms of media in the entire world to learn how widely a story is covered. I can only go by what I see and find myself; when I first saw this nomination, it was not widely covered. If it is now widely covered, that's wonderful. That also does not change that consensus and an article are needed before posting something. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree to disagree. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are arguably the 3 most credible and wide reaching news entities in existence. We've both made our points. Lets get on with this.77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Damn Kunall - I saw the pictures on the BBC report this morning, but it hits home even harder when its a wikipedia poster you are communicating with taking the snaps. Thank you for the image for the header and stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on merits (significant damage in a part of the world we rarely hear about), but obviously an article will have to be written before we can post anything. I will try to get to it today, but I have a busy day already. So, if someone else is willing to do it, please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Have made formal request for article, under the inhabitant wikipedia editors title - 2014 Valparaíso wildfire. If someone can get the ball rolling, with regard to template, I will be happy to add detail. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would support if there were a suitable article, per ThaddeusB. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." Hold the Press--John Maxwell Hamilton. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Went to wikinews, but saw no sign of this story, so request collab there. Anyone who wants to make a template, I will add information and reference the best I can using the abundant reliable sources featured in the header above. I dont know much about article production, but im willing to do my bit. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is now up in Spanish. 2014 Valparaíso wildfire Request information on how to translate and contribute. request all interested parties to spend 10 minutes contributing, using the many reliable sources featured in the header. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I am working on the translation. I would thank people not to mess up with it while I work on it. Küñall (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Noted. All yours. Cheers. Stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if article is improved. The article is in a terrible state at the moment, with numerous malformed templates, citations, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a disaster. Has made "minor" news, a handful of deaths, rather "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The guy working on the edit is in the city that's on fire. appreciate if you show a little tact, rather than complaining that not enough of his neighbours have died, to your liking. All major news networks are covering the story, and none with the headline "Meh, 500 homes burned down, prime minister calls city a disaster zone, only 17 dead". Be polite and realize some people are actually living in the area they are referencing, and not sniping at strangers from a dented couch. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Get a grip, anyone can work on any article here, whether that's the guy whose "neighbours have died" (cn) or you. Do something positive and edit the article, the quality of which (when I reviewed it) was inadequate for main page inclusion. Stop making this personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you actually mo? Article looks pretty crisp now. Im on it. Your thoughts are your own. Obviously. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"mo"? What are you talking about? I always avoid editing Wikipedia when drunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
...Thou protest too much, methinks. No one said you were drunk. Or a drunk. Or a drunk man city fan that bet on Mo farah. Lets concentrate on facts here. Baseless assertions have no place in these hallowed halls good man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I have fixed up the article, it is fully translated, and all issues with templates and stuff was corrected. Küñall (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Well done kunall. Stay safe. Should get an award for personally providing pictures and back story while the flames burn outside your window. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Comment - article now meets minimum quality standards. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Marked Ready given the only opposes are based on the now inapplicable lack of an article. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work people. Nicely done. Pleasure as always. Well done Kunall for contributing so much. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, IP editor. However, I'd love if the proposed picture was actually used in the main page; I mean, it is much more 'impacting' than that of a bleeding heart drawing. Küñall (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed,. Its a good picture of a bad thing. I dont know how the picture is established, but you have my vote. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Military action in East UkraineEdit

Article: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ukraine launches a military campaign against pro-Russian activists in East Ukraine.
News source(s): Sky NewsBBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: There are reports of casualties and events are still developing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

  • Awaiting confirmation of extent of escalation. Will drop a few sources so we can all have a butchers. Presumably articles exist that are being updated regularly. This situation is on a powder keg and looks set to go off.77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb of some kind, as per #Ukraine, below. It Is Me Here t / c 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
strogn support this is certainly in the news and we need it on ITN. As its current, we can put it on the top.Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait — Alas, this is one of those stories that take time to sort out. Judging from Reuters [41] and BBC [42] Kiev's attempt to dislodge pro-Russia militants is not faring well, so far. Sca (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for now updated story — Reuters, [43] BBC, [44] Spiegel [45] say three pro-Russia separatists killed in abortive assault on Ukrainian national guard base in Mariupol Wednesday night. Sca (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems updated enough. Posted Thue (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

