Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2014

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

December 31Edit


2014 Ibb bombingEdit

Article: 2014 Ibb bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: A suicide bombing in Yemen kills at least 49 people.
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths, coverage around the world. --Everymorning talk 13:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - indeed significant number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant amount of deaths and garnering a large amount of coverage. Andise1 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the others. Neljack (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, the article is mainly the reactions to the attack, massive swaths of quotation etc. It's still a stub but subtract the quotes and you have a mega stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, event with many deaths, but I would wait a bit for the article to be expanded some. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a broader militant jihad category for ongoing ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda massacres would be more neutral and encompassing? μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but expansion is needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Run-of-the-mill bombing. These are frequent in this region. There is nothing significant about this one. The article is not sufficient to be posted on the main page. WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Edward HerrmannEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:25, 4 January 2015 (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: Edward Herrmann (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,

Daily Mail

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) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I was coming here to nominate him as well. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His visual significance is Gilmore Girls. Other significance is just speaking for Dodge commercials and History Channel documentaries. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I have to come down on the oppose side; one Emmy for a guest appearance and a Tony near the start of his career doesn't meet the RD criteria. Being well known doesn't make one important to their field. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - One Emmy is one Emmy. I think this warrants a mention at RD. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor celebrity, certainly not top of his field and the article has multiple orange maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Iconic actor and voice artist, active until his death. Any tags should be addressed, but given the holiday's and my uncle's death I won't be doing serious updating. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the other opposes. Neljack (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seriously tried to find evidence that this guy was in some way "top of his field" but there's nothing. This report comes close to agreeing that he played the role of an "iconic" person, but concedes that he was really just known for a role in the Gilmore Girls. Hardly someone you'd list alongside Lauren Bacall for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Emmy/Tony wins are along the path towards being an RD recognized person, there was little else in his career here to merit an RD --MASEM (t) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not enough of a resume for RD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (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] Shanghai New Year crushEdit

Article: 2014 Shanghai stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 36 people are killed in a crush during a New Year's Eve celebration in Shanghai, China.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 36 people are crushed during a New Year's Eve celebration in Shanghai, China.
Alternative blurb II: ​Investigations into the cause of the Shanghai stampede are taking place.
News source(s): BBC NYTimes

Article updated

 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - In a time of year that's intended for leisure and festivities, this seems like an awfully grim story to post onto en.wiki's front page. Perhaps some discretion should be used?--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, it's grim. But it's news. Are we now looking to censor the front page to avoid upsetting people at Christmas? How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the article's tile has been deferred to Talk:2014 Shanghai crush#"Stampede" vs, "crush", where it belongs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any support for the article & blurb to be renamed to stampede (as used in the NY Times article I just linked)? 'Crush' used in this context is unique to British English, while 'stampede' is more well-understood. (honestly, as an american, I didn't even know exactly what 'crush' meant at first). Mamyles (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, it's not really that important what it's called, the issue at hand is whether the item itself is significant enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    The quality of the updated content is a criteria for posting. While I think this event is significant enough to post, the article still needs a lot of work before I would give my support. Mamyles (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think there's any doubt that we won't post a stub to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    I've moved the page to 2014 Shanghai stampede, to conform with other recent articles like 2014 Mumbai stampede. Mamyles (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Mamyles, "crush" sounds horribly disrespectful. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    That's complete nonsense, as evidenced by dozens of RS, but if it makes you personally feel happier to see "stampede" rather than "crush" then all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    It was a stampede, not a "crush". I cringed when I saw "Shanghai crush", and it isn't used most of the time. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but the people weren't killed by "stampeding", they were killed by being "crushed". That's what many RS have said. In any case, it matters not a jot. The article has been moved so let's focus on deciding whether it should go onto ITN or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but nope. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, Fox News is the answer to all things. Listen, get over it (e.g. this report uses "crush" eight times). As I said before, time to work out if it's worth posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    If you refuse to call FN a RS: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. BBC doesn't trump everything, just sayin'. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, congrats, you've found some other sources that don't use "crush". The original point, that you suggested a "crush" was "horribly disrespectful" remains utterly untrue. Now move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    Eg.: New Yorker article on crowd crushes from 2011. It's not a disrespectful term and seems more appropriate here than a stampede as it doesn't suggest there was running or panicking associated with the latter. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    See Talk:2014 Shanghai crush#"Stampede" vs, "crush". --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The sadness of a story is no reason to overlook it, even during the festive season. The Boxing Day tsunami was extremely sad, but I don't think we would have served our readers well by declining to feature it for the that reason. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, getting back to the suitability for ITN this has, this is a very sad incident with many deaths, probably to be reported on much more. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - once in a sufficient condition to meet ITN requirements: Despite the number of such gatherings at this time of year and the numbers of people attending, such accidents are quite rare. Mjroots (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Adding that this might have been something that some pranksters initiated by throwing fake cash or offers of it from atop a nearby building. [8]. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Miyagawa (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable stampede. Post.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a stampede, not a "crush" and not particularly notable for a stampede, however horrible for the victims and their families. Unless it leads to some legal consequence it has no encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it is notable, but only if someone gets the word 'Crush' out of the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. If it were a terrorist event, or something else with political ramifications, then I'd probably have a different opinion. However, since this is probably going to be posted anyway, I'd support the use of the word 'crunch' as opposed to 'stampede.' I don't see how the former is disrespectful, and it strikes me as more accurate than 'stampede;' although that word in such a context is probably more familiar to American users, I'd rather go for a more descriptive and accurate term.-RHM22 (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The ITN blurb will reflect the article title. The article title should be discussed at Talk:2014 Shanghai crush#"Stampede" vs, "crush", not here. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added an alternative blurb that may prove less controversial.-RHM22 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • NOw it sounds like they were celebrating inside a rock crusher or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess you could just as easily say that 'stampede' suggests they were killed by a herd of cattle.-RHM22 (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Where did you arrive from? A stampede is when a large crowd runs amok and in the process run over each other as well. In India, stampedes are known to happen in temples and other places and animals were not involved at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's the point: no one would assume that 'stampede' means that animals were involved, just like no one would assume that people were killed inside of a rock crusher during New Year celebrations.-RHM22 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
              • As a speaker of British English, I disagree - a stampede does imply to me that animals were involved. This was a crush of people. Please do not assume that what Americans say is somehow automatically correct. 5.179.100.129 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
                • If the term is indeed confusing or unknown to British English-speakers, then I'd say that's even more reason to use the original blurb or my suggested alternative. No one has yet explained why "crush" or "crushed" is offensive. As far as I can tell, we don't even know yet whether or not it really was a 'stampede,' which is one of the reasons why I'd prefer the more generic term.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • Someone who knew a deceased would have an image of their relative's skin bursting, blood coming out, and bones breaking. With 35 dead that is not true. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That is just your opinion. And now, thanks to you airing it, we all have that image. I don't see how this helps. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
As a US-ian that's exactly what I thought a fatal crush was (the skin failing at one or more points causing bleeding to death, enough bone breaking to cause death, bruising to death, or any combination of non-fatal amounts of those thereof. It was only later that I learned that I found out it's thankfully not as quite as horrible but generally compressive asphyxiation, as said at the human stampede article. As cases of hundreds dead have existed, that is a misleading picture. I have heard that most students in China are taught English, and that it's American English, so let's not make it harder on readers who might've known the "crushed" than it has to be. It's much worse to picture that image if it was your wife or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not discussing the article title; I'm discussing the wording of the blurb. Please do take note before condensing my comments in the future. There are many, many ITN items in which the article title isn't used (did everyone forget about the CIA 'torture' report?), so I don't see why the choice here is apparently very obvious.-RHM22 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have also added a bit about the Fake currency from a Reuters article. I guess maybe it could be added to the blurb? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based mainly on article quality, but also because I think it would be good for ITN to make a resolution to be less deathy during 2015. Agree that "stampede" would be a bit insensitive. Formerip (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Event seems notable enough though, this sort of thing doesn't happen often. There shouldn't, however, be any censorship of this based on what the event is. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Front page news on international news sites. High death toll. Not sure why we should try and make bad news look nicer. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — Partly as a counter to EWP's perceived Anglo-European-centrism. Re terminology, I note that our article on the Khodynka Tragedy begins, "The Khodynka Tragedy was a human stampede...." IMO, the phrase human stampede best describes what happened (on a smaller but no less tragic scale) in Shanghai. Sca (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please keep discussion focused on the event's suitability for ITN. The discussion about wording will be taken into account, but the point has been made. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You could also say "X people were trampled to death" but I'll leave it to others to decide in a term. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • But I would say that crush does sound disrespectful and that people aren't actually crushed to death but are unable to make their chest rise, which is needed for breathing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Well by that maxim, people aren't shot to death, they bleed slowly through holes in their body and perhaps suffer multiple organ failure. Time to get a grip here and realise that we're about reporting reliable sources, not kitsch personal opinions on what is purported to be "disrespectful" (especially as tens of thousands of sources have reported people being "crushed to death" in the past month). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
          • In a country with a long history of standing-up football crushes and judicial death by "crushing" everyone knows what this means but in American (and apparently Indian and Chinese) varieties of English the plain meaning is some kind of inelastic compressive material failure. Something has to break, the skin, bones, tissues (bruising) or people will think the British term a bit exaggerative, blase, and gratuitous. Some might not even realise that not having 400 pounds of lung strength is the cause of death. Everyone knows what "shot to death" is though, knows that blood loss is one of the usual reasons, and it's not as bad a death as your entire body being squeezed like a grape. See we're not familiar with article titles like 2014 Shanghai crush (that sounds like a basketball team) but may have seen this drawing which only 12 died in making death by structural damage seem plausible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the article is improved. Mass fatalities like this at New Year's events are unusual enough to begin with—I don't think anything like this has ever happened at Times or Red Square. Having it occur in the main tourist area of the largest city of the world's most populous country exponentially increases its news value. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant discussion
    • This is because Times Square separates the crowd into pens surrounded by empty space that bear an opening and presumably aren't so hard to dismantle that no one could make an extra opening quickly. The safety-unconscious Third World should look into that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • China is not a third-world country by just about every economic measure, and its health and safety regulations and protocols for an all manner of things (such as crow-control and food standards) is improving with time (but these are just laws and protocols, the health and safety culture out there is still filled with complacency and downright laziness!)--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
          • My relatives always called their country a third world country and they barely have less GDP per capita than China. The Shanghai Tower, Shanghai Maglev and continental length Mach 0.3 trains make the first world jealous but it's still a $7,000 US/year country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Your second-hand accounts of your relatives in some other country that's not China are not a reliable source. Do you have any reliable sources, or are you just trying to confuse the issue with unnecessary linguistic quibbles? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Well third world country, second paragraph, first sentence says the term isn't well defined. And older people like my relatives/parents actually remember the Cold War and gave me my preferred term for levels of country poorness. Americans my age think it's nitpicking that older people say a third world country can't be communist. Why don't we be more accurate and call them a 2½ world country?.. I wasn't intentionally obsfucating. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Historical footnote: This sort of thing did happen in Moscow 60+ years ago: On March 9, 1953, in Red Square, outside the hall where Josef Stalin's body lay in state, "hundreds" of people were crushed or smothered to death in a human stampede, according to various unofficial sources (never officially confirmed). Sca (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin note: Consensus is safely established for posting, and discussions on tangents aren't very helpful. What's needed is an expansion of the article, then this can be posted. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Un-marking as ready. Article still needs expansion. What's there is a goo start, but I'd like to have something a bit more substantial to post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • What an insult to the article creators, calling their work "goo". :P --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Admin note I'd still like to know why discussions regarding the wording of the blurb are 'irrelevant' or tangential. The choice of which blurb to use (assuming one of two suggested is chosen) seems quite relevant to this discussion. I have no interest in changing the title of the article, nor am I suggesting that here, so I'd prefer that my suggestions regarding the blurb (and not the article title) not be condensed along with some of the other, unrelated comment strings above. After all, no one has even proposed a blurb using the word 'stampede,' so I'm uncertain how that's been definitively decided.-RHM22 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
          • What something like at least 35 people are pressed to death in a Shanghai crowd of revelers. Or at least 35 die from compression in a Shanghai New Year's celebration/party or something like that. Those sound like they probably just couldn't breathe and didn't die from mangling. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
        • @RHM22: Respectfully, I collapsed it because the quality of the discussion seemed to be deteriorating and because nothing is happening until the article is improved. Perhaps you could add a suggestion to to the nomination template? Generally, the posting admin will use their discretion on the blurb, and it will be tweaked by other admins or via WP:ERRORS as necessary once it's up. To use an analogy, I'd rather get the wheel re-invented first, and worry about what to call it later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
          • @HJ Mitchell: Thank you for the explanation; I did add an alternative blurb, which was mentioned in the collapsed portion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a significant event given the amount of deaths, the world-relevant location, and international media coverage. I think that the article has been improved enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As a contributor of the article, I think the article is now ready to be posted. I've suggested alt2 and marked it as updated. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Article is still not in great shape, but I'd say it's just about acceptable. I've tried to accommodate everyone with the blurb, but suggestions for improvement are welcome at WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[Post€d] Lithuania adopts the euroEdit