April 12Edit


[Closed] Accusations of new chemical weapons attack in SyriaEdit

No consensus to post. If found true in the future, a new nomination can be opened. SpencerT♦C 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Chemical weapon (talk, history) and Syria and weapons of mass destruction (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New reports of chemical weapons attack in Syria
Alternative blurb: ​Chemical weapons are used again in Syria, this time on the town of Kafr Zita, Hama.
News source(s): http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/179553
Nominator's comments: Outstanding international significance. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for debate, and in wait of verification.77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose We can't post accusations. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HiLo; only confirmed attacks should be considered. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see where either article has been updated with the relevant content, so I don't know what I am supposed to be assessing. --Jayron32 01:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose see above comments. It's a speculative news story about anonymous reports. Also, neither of the two articles seem to have been updated at all. Mvblair (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
note though I too poppose, ill point that we posted ghouta when the perpetrator is STILL not known. (officially...its apatently obvious the biggest terrorsit regime in the world (saud_) will do anything)Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all those above which are readable, we shouldn't post speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Story has some traction. 1 Its difficult to verify anything under these circumstances. Same story even with the large attack. 2 If both sides have accused each other of one specific incident of CWA, then its unlikely CWA didnt occur. 3 "The international body tasked with destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal says it will investigate new opposition allegations that regime forces have used banned chemicals in at least three attacks since January if the claims are referred by an appropriate state authority.""A senior Israeli defence official said earlier this week that new chemical attacks had taken place in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The claim supported complaints by rebel groups in Harasta that at least three people had been killed in late March, with several dozen more taken ill, after shells landing near them discharged noxious fumes" UK and Israel to investigate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/syria-chemical-weapons-inspection-team-probe-attack Either way, the point is its doing the rounds on your current affairs page, so its worth considering if it should be there, if its not legit news at this point. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Content on the current events portal page is not discussed here; this page is only to discuss what appears in the ITN box on the Main page. The two are not the same. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

GulzarEdit

Articles: Gulzar (talk, history) and Dadasaheb Phalke Award (talk, history)
Blurb: Gulzar will be awarded Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest award in Indian cinema.
Alternative blurb: Gulzar awarded Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest award in Indian cinema.
News source(s): The Times of India, Hindustan Times

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Gulzar is prolific poet, lyricist, writer and film maker. He has won five National Film Awards, 20 Filmfare Awards, one Academy Award for Jai Ho song, one Grammy Award and is also Padma Bhushan recipient of 2004.[1] The award is the highest in Indian cinema, so notable. Though it is not ITN/R, last year Pran appeared on main page for receiving the same award. --Nizil (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support