Article: Lithuania and the euro (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Lithuania becomes the 19th member of the Eurozone.
News source(s): [9]

Article updated

 Formerip (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once it becomes official. -- Calidum 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT, that's at 10 pm UTC. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A country changing its currency seems notable to me, but I wonder if we have posted any other steps in the process(such as them being approved to do so) or other countries doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sure you can find out the answer to this if you can be bothered to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    If you don't want to be helpful(which is perfectly fine for anyone to be), you could just say nothing. I wasn't even really asking for help, more posting a thought. I'm well aware of how to find something like that out. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that this seems notable, and it is also receiving significant coverage around the world. I think that given both of these criteria, whether or not we posted other countries entering the eurozone is of little relevance. Mamyles (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support article isn't brilliant but sufficient enough to carry an ITN story. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think the coverage and the notability of the change would seem sufficient to carry on ITN. Miyagawa (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. Covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] New Year's HonoursEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 31 December 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: Joan Collins (talk, history) and Mary Quant (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Dynasty actress Joan Collins and fashion designer Mary Quant have both been made dames in the 2015 New Year's Honours. The actor John Hurt is to become Sir John Hurt.
News source(s): ITV news The Guardian (full honours list)
 --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy New Year to them too (oppose). As far as I know, we don't post knightings, just like many other recognitions. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What a shame they never cast Hurt and Collins as Avon and Servalan in a Blake's Seven movie. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are dozens of these, on two occasions each year. Far too commonplace, I'm afraid. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Uncertain oppose - wasn't that Mary the real founder of Quantum mechanics? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Certain oppose dozens, if not hundreds are honoured every year. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Plenty of countries award similar honors; we don't post them. -- Calidum 19:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above comments. Thank you for the nomination though - we often don't get enough here. Mamyles (talk) 22:05, 31 December 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.

December 30Edit


[Closed] RD: Christine CavanaughEdit

Older than the oldest RD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 1 January 2015 (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: Christine Cavanaugh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN The Guardian USA Today

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: Voice actress who voiced Babe, Chuckie Finster in Rugrats, and Dexter in Dexter's Laboratory among numerous other roles. Andise1 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While as an animation fan, she will be missed, I don't think she meets RD here; if it was someone like June Foray, that might be different. (Also note, she passed away on Dec 22, the news is only just being picked up on). --MASEM (t) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence this individual meets the criteria for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't understand the rationale stating June Foray can be mentioned in an RD, but not Cavanaugh. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe we post RDs based on when the person died, meaning this cannot be posted as the 22nd has dropped off; am I correct? 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2015 (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] Palestinian draft resolution fails in U.N. councilEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:24, 4 January 2015 (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: United Nations Security Council (talk, history) and United Nations resolution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations Security Council rejects a Palestinian resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories by late 2017.
Alternative blurb: Australia and the United States vote against a Palestinian resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories by late 2017 in the UN Security Council.
News source(s): [10], [11], [12]
Nominator's comments: UN votes down statehood for Palestine. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was a Jordanian resolution, not a Palestinian one. And I think we should talk in terms of it "failing" rather than being "rejected" or "voted against" - these expression may not be technically wrong, but they are a bit misleading given that more members voted in favour than against. Since no-one at all expected this to pass, I'm not sure it's really significant enough, in itself, for ITN (although I'm not quite unsure enough to vote oppose). Formerip (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is approximately the 42nd time in roughly forty years that the US has vetoed a resolution dealing with the Palestinians. There is no surprise here, including the fact that US told everyone that they were going to veto this one as well. If the US had actually agreed to pass something, then that might have been news, but the failure to pass anything just perpetuates the status quo and I don't really see how the failure to change is at the level of significance required for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An unsurprising result of pure political theater, as the US was certain to veto it. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dragons flight. -- Calidum 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything against Israel will be rejected by the US etc, and even if it isn't, Israel pay no heed to UN mandates. Disappointingly, this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support any support for rights-respecting classically liberal countries instead of fascist/leftist resolutions is so rare nowadays as to be worth noting as encyclopedic and simply amazing. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly this needs to be on the front page, because there seems to be widespread misconception. The resolution was not vetoed by the United States; the two opposing votes plus abstentions by the Britain, Lithuania, Rwanda, Nigeria and South Korea meant that it fell one vote short. It is the first and only time that Australia has opposed a resolution in its two-year term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It would have been vetoed had it gotten the nine votes. That was a certainty, meaning that this was an exercise in political theater. I don't think Australia exercising its ability to oppose something is notable enough for posting. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dragon flight's and 331dot's reasoning - this was certainly not a surprise and as a result did not get much coverage. Mamyles (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2015 (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: Luise RainerEdit

Article: Luise Rainer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Telegraph

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) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support highly notable, article is in quite good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly the most famous death of the month, after Joe Cocker.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think could be in Template:In the news. ArionEstar (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable actress, article in decent shape. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Would have actually nominated her myself - definitely notable, article is in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD and article is in fine shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable enough for RD. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Typically blurbs are only posted for deaths where the death itself is an event, usually (but not always) a surprising death, or when the person was essentially at the tip-top of their field. I don't think either applies in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

December 29Edit


[Posted] December 2014 Cameroon clashesEdit

Articles: December 2014 Cameroon clashes (talk, history) and Boko Haram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 83 people are killed in the aftermath of clashes between the Cameroonian military and Boko Haram militants.
News source(s): Reuters

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: An escalation of Boko Haram incursions into Cameroon, threatening to further destabilize the region. --Catlemur (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - escalation of Boko haram terrorism.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in light of the death toll and potential for destabilisation. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from a quick read it appears that this is an ongoing issue, should this really be an "ongoing" nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • They were pushed out of Cameroon.The issue is ongoing only in Nigeria, with occasional small scale raids into Cameroon (this one is probably the biggest so far).--Catlemur (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Significant death toll and implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This is an clear escalation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Strike Eagle. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've un-marked this as ready for the time being. I think more discussion is needed. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

One more support since you unmarked it. Just to re-mark ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral and I've linked the December 2014 Cameroon clashes article as bolded "83 people are killed" to properly feature the "Updated article" nominated. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Update:An estimated 1,000 militants took part in the clashes.--Catlemur (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — a very significant development that warrants being on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin note: The article's a bit short, and a few more comments would be welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Posted. While perhaps shorter than I would prefer, the article meets minimum criteria. SpencerT♦C 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

December 28Edit


[Closed] Large expansion to Beijing SubwayEdit

No consensus to post, which is a shame because we seldom recognise such feats of engineering. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2015 (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: Beijing Subway (talk, history)
Blurb: Line 7 of the Beijing Subway and expansions of lines 6, 14, and 15 begin operation.
News source(s): CRI

Article updated
Nominator's comments: 48 new metro stations opened on a single day is extremely rare anywhere in the world. We normally do not cover infrastructure articles, particularly positive ones that do not have to do with disasters, so this would be a welcome change to ITN. We posted a similar story about the Beijing Subway in December 2009 (or was it 2010) so there is precedent. --Colipon+(Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we posted the BS story some time ago. "Large expansion" doesn't warrant an ITN blurb. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Existing public infrastructure is quite often expanded; even more so with this subway which has been constantly expanded for the last 10-12 years and will be for many more. I'm not seeing a great deal of news coverage of this which might persuade me to weak support it. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 48 metro stations in a day. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - when mentioned properly in the blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Nergaal and 311dot's reasoning - infrastructure expansion is a routine event. We have posted about train lines opening before, but we focused on their groundbreaking high-speed train technolog,y which is not the case here. Mamyles (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I love trains, but this is just not notable enough for ITN. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hasn't generated enough coverage to be on ITN. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 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.

NATO ends ISAFEdit

 --Jenda H. (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional support Historical event, just one orange-tagged section needs fixing. Brandmeistertalk 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements per Brandmeister. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story, truly in the news, and international importance. Article needs that fix up and tag pull. Jusdafax 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the end of a war is truly of international significance. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The war hasn't ended yet. It says that ISAF ended its war cooperation in Afghanistan. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "President Obama Marks Formal End of War in Afghanistan" [13]; it's being phrased that way. The Korean War is considered over even though the US still has troops there. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Who takes his word seriously? George Ho (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether you or anyone take him seriously is irrelevant; it is what it is. Most RS are phrasing this as the war being over. The troops remaining are not there to conduct a war. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • May 1, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld declares the end of "major combat operations" in Afghanistan. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about combat operations- in fact, most troops are actually gone now. Again, whether you believe those saying this is over or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a big event with immense strategic implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of the longest war coalitions in modern history officially drawing to a close. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. This is modern history.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Jenda H., are you nominating one or both articles? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the ISAF article is more accurate. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb two. Notable, very notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important historical war ends. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no treaty, armistice or other relevant development, just an announcement. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The blurb doesn't imply any truce or ceasefire, it's just that ISAF has been a combatant in this war for 13 years and is now withdrawing. Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining about the blurb, but about the non-story. The Taliban is strong and resurgent, with the recent attack on the Pakistani school, Posting this would be like posting a superbowl headline, in overtime, loosing team takes ball and goes home. Of course that would probably be more newsworthy than an "end" of operations in Afghanistan. There's also the fact that other than here I haven't even seen the headline. Then look at our end of operations in Iraq. This is a policy announcement, not an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Truly an international story. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a few dead links could be fixed up, but clear consensus to post and an impressive article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support An important historical event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Removing the ready tag; neither article appears to have been significantly updated, and the War in Afghanistan article has some very prominent fact tags. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] MS Norman AtlanticEdit

Article: MS Norman Atlantic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ten people are killed as the Italian ferry Norman Atlantic (pictured), carrying 466 people, catches fire in the Adriatic Sea.
News source(s): BBC News Online, BBC News Online

Article updated

 --Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait for more information. Hard to judge its worthiness without some details. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bob talk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bob talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Official death toll has now risen to 10, but still some discrepancy between passenger manifest and survivor count. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - With thanks to the nominator, but this does not appear to be developing into a major disaster worthy of coverage with a blurb here. Jusdafax 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does it need to be a "major disaster"? Surely the successful rescue of around 480 people is just as newsworthy? Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In a more just world, it would be. Sadly the reality is that this is out of the headlines pretty much already, whereas if it had sunk with mass loss of life it would dominate the news for weeks as did the Costa Concordia, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose interesting, but not ITN-worthy, as usual it's a good candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it's good many people were rescued, that also means it dropped out of the news. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The last major ferry disaster, the one in Korea, appeared benign in the first few hours but soon turned very deadly as they could not mount an effective rescue effort. Here, while the numbers of affected people are about the same, the rescue efforts are much more organized/larger in scale, and so far out from the initial event, only one affirmed death, and it doesn't seem likely that the death toll will go much higher. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. At least in the UK, this was quite heavily featured in the news, and rescuing 480 people from a burning ship in very bad weather seems quite an achievement. Not sure why only events causing x amount of deaths would only be considered of interest to Wikipedia readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bob talk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Might have been a major fire, but at the end of the day, one person died after jumping off, while others are said to be safe. Unless the rescue efforts had some daredevil stunts, I'd say this is as non-newsworthy as last weeks Sydney incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that almost all the passengers have been rescued makes it rather trivial. And as Rsrikanth05 points out, can be posted if the rescuers perform some Rajini style stunts.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas|(talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:LASTING seems to be more relevant to the existence of the article, which isn't what is being discussed here. People can also have good faith differences about what constitutes "encyclopedic impact"; obviously the nominator feels it does. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If we shouldn't have an article on a news story per NOTNEWS, LASTING, whatever, ITN should not be including that stor just because it is otherwise in the news. (Please note: I'm not saying this necessarily applies to the article here in this case - as most major mass transit/transportation accidents with death tolls get articles on WP). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a crystal ball to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ships sink. Of many kinds. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and unless the manner of sinking is significant, or the people onboard are significant, or the ship itself is significant, the sinking is not significant. None of those apply here. Fire breaks out on run-of-the-mill ferry in rough seas. Again, what else is new? RGloucester 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is why I oppose posting it to ITN, but I think the article has merit. As I said, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you feel it does not merit an article. As Mjroots said it is far too early to know if LASTING applies here. Neither one of us knows. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you are talking about deletion. I never used the word "deletion". I merely took advantage of one of the event criteria, as a way of demonstrating my reasons for opposing posting it to ITN. It isn't too early at all. RGloucester 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am talking about deletion because WP:LASTING or any other notability issues are issues to be dealt with in a deletion discussion discussing the existence of the article. If a deletion discussion is open, that is certainly an issue here. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is very likely to survive an AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, no one even suggested an AfD nomination, so I don't understand why this is being discussed. RGloucester 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, I am saying you should suggest one as the proper venue for your views. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't want the page deleted, so how is that my "view"? I merely don't want it posted to ITN. RGloucester 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You cited notability issues like WP:LASTING with this subject and said it had no "encyclopedic impact", which I presume means that you don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. If that is wrong, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"People die. What else is new"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I wouldn't exactly call this minor, but I understand the hesitation. It's not as significant as an airplane crash (which we normally post), but it's more significant than a bus crash (which we usually don't). Death toll in the (low) double-digits, plus a sizable and mostly successful rescue operation. I say post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I say post. Per the sizable rescue efforts, media attention and still a few deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's been very much in the news, and it's a sizable rescue operation. We've btw posted a similar story (burning ship in that area) a few years ago, though that rescue operation had greater success. Narayanese (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm boldly marking this as ready. I think that there is enough support to override the objectors (reasons, not quantity). The article itself is in a good shape. Needs an independent review and a decision. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Good. This should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Although it's been a dramatic story, I have to agree with those who oppose this as lacking sufficient significance on the global scale of events. (Anyhow, it's all over but the shouting.) Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think the death of two salvage workers, after all the surviving passengers had been rescued, increases the notability of this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and it seems like they carried a high number of illegal immigrants that are still uncounted for. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Posted. I agree that the support overcomes the opposition by strength of argument even if not numerical superiority. I note that several of the opposes were made while the story was still breaking, and that the story has—possibly against expectations—continued to develop since then, which appears to be the reason that the majority of the more recent comments are in support of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull obviously no consensus, and 10 deaths in a ferry accident is rather small, considering their frequency and number of passengers. Very similar to the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment which was rightfully not posted. There's no indication of any log term effects beyond the deaths, like a criminal prosecution or bankruptcy. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
While I did post support of this above, I agree with Medeis that (in the future) it is preferable to wait for stronger consensus, even if that means a blurb does not get posted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a full two days of discussion, story development, and article development. I marked the story as "ready" to give indicate that it eas time for a decision to be made. Consensus is not merely a !vote count. The strength of the arguments for and against posting should be taken in to account. The first comment was "Wait", I had no problem with that. Waiting was the correct thing to do in this case. We waited, the situation became clearer, the article made it to the MP. Had HJ Mitchell said the the article was not to be posted, then I would have accepted his decision without whining about it. Editors must realise that there are some you win, some you lose; and move on whichever way the result goes. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support, this seems like an event notable enough for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support, reported all round the world and certainly notable enough for ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Major story that has garnered international interest. There is no minimum death threshold for ITN postings. -- Calidum 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501Edit