If culturally prominent to the level stated. The oscars are just the american film industry awards. bollywood is bigger than hollywood in many ways (films produced, ww revenues, tickets sold and annual growth rate) and india is a bigger country in population. If Oscars are featured, then lets feature this. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support if culturally prominent as stated, based on 77.101.41.108's reasoning. Suggest amending blurb by removing the words 'will be', and waiting to post it until the prize has been awarded. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Indian cinema is a pretty big thing, and all sources name this as the most prominent award in Indian cinema. The biography article has sufficient sourcing and a minimum three-sentence update. --hydrox (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - blurb says "will be" - does that mean he officially gets the award at a later date? If so, we should wait for that date. If not, the blurb should be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The ceremony is at the 61st National Film Awards on 3 May. --hydrox (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he will be awarded later but news will be stale by then. Not much media coverage will be there. Last year when Pran awarded, it was posted earlier for the same reason. -Nizil (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, we can probably get away with the simple "is awarded" despite the technicality. Otherwise, it would have to be "is announced as the recipient of" - either way it needs to be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Really, bollywoods yearly ceremony should arguably be given parity with hollywoods. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Article will need work - referencing is fairly weak, and their are many WEASEL words. The article also makes some strange choices on what to cover - I very much doubt examples of his poetry (in Urdu) should be included in the article, for example. Otherwise, I could support this on merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because he seems to be an incredibly important figure. Mvblair (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
support firstly I dint know hes still alive. But yes notable lyricist, but then ai maybe biased...on this note its mehfil time for me...saki ne phir se mere jaam bhar diya...Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on the specific shortcomings? --hydrox (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure...
  1. Sections with no references at all.
  2. Inappropriate section headings per MOS (e.g. "As Poet")
  3. Hagiography (and grammar) such as "has a vast knowledge of", "He is creator of..."....
  4. Dozens of unreferenced awards and nominations.
  5. Unlinked or redlinked films in the filmography with no inline references.
  6. Badly formatted references.
Only a really quick scan through, the article needs a massive amount of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements and present tense rewriting of the blurb, per Thaddeaus' suggestion. With India's large population and the enduring prominence of its cinema, I would even support adding the Dadasaheb Phalke Award to ITN/R because of its cultural significance. AgneCheese/Wine 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support this pending the improvements noted above by Thaddeaus and TRM. --Jayron32 00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Improved I have improved the article. Added references. Copyedited text. Reorganised content. Added inline citations except for award and filmography lists. Can someone check grammar as I may have made mistakes? Does inline citation for filmography and awards neccessary as the most of articles dont have them?
    The awards section at least should really be referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
References for awards won added. Minor grammar fixes done. Now is it ready to go? -Nizil (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Article looks good now. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of news in the last few days and this story is now stale. Please renominate it when Gulzar officially receives the award and I'll be happy to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I know its late.. I am the only one who was working on the article and i dont have computer. So its tough to do it from mobile. Award ceremony is on May 3. Should I renominate on the same day? Regards -Nizil (talk)
Yes, please renominate it on May 3. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hepatitis drugEdit

Article: Hepatitis C (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers announce a new drug with a 90-95% success rate at treating Hepatitis C.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Per the BBC: "The study is a 'major breakthrough' and marks a 'turning point' in hepatitis C treatment, said experts." Article will need updated for a new one on the drug (whose name I have not found yet.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support - If verified, genuine news. Hep C is a lot more prevalent (in places) and far more easily transmittable than HIV. It is also chronic and kills people. It lays dormant for years and affects a great many people. Anecdotally one can cut a finger and put it in a cup of HIV blood, a few minutes after its been bled, it wont transmit. Do not try this at home, obviously. But the contrasting stories of Hep C tell of a disease that lives in bleach. Scare stories, but the point of them is the contrast in respective ease of transmission. Ergo prostitutes and intravenuous drug users have massive percentages of Hep C, moreso than HIV, and Hep C can be dormant and transmitted to people without their knowledge relatively easily, whereas HIV doesnt have a long time active outside the human body. Also Hep C can be transmitted by things that dont work for HIV, so good news if true that this disease is now under control. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Question A cure for Hep C would certainly be a big deal. But this is only 2 studies (though large ones). Should we wait until results independently replicated? What level of verification is enough for us to consider it reportable? Or perhaps bill it as "Study claims ..."?

  • Comment. I wish the BBC had linked which study/ies it meant! The one I've found (SAPPHIRE II), published 10 April in New England Journal of Medicine [46] looks interesting but doesn't seem to be the one the BBC is referring to. The accompanying editorial states several different combinations are currently under phase II & III trials with >90% virological response rates.[47] Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's the correct study (thanks for finding it). Another article I read said it was published in The New England Journal of Medicine and said the drug was a combination of ABT-450/ritonavir, ribavirin, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I confirmed the drug is unnamed at this time. The manufacturer's page, AbbVie, may be a viable candidate for the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to read around a lot more to be sure this is more groundbreaking than combinations with sofosbuvir, which afaik is the first approved HCV direct-acting anti-HCV drug that isn't a protease inhibitor, FDA-approved last December for treatment in regimens without interferon, again for the first time. (We really ought to have run with that, but don't seem to have done.) In my (admittedly biased) opinion, Abbott's approach to data manipulation is second to none in the pharma industry. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it is the study the BBC is referring to -- that report mentions patients with cirrhosis, while SAPPHIRE II is in patients who don't have cirrhosis. There must have been two phase III studies published at the same time, probably both with Poordad as one of the main authors. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that the other would be SAPPHIRE-I. A company PR says they were releasing the results of both at the same time. I will defer to your judgment on notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: did you get a chance to look into the importance, or lack there of, of this drug? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SlovianskEdit