Article: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (talk, history)
Blurb: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured) goes missing en route to Juanda International Airport in Malaysia
Alternative blurb: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured) goes missing en route to Singapore with 162 passengers and crew aboard.
News source(s): CBC, NBC News and others

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support after expansion, surprised I haven't heard about this yet here in the US. Very likely to be a big story, but wait for a bit of expansion before posting. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon expansion. We don't need to rush to post this, but once we get enough information I think this merits posting. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is better updated/expanded. Note I also proposed the altblurb, which states how many are aboard the plane. Also, the blurb proposed here says the destination was Malaysia, but the article and sources say Singapore. -- Calidum 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Good call, as I accidentally wrote the wrong nation in the hook, and was unsure of whether passengers should be added. Thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Also, that's the origin airport (in Indonesia), not the destination airport. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alt blurb ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think we're waiting for the plane to be found, and the article looks ready to me. Anyone agree/disagree? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree. It has gone missing. My concern earlier was the length of the article. It was only 1000 odd characters, but now it looks ready to hit the main page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I presume this will be re-blurbed and bumped to the top when the plane is found. Hopefully this won't turn out to be another Flight 370 scenario. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Debris and a body have been sighted [14]; once confirmed as being from the plane this will need to be updated. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Indonesia's search and rescue agency head has said they are 95% sure the debris is from the plane. [15] 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
[16]. Think we should update the blurb to state that "Wreckage of the missing Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured), carrying over 160 people, is found in the Java Sea in Indonesia." --MASEM (t) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that the blurb was updated today through a message on WP:ERRORS. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27Edit


[Posted (Ongoing)] 2014 Southeast Asian floodsEdit

Article: 2014 Southeast Asian floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 200,000 had been evacuated in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in the 2014 Southeast Asian floods.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Straits Times

 --Muffin Wizard 09:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment it appears this started over two weeks ago, perhaps "ongoing" is a better bet? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with that. :) ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 01:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this should be posted. It is an ongoing event.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Given the substantial impact, I would support posting this in the ongoing events section. Mamyles (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in the ongoing section. Significant evacuations and coverage. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added this to the ongoing section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    Do we normally link to articles written almost entirely in broken English? I've done my best to tidy this one, but some of it was barely decipherable. —David Levy 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements, David Levy. I've added your name to the updater list above. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and I apologize for not noticing those issues. I did see that the article was well referenced, and I was a little blinded by that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys, and especially to David Levy for making copy-edit to the article. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 00:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tomaž ŠalamunEdit

Article: Tomaž Šalamun (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTVSlo RTVSlo Huffington post Poetry Foundation Delo

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.

 --Tone 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Article reasonably filled out. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is not a field I'm familiar with nor a culture, but the article is reasonably complete and the external links helpful. One major failing as of this posting: no death section or information of any kind. Jusdafax 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Reading the article he seems to meet DC2, but as Jusdafax says some information on the passing would help(if possible). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As of now, there are no reports on the reason of death, I checked several sources. I don't think more information will appear. --Tone 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with what is there now, especially if it seems unlikely more information will come out. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose but simply because the person in question isn't really "in the news", perhaps telling that we have no sources in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • [17] This is from the Slovakian equivalent of the US's NPR. Not getting any English hits but should not be a show stopper as long as we can write it in English. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Wow, if that's the best we can do for RS, then forget this nomination altogether. That link has about a hundred adverts and a few words on the subject matter. Poor work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Seems that the international media have picked up the news now. Huffington post, among others. Some sources added above, both in Slovene and English. Ready? --Tone 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - clearlt notable enough for RD mention. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the criteria for inclusion in RD. This is ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Six-party agreement on budget (averted crisis and snap election)Edit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2015 (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 Swedish Cabinet crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sweden avoids a snap election in 2015 after the two political blocks comes to an agreement following a six-party talks on future .
Alternative blurb: ​Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announces that there will be no snap election in 2015 after the two political blocks comes to an agreement following a six-party talk on future .
News source(s): [18], [19], [20]

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We didn't post the original crisis that this is the resolution to. As I understand it the head of government and most of the participating parties will remain the same. So I don't see this really going anywhere. However, if it is posted, the grammar of the blurb should be fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I thank the nominator for this suggestion but even if the blurb was acceptable, this falls short of an ITN-worthy news event in my view. Jusdafax 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Something not happening (the snap election) due to standard political negotiating doesn't seem to meet the bar for me. 331dot (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this similar to the debt ceiling issue a few months back which ITN had refused to post? –HTD 13:28, 30 December 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.

December 26Edit


[Posted] RD: Leo TindemansEdit

Article: Leo Tindemans (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deredactie, BBC, Independent, Daily Mail

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) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on the merits, though the article could use more detail. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - no major problems with article. Notable enough person for RD. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - took a look at this article when I heard of his death and there wasn't a reference in sight. Much improved now. Notability clear. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable enough for RD. definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] December 2014 Assam violenceEdit

Article: December 2014 Assam violence (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A militant attack on native tribal people and subsequent retaliations in Assam, India kills more than 85 people.
Alternative blurb: ​The Indian Government launches a major offensive after 85 native tribals are killed by Bodo militants in the North-eastern state of Assam.
News source(s): BBC India Today Hindustan Times The Times of India USA Today

Article updated

Nominator's comments: More than 80 people selectively killed makes it a very significant event. Widely reported in India and internationally as well. Please note that the blurb can be modified if it seems badly written. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Extremely significant event, with an unfortunate number of casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, The massacre got significant coverage. Both blurbs OK. Faizan 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as government of India intensified counterattack and large number of casualties. And please link the article in blurb, there is no link to December 2014 Assam violence article. -Nizil (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This meets the threshold for a newsworthy event. I'm leaning more toward the second blurb, but either is fine. I agree with Nizil Shah that the December 2014 Assam violence article should be linked. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    I believe it is linked. Millitant attack in 1, and are killed by Bodo millitants in 2. --17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rsrikanth05 I've linked the article after they raised it! :) Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)`
  • Support, notable ongoing attack with many casualties. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as this is a widely-reported event. But agree with Strike Eagle that the blurb needs fixing. In particular, can we replace 'native tribals' with the name of the actual tribe affected, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Newsworthy event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted main blurb as the second is factually inaccurate (not all dead are tribal people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

December 25Edit


RD: David RyallEdit

Article: David Ryall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (RFE)

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.

 doktorb wordsdeeds 08:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, article with unreferenced personal life section going to RD? I don't think so. per TRM. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply as he doesn't appear to be top of his field. The BBC had to tell us that he was in a Harry Potter movie, just to make sure we knew who he was. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's a TV actor from the BBC - no accolades, no awards, and an orange maintenance tag up top. Nope. Challenger l (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RD: Gleb YakuninEdit

Article: Gleb Yakunin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (RFE)

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.

 --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • "Support major dissident, reformer and politician, but article needs more reference work. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I believe that he is of great significance in Russia. However, after reading both his article and the cited news source, I am not confident that he has significant recognition abroad. Nonetheless, his achievements/contributions are interesting and could be interpreted as being on-par with other recent names in the RD space. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mamyles: Just FYI, though often helpful, there doesn't have to be recognition from abroad as long as the person meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to criticize you, but just to make it clear, the guidelines above address this: "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..." Your statement was obviously in good faith, and you were not complaining, but the spirit of the guideline is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
Fair point, thank you. I will keep that in mind when considering future RD nominations. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the limited number of submissions for RD given the liberal criteria.) Mamyles (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon article work per Medeis. Seems important to Russia. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1. He may be of importance in Russia, but I doubt he has any elsewhere. 2. His death was not a surprise (the article states that he suffered from an illness for a while before his death at 80 years old). 3. The article is not in a very good state, it doesn't have enough inline citations for verifying things like his early life and his wife and children. All of this combined tells me he shouldn't have a place at RD. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @AmaryllisGardener: Please read my and Medeis' posts above; the fact that this relates only to Russia is immaterial to the nomination. Also, RD is for deaths that are not surprises. 331dot (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @331dot: I read your discussion, and I said he "may" be of importance in Russia, I'm not sure of that, even. The not-surprising death is not a big thing, it just adds to my list. The most important one is number three. The article needs a bit of expanding also, IMO. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The not surprising death is why we have RD. Surprising deaths get full blurbs. Yakunin, a well known cleric, dissident, and reform politician certainly meets the prima facie requirements for an RD listing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. But like I just said above, not the biggest concern of mine. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - after improved article work by Medeis. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait a second. Per Medeis or by Medeis? JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин, among others, are fluent in proper Russian, I am not, and it is close to bedtime for me. I can look at English sources tomorrow if I am not busy in the real world. My Christmas guests are arriving Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article sourcing is very weak (roughly 80% unsourced). I would need to see a lot better sourcing than that to consider supporting or posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me emphasize that (1) I am at my parents' in the New Jersey Pine Barrens for the week, and the DSL has been off 80% of the time, and (2) I am babysitting three children under 10 years of age, so I am quite busy, too busy to get to this article myself before it will be stale. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is inadequately sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see next to no sources for the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 24Edit


Bharat RatnaEdit

Article: Bharat Ratna (talk, history)
Blurb: Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya are awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award
News source(s): Economic Times
Article updated

Nominator's comments: The recipients would be conferred the award in-person in a customary Presidential ceremony in January/February next year. They have been awarded officially by the President of India. [1] Regards, theTigerKing  17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason- Rarely awarded + Prominent people (Not necessarily Indians) awarded/conferred with the title. Regards, theTigerKing  18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Would be better to post it in January/February when they are awarded by the President. Mere announcement doesn't merit a ITN..Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    Support Since they have been already awarded. The Indian Government rarely awards them...so they are pretty covered. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
They have been awarded actually [2].
  • We don't usually post other countries' highest civilian awards, do we? I'm too lazy to check the archives, but I don't remember any off the top of my head. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It was in discussion last time also. But it made to ITN :) Regards, theTigerKing  18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is that they are very scarcely awarded...45 in 60 years.....so they are extensively covered whenever awarded.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Would move this suggestion to an ITNR thread as we have seen such arguments coming up while taking up the case of Bharat Ratna for ITN-R.Regards, theTigerKing  18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - While it's true that we do not often post other country's awards, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, it is a good point that this award is significantly less awarded and therefore is deserving of special attention. Mamyles (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Even though singular countries' awards are rarely reported, this is an award rarely bestowed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither the nom nor the blurb explains what for. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the blurb should have a brief summary of this. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's a bit patronising to ask the blurb to explain the significance of a linked article, after all if you don't know what the Sakharov Prize or Crafoord Prize is, then norm is to click on the link. The blurb is supposed to be snappy, and usually doesn't include a "brief summary" of the news item in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Those other two awards have a more narrow consideration of what might be selected, while a "civilian award" is far too broad. Irregardless, I do think any award given to a person or group of persons, even the Nobel, should try to briefly explain the reason for the award at ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant and notable award.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE wtf? Why is a civilian award notable? 2 people got it last year. Why is a NATIONAL civilian award notable? The article doesn't even explain what did these 2 dudes get it for, nor deos the blurb. Why not post China's awards? Russia's? USA's? Absolutely nobody outside of India is reporting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, these two dudes. WTF. However, I still don't know what that Obama dude or Bush dude did to get a Nobel, or be Time POTY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is a civilian award in any way less notable than a military one? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm afraid I am a bit suspicious of the motive behind this award. The lead of the award's article sayas that the Prime Minister nominates recipients. Looking at the two recipients, the first died in 1946, so he won't be attending the ceremony in February. But based on his wikipedia article he seems to be a worthy recipient. The second recipient however is the founder of the party that was elected to power this year. He was also the Prime Minister until the party lost power in 2004. It is very convenient that he be nominated for this award just a few months after one of his proteges comes to power. To give an American equivalent, imagine if a Republican president is elected in 2016. Then imagine that president awarding Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush with "America's highest civilian award" in December 2017. Sure the first guy is probably a worthy recipient, but is not here to actually receive it. So that just leaves us with the other guy... Would we put that on the front page of Wikipedia? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose self-congratulatory partisan action per Athomeinkobe. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportVajpayee is a living former PM who is being awarded a Bharat Ratna when he is NOT the PM as in the case of Indira Gandhi/Jawaharlal Nehru. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's a bona fide civilian award, which has been presented only a handful of times in a country with a population of over a billion. I don't really see any justification in the opposition who make basically no argument other than either straw man arguments ("suspicion over motives"? Your personal opinion regarding the motivations of the awarding panel is fascinating but entirely irrelevant in this case...) or plain nonsense (e.g. "wtf"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
After taking your comments on board, I thought that perhaps I read too much into the circumstances of the award based on my own preliminary research. So I just tried a google search of "Bharat Ratna" to see what has been said about the decision, and the first two news results were:
"NDTV Vajpayee, a Bharat Ratna? Unfair"
"The man who implemented Mandal: Why VP Singh deserves the Bharat Ratna more than Vajpayee"
Granted these are opinion pieces, but it appears that at least some people who are interested in Indian politics (I am not) have concluded that this is a political move. There is no meniton of an "awarding panel" that I can find; this appears to be a decision taken solely by PM Modi. The first article listed above says "Prime Minister Modi is on a mission to carve an alternative iconography.", and the second says "Those who wanted Vajpayee honoured invariably belonged to the BJP, which, now heading the Central government, has conferred the Bharat Ratna on him."
So, with respect, I think it is not a straw man argument. But isn't India's population irrelevant? A government award given to a former leader of the ruling party at the first available opportunity looks like a sham to me, regardless of whether the country's population is a thousand or a billion. On the other hand, you could say that finding someone more worthy than your former boss is easier in a country with a population of one billion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
So what if it is a political move ? Is there any policy/guidelines/precedent to support this as a reasonable criteria against displaying it on main page?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
None at all that I am aware of, but I'm still new here. I'm just giving an alternate view to this whole "one in a billion" story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia should have existed when Rajiv Gandhi was given a posthumus BR. If you are going to take that NDTV piece at face value [ehich quite frankly is written by someone who has been anti BJP], then things are just going to go haywire. --12:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Bharat Ratna is awarded not frequently and both persons who received are important persons in history of India. Vajpayee is also well respected in opposition parties too. There would be controversy wherever politics is involved. -Nizil (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Big award, given rarely, well reported. WP should not be checking any political motives nor is it our job to check if the recipient deserved the award. Many of the Nobel peace prizes won't find place in ITN going by that criteria. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't post the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor recipients, British/Commonwealth honors, etc. So why post this? -- Calidum 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any more reason to post this than to post awards of other countries' top honours, which we don't tend to post. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Question on rarity: There were just awards last year? And every parliamentary term apparently gets at least one: apparently only the parliaments elected on 1967, 1977 and 2004, out of 16 general elections, didn't get to give out awards. I would've been more convinced of its rarity if they were truly sparingly awarded, not at least once by every parliamentary term. –HTD 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing why we should post this top civilian award when we don't post others. It also doesn't seem that rare in terms of how often it is awarded. Further, just because the award is given to people important to India does not mean that the awarding itself is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    We don't post other top civilian awards? Perhaps we should, and the fact we haven't ought not to be a stick with which to beat this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am boldly marking this as Ready. Support side has given better rationales for posting and the award is seemingly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another Indians got the nation's highest award, while the article states that the award is given "without distinction of race". Nothing unusual and we don't post other countries' highest civilian awards. Brandmeistertalk 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, what's so important about this? We don't usually post stuff like this. I see nothing ITN-worthy here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Killing of Antonio MartinEdit