Article: Sloviansk (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two buildings in the Ukrainian city of Sloviansk are taken over by pro-Russian demonstrators.
News source(s): https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-masked-gunmen-storm-police-station-091205681.html#bNSfLlr

Nominator's comments: What seems to be a significant development in what is clearly a significant event. --Jinkinson talk to me 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose nothing in the Sloviansk article at all, in fact it's in a really poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were several occupations of gov. buildings already earlier this week, including one in Donetsk,[48] the largest city in largely pro-Russian East Ukraine. So far, it seems like just another protest in East Ukraine. Call me when Putin intervenes, then we will post for sure. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons I gave on the nomination below Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Ukraine. CaptRik (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this has been going on off and on for awhile now(building seizures). 331dot (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean its not in the news, as you insinuate in calling for references to indicate it being in the news, this ISs so.Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Someone has removed my support for this story. Just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in some form. The Ukraine story seems to be staying relevant, and even escalating. We should post something.Thue (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
support strongly some posting for this that's in the news. Maybe put a wider "eastern unrest" blurb instead? Try 2014 pro-Russian protests in UkraineLihaas (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This story is blowing up, literally.

"Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian armed men have traded gunfire in a battle for control of the eastern town of Sloviansk, the interior minister says. At least one Ukrainian officer was killed and both sides suffered casualties, Arsen Avakov said. Pro-Russian forces took over the town on Saturday, prompting Kiev to launch an "anti-terror operation". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27008026 Should be monitored for escalations. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support once an operation is carried out(or other similar escalation such as Russian forces crossing the border). 331dot (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
To 331dot: some parties are indicating that this has already happened. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: the raids in the east of Ukraine were "professional" and "coordinated", "[giving] credence" to the theory that Putin is behind them.[49] Nato: there are "[indications of] Russian military involvement" in Kramatorsk.[50] It Is Me Here t / c 22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel imposes sanctions against Palestinians for signing of U.N. human rights conventionsEdit

Articles: Fourth Geneva Convention (talk, history) and 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel has imposed sanctions against the Palestinian Authority (PA) in retaliation for its signing up to join international treaties, officials say.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26982166