Not going anywhere. Let's move on. Seattle (talk) 02:01, 25 December 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 Ferguson unrest#Antonio Martin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police in Missouri, USA kill another black teenager, Antonio Martin, provoking community unrest.
News source(s): The Guardian, 24 Dec 2014

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Important to the continuing story of anti-black police brutality in Missouri following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the killing of Eric Garner in New York. -Sumana Harihareswara 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Your bias is showing. -- Calidum 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The blurb can be always reworded, it's about the scale of protests. Brandmeistertalk 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Scale of the protests? There is video of the man brandishing a gun and accordng to the Independent, "the chief of St Louis County Police, said Mr Martin, the young man who was shot dead, was “known” to the force and had been arrested three times since he was 17. He said the incidents involved armed robbery, assault and the illegal use of a weapon." We're not about narratives here, we're about facts. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Firstly, the blurb is outrageous. Secondly, this is just another parochial crime incident that doesn't belong at ITN. It is yet to be seen whether this will have a WP:LASTING impact. Regardless, information is murky, and the linked section has no information. RGloucester 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and a rather offensive blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - So far, this looks like a single police killing with a relatively local response. This may become more newsworthy if more widespread protests or startling circumstances come to light. Mamyles (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose we need to stop this nonsense. Pulling a gun on a cop in the US is likely to end in death, whether you're black, white or blue. This is becoming really tedious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there's going to be another 6 months of protests revolving around this kid's death, which resulted because he unwisely pointed a gun at cops, it is not notable. Also, I dislike the suggested blurb; it has a very strong bias. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Close as POV - Anti-black police brutality? Said "victim" pulled a gun. Drop the sensationalized narrative! 108.230.212.106 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very obvious bias here - not appropriate for Wikipedia, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 00:54, 25 December 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.

December 23Edit


[Posted] RD: Edward GreenspanEdit

Article: Edward Greenspan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CTV; CBC: "legal pioneer"; National Post: "Legendary"; Wall Street Journal Law Blog: "Legend of Canada’s Criminal Bar"

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.

 --Aerospeed (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment for RDs, it's always helpful to give a note as to why the individual meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Nomination reasoning: His case list is a history of crime in Canada, both white collar and violent. Peter Demeter (the longest trial in Canadian history), Conrad Black, Garth Drabinsky, Karlheinz Schreiber (a case connected to a former Prime Minister), Robert Latimer all were front page material for dailies across Canada. He suspended his practice for three months, to campaign against the return of the death penalty. Various honours in law community. A TV and radio host. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, he is one of the most known legal figures in Canada. Of contemporary legal figures in Canada, I'd say he's the most notable for law. Others are notable as politicians (PM Mulroney) or hockey (Eagleson), but pure law? He's tops. And do many lawyers get listed? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, since he is clearly notable in his field of expertise, having a considerable list of accolades in both his nation and outside of it. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per Challenger 1. And per the fact that he is clearly notable and the article is well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He actually died Dec. 24, so not sure why this whole discussion was listed as Dec. 23. I've posted the article as an RD, since there was no comments to the opposite. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RD: Jeremy LloydEdit

Article: Jeremy Lloyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [21]

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: Lloyd was one of the most respected comedy writers in British television, jointly responsible for writing the hit comedies Are You Being Served (and it's follow-up Grace and Favor) and Allo! Allo!. --1.121.182.7 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not significantly prominent enough to show readers his death on the Main Page, although the article is in good shape. --George Ho (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course, one of the most prominent English language comedy writers. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Aside from being knighted I'm not sure what makes him very important to his field(I assume the relevant criteria). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem to be in the same class as Roy Clarke. Not being British I will withhold my vote. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the article doesn't adequately demonstrate he was top of his field. And the article itself is weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He wasn't the absolute top in his domain. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As well as his writing work for the top UK sitcoms, he may be familiar to older US readers, as he appeared in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, which was quite big in its day. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. He's definitely had a significant presence in British sitcoms, but the article is very bare-bones, doing very little besides describing a few bullet points of his career. Challenger l (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] K. BalachanderEdit

Article: K. Balachander (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian film director and producer K. Balachander dies at the age of 84.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian film director, screenwriter and producer K. Balachander dies at the age of 84.
Alternative blurb II: ​Indian filmmaker K. Balachander dies at the age of 84.
Alternative blurb III: ​Indian filmmaker and screenwriter K. Balachander dies at the age of 84.
News source(s): The Times of India Outlook BBC Variety The Telegraph (India) The Peninsula Namibia Press Agency The Nation (Sri lanka) New Straits Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Recipient of India's highest film honor along with 9 National Film Awards. Please note that the article was updated by multiple users and there's no clear single majority updater. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support – Clearly a significant figure in Indian cinema. Vensatry (ping) 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits. Reading his article and the page describing his awards, he seems to be very important to Indian cinema. I don't know enough about that field to know if a blurb is warranted here(I would probably lean yes, though) but this should be posted in some form. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I added another blurb for this nomination. By the way, since we posted celebrities' death as blurbs this year, let's support this as well. At least it's not a Hollywood personality. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, Oppose blurb Too minor in the broad indian cinema aka bollywood. Plus he was 84 so old age death blurbs should be reserved only for very prominent figures -- Ashish-g55 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • "Indian cinema aka bollywood" That tells how well you know about Indian cinema and Bollywood. And, too minor? He is a recipient of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest honour for films in India. Besides, he is one of the few South Indian directors who made it big in Bollywood. Vensatry (ping) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me echo Vensatry's words. I'm surprised how you declared him a minor figure when you can't even differentiate Indian cinema and bollywood!! ƬheStrikeΣagle 11:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Appears plenty notable enough for RD; blurb candidates, in my opinion, should be mind-bogglingly notable. I don't see that here, although I'm unfamiliar with the subject and willing to be convinced otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, notable for RD sure, but a blurb? No. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Agree that RD is the correct choice here. Jusdafax 02:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 17:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

First launch of Angara A5Edit

Article: Angara (rocket family) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia's first Angara A5 is launched successfully from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.
News source(s): spaceflightnow.com

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.

Nominator's comments: This is a first launch of the most powerful Russian rocket. 24.5 ton capability to LEO. A significant event for astronautics and an expansion of Russian capabilities. --Hektor (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • support - notable enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - even though this is technically a new variant rather than a new type of rocket (and hence probably not ITN/R) - it is the largest rocket Russia has ever launched (the last time the USSR launched something bigger was Buran in 1988) - and the first time the Angara has flown to orbit. --W. D. Graham 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article hasn't adequately explained recent events. It needs more updates. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose new variant of established rocket is more industry news than an encyclopedic achievement. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article contains very brief information (one ¶) about the Angara 5 rocket, but virtually no information about the launch itself. If the launch is truly notable, then something a little more than a short list of launches would be present. Mamyles (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 22Edit


[Withdrawn] Internet shuts down in North KoreaEdit

WITHDRAWN:
--George Ho (talk) 22:28, 23 December 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 in North Korea (talk, history)
Blurb: Internet in North Korea resumes after nine hours of losing Internet access nationwide.
North Korea experiences Internet shutdown nationwide.

Alternative blurb: Internet in North Korea resumes after nine hours of losing Internet access nationwide, despite many citizen's oblivion to Internet's existence.
North Korea experiences Internet shutdown on all of 1,024 IP addresses nationwide.

Alternative blurb II: North Korea experiences Internet shutdown on all of 1,024 IP addresses nationwide, despite many citizens' oblivion and inaccessibility to Internet.
News source(s): CNNAP via Times of IndiaReuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This may be a domestic issue, but I think this is globally significant. Who is able to contact NK people? --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant escalation of this "cyber war".--BabbaQ (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support significant event, it's not very common that an entire country's internet goes down. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but blurb needs tie-in and link to Sony Pictures Entertainment hack. Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least at this stage. If it is tied as a response to the Sony hack, that might make it more interesting. But at the same time, this could have been a gov't action, it could have a simple outage problem, etc. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh please. I could take out North Korea's Internet with a DoS attack from my desk. This is a non-story in the Internet security community, other than as a source of amusement. Global media reactions are hysteria at this point. Wait until specialist sources actually analyze this (very small) attack, which will be a non-story since everyone will have forgotten by then. The article is also barely updated. D7QB (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Support in principle, but the article is not sufficiently updated (two short sentences in paragraph on ISP's) with material dealing strictly with the outage itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Medeis, D7QB, Masem, Abductive, AmaryllisGardener, BabbaQ: Internet resumes after nine hours of outage. --George Ho (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment because it seems it cannot be conclusively proved that this is a deliberate outage, a nation-state DDoS or just a technical failure (see [22]). We should only consider posting this if the cause is definitive and newsworthy. CaptRik (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The only way this should be on ITN would be something along the lines "There EXISTS internet in NK". I bet people would click on the link then. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — If I understood Monday's coverage correctly, the only people in N. Korea who have Net access are about 1,000 gov't. officials & people employed by gov't. or Party agencies, i.e. the In Crowd. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It's back on today anyway. Sca (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I might be inclined to support if there's a link to the Sony hack beyond media speculation. Other than that, there's not much significance in it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would tend to oppose this unless we find out for certain what exactly happened and if it was related to the Sony hack.331dot (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Who knew the internet dying on North Korea would be the impetus on posting the Sony leaks? Amazing. –HTD 18:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since we didn't post the Sony hack, the rationale to post this as a tie-in to the Sony hack doesn't hold water.--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 23 December 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: Joe CockerEdit

Article: Joe Cocker (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.

Nominator's comments: Significantly well-known singer (has an OBE for his contributions). RD only as death at 70 by lung cancer. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, a major figure in rock music with a long career. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for ITN - significant contributor within the world of rock music. Not just RD but ITN mention in my opinion is warranted here.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd be really hard pressed for a blurb here. He was important, yes, but he's not a Nelson Mandela or Margeret Thatcher, nor his death surprising like Robin Williams (that is, I don't think there was much about his lung cancer, but someone dying of lung cancer at 70 is not a surprise). --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support won an Oscar and a Grammy for one song. Well worth his place at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given his recognition and career. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've just heard this news, and I came straight here to nominate him for RD. Absolutely top of his field, and a great loss to music. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Somebody yell at me if I've cocked it up—the markup is a lot more complicated than last time I posted something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a pain. You did it exactly right, as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We will let you know if you "cocked it up on Cocker" :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support RD. He's up where he belongs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Article in excellent shape - easily one of the most notable musicians of his genre. The circumstances of his departure do not warrant a blurb, since he was 70 and very ill. Challenger l (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Glasgow bin lorry crashEdit

Article: 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An out-of-control dustbin lorry in the Queen Street and George Square areas of Glasgow, Scotland, and kills six people.
News source(s): (BBC)

Nominator's comments: This event has been major news across the UK this week. The deaths and today's church memorial service have dominated headlines on the papers. --Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 21:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - notable incident. Quite rare. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support horrific and rare incident, road traffic accidents of such nature in the UK are unusual, but including the fact that three of the deceased were from the same family, and out Christmas shopping, a tragedy. I will pre-emptively acknowledge that this will be subject to opposition from those questioning the long-lasting impact of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if the blurb is re-worded and the concerned article is linked within it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, it has received a lot of coverage in the UK, but it's just a road traffic accident all said and done. The article is also scrappy and poorly referenced. Formerip (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But why Should this story be posted on the front page while the Cairns Child Murders is not? They seem just as notable...94.197.120.44 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not greatly significant enough, despite disturbing nature of the topic. Also, the article is (now) inadequately referenced. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial incident in one city with no WP:LASTING impact. Makes a fine tabloid shock piece, but has no encyclopaedic significance. RGloucester 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Road accidents with a similar death toll happen every day somewhere in the world. That this one gained more media coverage because it happened in a Western city a few days before Christmas does not make it especially notable. If it had happened in rural India, we wouldn't even have an article on it and it wouldn't have been covered in the news, except locally. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Accidents like these happen everyday at multiple places...and as Jim Michael says, this one is more covered as it happened in a Western city. Not a significant event at-all. ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose such accidents does not deserve to be on main page. -Nizil (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

December 21Edit


[Posted] Tunisian presidential electionEdit

Articles: Tunisian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history) and Béji Caïd Essebsi (talk, history)
Blurb: Béji Caïd Essebsi wins the Tunisian presidential election.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are 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: The first regular presidential election after the Tunisian Revolution and the adoption of the current Constitution, according to the article. --Brandmeistertalk 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A presidential election is instant notability. article seems ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, both articles are currently waiting for an update. Brandmeistertalk 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've updated both articles, and I think the election one looks good so far. Therefore, I support. Let us see if the riots in the south develop into something serious that merits inclusion in the blurb (hopefully not). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is inherently notable because of its national nature. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – A watershed moment in Tunisia and the surrounding region. It is nice to see that the Arab Spring has not given in to disaster yet. RGloucester 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Expressions of support for the merits of posting this are not required as this is ITNR. The only things to be determined are article quality and if the blurb is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted with the election article bolded, as per the way we usually do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 20Edit


[Closed] 2014 NYPD officer killingsEdit

snow close, unanimous opposition μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 22 December 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 NYPD officer killings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two police officers are shot and killed in New York City.
Alternative blurb: ​A man shot and killed two police officers in New York City in response to the death of Eric Garner and the shooting of Michael Brown.
News source(s): New York Times, Fox News, BBC, Christian Science Monitor
Nominator's comments: These shootings have affected police across the United States (see Fox News link above). There are also thousands of articles about this story on Google News. [23] --Everymorning talk 15:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but police killings have become quite common in recent years. My opinion would change, however, if the blurb was modified to reveal the context in which the shootings happened; i.e. Eric Garner's and Michael Brown's deaths.Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I added an ALT blurb. Undecided personally. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I am inclined to support the ALT1, though. Epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Is it yet known that the Garner and Brown deaths motivated the shooter in this case? 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • According to authorities, yes. [24] Everymorning talk 16:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I'll support ALT1. However, I have no opinion on the main blurb (changed from Oppose). Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Change back to Oppose. Epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The person who made the deletion nomination has withdrawn it. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While apparently connected to the larger stories, we're not talking a significant world impact here. I can see there may be a possibility of additional violence to come from the result of those two prior events which would be more ITN-ish here. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. In the very unfortunate case of more things like this happening(hopefully they don't), it might be notable enough. Garner's family condemning the killings should prevent that from happening. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochical crime event that fails WP:EVENT. Also, terribly poor article title. What is an "NYPD"? RGloucester 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Nothing out of the ordinary. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Erm, that might be overstating it just a little. Formerip (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose although if nominators wish to pursue the ongoing racial tension issues in the US, it may be worth considering an Ongoing listing. This, on its own, is simply not notable, not going to last beyond the next event. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing this, a good faith nomination but it's clear there's not going to be any swing in support of this. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 22 December 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.

December 19Edit


[Closed] Cairns child murdersEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:50, 21 December 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: Cairns child killings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eight children are murdered in a suburb of Cairns, Australia, with one woman injured and hospitalized.
Alternative blurb: ​Eight children are killed in a suburb of Cairns, Australia, with one woman injured and hospitalized.
News source(s): Reuters, The Australian, The Guardian, New York Times, BBC, CNN
Nominator's comments: Yet another fatal tragedy in Australia. It is being covered in news agencies in many different countries (see above). --Everymorning talk 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • weak oppose. This is certainly tragic, but I'm really unsure of how encyclopaedically significant it is/will be. The Guardian article linked above notes it as "one of Australia's worst mass murders" but I'm unfamiliar with the size of that field or where it ranks within it. I'll look back on this nomination later to see if other commenters and an expanded article can sway me towards supporting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination. It is very sad news, but per recent discussions, this is the type of article that may be better developed on Wikinews. For ITN, it is best to find situations where an existing, well-developed and significant article is connected with a news event. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Is this amongst the worst ever mass murders in Australia? If so then it's significant enough to warrant a discussion here (not to say your response implied anything otherwise).... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Is "murder" the correct term to use in the article title? Yes, it's likely to be a murder, but until someone is charged with murder, then it can't be? Compare with naming conventions of Murder of Joanna Yeates which was at Death of Joanna Yeates until it was confirmed as murder. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a murder. Eight children don't get stabbed by accident or negligence. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW the article has been renamed to "Cairns child killings" following a short discussion at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Cairns_Child_Murders. I've updated the template at the top. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unlike hostage situations, the (ETA) tragic notable event about non-prominent people is personal and should not show up in the Main Page as ITN. I'll try to nominate this as part of DYK though (ETA) if the article is large enough to be eligible for it. DYK has better quality than ITN. --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose horrific, but domestic violence with an immediate arrest, not encyclopedic in scope as the article stands. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a disgusting, horrific event, but like others have said, the suspect was arrested immediately, and it wasn't a hostage situation. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets nominated for AfD soon. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I've added an altblurb to reflect the renamed of the article ("murders" → "killings"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That still doesn't make any difference to any of us opposes, does it? --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That would depend on the reason for your opposition, but probably not. A change in the title of the main article is something that is always worth noting though, as it can change people's opinions. Adding an altblurb is also often worth a mention in the comments so that people are aware that it exists. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – ITN is not a roster of the various crimes committed at every moment and in every place across the world. RGloucester 00:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and I am Australian) - tragic, but not a big enough story on a worldwide scale. (But contra User:AmaryllisGardener, it is a major enough crime to be kept as an article). Adpete (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Adpete: I didn't mean that it should be deleted, I just meant there are plenty of users that are quick to nominate an article on a murder for AfD per WP:NOTNEWS. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Adpete; I think it merits an article but doesn't rise to the level of posting here. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - notable. but not on an international level in the sense that it goes beyond a national/local affair.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 20 December 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.