Article updated

Nominator's comments: PA President Mahmoud Abbas's applied last week to join 15 international treaties and conventions. On Friday, Switzerland confirmed that "the state of Palestine" had acceded to the Geneva Conventions, which govern the rules of war and military occupations. The Palestinians have repeatedly accused Israel of breaching the Fourth Geneva Convention by pursuing settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967. Obviously important conflict and development, and the kind of thing possibly under reported in western networks, whilst over reported regionally. Wikipedia is an important source of neutrality in a polarized conflict. BBC, Reuters are also pretty reliable. Obviously Al Jazeera, and the American networks have serious neutrality issues. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Routine news. "Palestine does something, Israel issues sanctions". In the rest of the world, we call this "Tuesday". This is a standard part of how the relations between these two countries go, and does not represent a significant change or lasting newsworthy development. If live war breaks out, or conversely if a definitive recognition of sovereignty occurs, that'd be something. When one of the two entities does something, and the other gets pissed off, that's just what happens all the time. --Jayron32 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Contention with Jayrons point. We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal. It also seems to be on the side of Israel to ignore provocations, and only report responses. From a palestinian POV, they are supposedly at war, and occupied and are now being sanctioned for signing up to international arbitrary treaties. Also, I dont know that you talk for the rest of the world.This whole ITN thing started because of 9/11. The whole of the world was calling that tuesday until the sky fell in. I dont know that we serve history by ignoring root causes of conflicts, minimising other peoples suffering and only recording violent responses. Its easy to sit here and say its just another day in the west, but of course its possibly a very different story in different regions. Frankly if palestine have signed legit international treaties, and have thus been sanctioned for doing so, its seems like two news stories and both of them actually substancial. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    So, what you are saying seems to me to be (when you say, and I quote " We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal.") that we must assume that any event is important, and only in hindsight can we decide that it wasn't that big of a deal. What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! It's only after careful and studied analysis that we can decide that it was just another turd; instead we must assume that all events are of "significance", and only years later should we decide that each of those was probably routine. Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne... --Jayron32 18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • One can only guess at what the combined Allied forces thought they were playing at in establishing the Geneva conventions on human rights, or what 196 countries thought they were playing at in signing it. One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not that it isn't News. Surely this is news. It's perfectly newsworthy, and I have no qualms with BBC and Reuters and any of a number of other news agencies covering it, as they should. This needs to be made clear. Wikipedia is not a news agency. The purpose of ITN is to highlight high-quality Wikipedia articles which cover major news stories. What article have you updated or cleaned up that you want to highlight on the main page? --Jayron32 19:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And just to make clear, I wasn't lambasting your nomination in my immediately preceding statement. I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic. I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, such as the notion that all events must be assumed significant, and can only be declared insignificant in hindsight. If you don't see the silly flaw in such a statement, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight. You are, of course, free to nominate any article at Wikipedia you think is worth highlighting regarding major current events. I personally don't think this one is really all that worthwhile, but that's not the important thing in this exchange we are having. The important part of this exchange is that you should take care in how you present your defense of your positions. When you make plainly stupid statements that amount to demanding that everyone treat everything as maximally important unless subsequently proven commonplace, you open yourself to ridicule. Instead, try saying "look, I know this isn't a top level story, but we have a nearly featured level article to highlight here, and I think that is worth highlighting on the main page". That would sway people's opinions. It would certainly sway mine. What won't sway anyone is making demands that we violate the basic principles of sound reasoning. --Jayron32 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • jayron. Im not a fan of your rhetoric, your attitude or your critical faculties Jay. Im sending it down the line to conflict resolution. You talk about ridiculing people, calling people stupid etc, while making points about cheerios and ignoring the international significance of UN/Geneva conventions on human rights. If you didnt understand my argument, perhaps its because you were not reading it, but were loading up one liners about cheerios. The significance of the conventions are set up in international law and culture, and the articles on palestine and israel already exist on wikipedia. I dont know what your problem is, but your whole spiel seems absolutely incredulous for a mod/admin. Complaint sent. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is significant on a number of scores: (1) Palestine's accession to these treaties, which are only open to sovereign states, reinforces its claim to statehood; (2) the Israeli sanctions will have a major economic and budgetary impact on Palestine; (3) this dispute threatens to derail the peace talks. Neljack (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I see it, the real news here is that Switzerland called them the "state of Palestine" in a news release. Otherwise, it all seems like just another slash in the perpetual game of trading punches that has been going on in this region for quite long. But barring actual recognition, Switzerland still remains just another country who do not recognise the state of Palestine. --hydrox (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why has someone edited the mention in current events?

I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---.77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hydrox - BBC and Reuters disagree, as do the nations that also signed these international agreements and conventions, themselves hallmarks of international legitimacy. You dont really have the casting vote on international legitimacy. You talk about trading punches, and perpetual games and then ignore clear provocations and international developments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that if the news here are the sanctions themselves ("yet another punch"), I do not personally find them significant enough for ITN mention (not all news are ITN-worthy). If the news is that Palestine has signed up to join treaties, that can be unilateral as far as I understand (e.g. Sealand could just as well sign up to join treaties), so not very noteworthy. The most significant part as I see it is that Switzerland called them "state of Palestine", but that's not akin to an actual recognition, so not very ITN-worthy either. --hydrox (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct, hydrox. An instrument acceding to a treaty must be accepted by the depositary (generally a government, international organisation or international office-holder - the UN Secretary-General is the most common one for multilateral treaties), which examines it to see if it is valid. Generally speaking only sovereign states can sign international treaties (the exceptions tend to be related to international organisations like the EU and sui generis entities like the Holy See, so they aren't relevant here). Since nobody accepts Sealand as a sovereign state, no depositary is going to accept an instrument of accession from them as valid. Sealand simply doesn't have the status in international law to accede to a treaty - in fact, it doesn't have any status in international law. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. Does this mean that Switzerland has recognised Palestine as sovereign? Why isn't that being reported? --hydrox (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It means that Switzerland is implicitly recognising them as sovereign, though it's not formal recognition in the sense of establishing diplomatic relations. I'm not sure why it isn't getting much attention. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Keeps being deleted from Current Affairs despite BBC and Reuters as source. Simple vandalism going on here. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Something tells me the Sealand Geneva convention, occupation by Israel thing isnt about to happen. Nvm. Will leave this to be debated. There is a level of international recognition and legitimacy being courted and realized here. Furthermore, the sanctions against an entity for basically signing international peace agreements is an ostensibly hostile and unjustifiable move. Team A sign the Geneva convention. Team B attack them with sanctions for it. SMFH. Seems like double news and signing international agreements and conventions doesnt seem like a hostile punch. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [RD] Jesse WinchesterEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jesse Winchester (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Jesse Winchester, anti-Vietnam War musician and singer-songwriter, dies at 69
News source(s): http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2014/apr/11/memphis-bred-songwriter-jesse-winchester-dies/

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)--
  • Weak oppose - on this as the forum of remembrance, purely on international notability. RIP to the man himself though. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing a lot of awards, honors, or other reason he was notable that would satisfy the death criteria(assuming this is an RD nomination). I oppose a blurb as he was not the tip-top of his field and being 69 his death is not entirely unexpected or shocking. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not near the top of his field. Teemu08 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't appear to meet any of the RD criteria and the article is in poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Panic after Lanzhou, China declares its tap water toxicEdit

Articles: Water resources of China (talk, history) and Lanzhou (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nearly 2.5 million residents of a major city in west China have been ordered not to drink its tap water after the supply was contaminated with dangerous levels of a carcinogenic substance.
News source(s): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10760027/Panic-after-Chinese-city-declares-tap-water-toxic.html.

Nominator's comments: How about a serious story that affects a billion people not from america. Im not being snarky, but if this was happening in the states or europe, it wouldnt even be a debate for ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you got one? This only affects 2.5 million. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Again if it was happening in America it would be ITN. Furthermore the article and the issue directly affect a billion people in china, or a significant percentage thereof. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    [citation needed]. --Jayron32 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we do run this, we should name and link the city of Lanzhou, rather than use the vague terminology the OP has lifted from the Telegraph. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Im more interested in the story than any credit. Go ahead and edit my entry if you so wish Alex, or drop some directives and Ill happily defer to them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is real news. Not sport. Not celebrity nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon update as a major pollution incident, though I disagree that this has any harder time getting posted being from China than anywhere else. I don't recall any other similar incident affecting millions of people not being posted. (and I invite others to demonstrate one, if it exists). Blurb will need wikification and article needs updating(or even a new article). Keep in mind the role of ITN is to highlight articles about events in the news, not be a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Side discussion Stephen 06:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If one was to audit ITN, it would hardly be shocking to find a bulk of nominees and stories coming from 5% of the worlds populace. A heady remainder may be from europe. Thats no crime in itself, as cousins either side of the atlantic have ready internet access and these pages are in english. However, I think world events such as this need to be highlighted, especially when they affect so many people. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please stop. You have been posting here all of 48 hours yet you presume to lecture us about our supposed bias. We regularly post stories from all parts of the world, as you would know if actually looked instead of just making up nonsense like "95% of the stories come from 5% of the p