December 18Edit


[Closed] RD: Mandy Rice-DaviesEdit

No consensus to post (he would say that, wouldn't he?) BencherliteTalk 09:07, 22 December 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: Mandy Rice-Davies (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Article has no major flaws and is minimally updated. Rice-Davies was a central figure in the Profumo affair. --Jayron32 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose she had an affair with the prior landlord of a woman (Keeler) who had an affair with Profumo: "Profumo's brief relationship with Keeler was at the centre of the affair that caused him to resign from the government in June 1963, though Rice-Davies herself never met him.[9]" μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keeler yes (though obviously one hopes that won't be the case for a long time), but Rice-Davies was very much a supporting character in the story. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BK. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose bit-part player in the affair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 21 December 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.

Boko Haram capture and kill NigeriansEdit

Articles: 2014 Gumsuri kidnapping (talk, history) and Boko Haram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​32 people are killed and about 185 people are kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
Alternative blurb: ​In Nigeria, 32 people are killed and about 185 people are kidnapped by Boko Haram.
News source(s): CNN NBC News NPR Al Jazeera

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Large kidnapping and killing of Nigerians by Boko Haram. It is currently late where I am so I am not able to create an article on the specific situation, but I have linked "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" as a target article for the time being. I have now created an article on this event. Andise1 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Adpete. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I think that's sufficient. However can I suggest that "2014" gets added to the title (i.e. 2014 Gumsuri kidnapping). Not because I expect another event (I sincerely hope and pray not) but because it gives a more meaningful title. Adpete (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I moved the article to 2014 Gumsuri kidnapping. Andise1 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Given the numbers involved, this clearly warrants inclusion. Neljack (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is sicker than Australian domestic murder, which is nominated recently. Also, this should make some satirical film and the studio hacking older news and less likely to be posted. Moreover, although violence in Africa hasn't been surprising, readers should know how new this event is. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we, should we, highlight the Boko Haram article which is much more thoroughly developed? This recent action should be included in that article. Jehochman Talk 01:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
We must add details about the incident in that article first. --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That's probably quick enough to do because the text can be harvested from the new article, and the old one provides a lot more context. Jehochman Talk 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To administrators: The prior votes are based on the main blurb before the alt blurb was added a few minutes ago. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind; I de-bolded Boko Haram because it's not updated yet, but I modified blurbs. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, I have updated the Boko Haram article, so I bolded "Boko Haram" to your pleasure. We need something newer than Indian spaceship. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article says the event happened on 13 December. News broke out on 17 December. I wonder if the 18 December is the right section. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - high number of kidnapped people. warrants inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - huge, disgusting move. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article is still inadequate. It will need expansion to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The though of bolding the Boko Haram article occurred, but I can't see this incident mentioned there. The article is otherwise in good shape, though, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] First launch of GSLV Mk IIIEdit

Articles: Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III (talk, history) and Crew Module Atmospheric Re-entry Experiment (talk, history)
Blurb: ISRO launches successfully the Crew Module Atmospheric Re-entry Experiment with the first Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III.
Alternative blurb: India's first Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III is launched successfully, carrying the crew vehicle demonstrator CARE.
News source(s): Times of India The Financial Express

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are 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 a first launch of the most powerful Indian launcher ever. Plus a major step for India towards becoming the fourth space power with crew transportation capability, with a demonstration of a full-scale crew module. --Hektor (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Good quality articles. Incidentally, the first launch of a new rocket is ITN/R, so as long as other people agree about the quality, this can be posted without much debate. Smurrayinchester 08:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The blurb should say which country launched this or where it was launched. Jehochman Talk 10:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This, along with the Mars stuff mentioned below, will help us to balance out ITN, as we currently lack any science-related blurbs. This is an important development for India, and the articles are well-written. RGloucester 17:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support decent quality article, ITNR so no real argument from me, this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Congratulations, India. Jehochman Talk 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

George Stinney murder conviction vacatedEdit

Article: George Stinney (talk, history)
Blurb: South Carolina vacates the conviction of George Stinney, the youngest person executed in the United States in the last century.
Alternative blurb: ​70 years later, South Carolina vacates the conviction of the youngest person executed in the United States in the last century, George Stinney.
News source(s): New York Times article, New York Times editorial blog, NBC News, WIS-TV, Huffington Post, ABC7-TV, Google News search showing 300+ articles under 'explore in depth' for the search 'George Stinney vacated and international coverage in Norway, Sweden, the UK(1) & UK(2), Australia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Viet Nam, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Taiwan, Poland, Denmark, Turkey, Spain, and in Spanish out of Tehran

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable decision, and the subject of significant coverage. Stinney is a 'record holder' as the youngest person executed in the US in the 20th century, and widely noted as thus. --Reventtalk 11:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a great effort you did, but I oppose this. I don't see how this news affects Africans and non-American African diaspora, but I see how it affects those living in America. Also, perhaps we can try to nominate similar types of non-Americans. Many black men in America have been typically innocent of crimes in the past and the present. This is exciting but nothing new. --George Ho (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about the most African person excecuted in the US in the last century, but about the youngest. Your argument amounts to America is racist and has nothing to do with the special nature of the case. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean racist? Am I generalizing or saying that I am better than blacks? I am not. Please prove me racist for saying something about how people of Africa are able to obtain such information about individual biographies of convicted African-American men from the past. I am unsure though whether Africans are aware in general of treatment on African Americans. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support - this is notable. Has recieved coverage worldwide. Historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support I'm pro-death penalty but this is a notorious case, a 14 y/o executed after a 2-hour trial based solely on police testimony that he had confessed. Notable, encyclopedic, and extreme. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it appears that miscarriages of justice occur all too frequently. This may be of parochial interest, does it have any long-lating impact? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, I missed this article too: List of exonerated death row inmates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is an example of sensationalism. As TRM says above, miscarriages of justice happen everyday, everywhere. This is only relevant as a matter of human interest in the sensationalist press, as the person executed was a youth. It has no real significance in the present, as the actual fellow was killed so long ago. Too many more important things are going on, at the moment, to even consider posting something of such parochial interest. The institutional crimes of that time period in America are already well-known. RGloucester 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"Parochial" apparently means not British? Historical might be a better criticism. And sensationalism is when the release some celebrity's baby's pictures. There's got to be a more accurate way to critique this than calling it sensationalism. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen me pushing to post any British stories? I didn't think so. RGloucester 20:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others above. No big impact. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition to universal coverage in the US, this is getting attention in Norway, Sweden, the UK, Australia, the Czech Republic, Finland... μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for nominating this. Whether or not the nomination succeeds, which can be a function of what else is nominated at the same time, please do keep an eye on this page and suggest any items you feel would be appropriate for ITN. Jehochman Talk 18:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not really in the news. I doubt this story would get such attention at all if it weren't for other recent events. -- Calidum 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Not really in the news"? ...as well as Viet Nam, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Taiwan, Poland, Denmark, Turkey, Spain, and in Spanish out of Tehran. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think this dumping of news article links to show that it's in the news works in U.S. related cases. –HTD 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Well I am American, so I think I've got a good grip on what's in the news around here. And this story hasn't been getting anywhere near the attention the Cuban and North Korean stories are getting. -- Calidum 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Do a bunch of links to news articles from Vietnam and Iran help prove that it has widespread coverage? Not really. What matters is how big of a deal it is there, it doesn't matter about "do they have an article on it". Meanwhile, Fox News and CNN's websites main stories are about Cuba and North Korea, respectively. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose - similarly, the Australian link (Brisbane times) means little. Yes the story is on the Brisbane times web site, but it's the last story of about 20 on its "World News" page.[25] Adpete (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other comments. There's a certain US-centric bias here, I fear... —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand why this was nominated, and thank the nominator for doing so- but I don't think this is getting the level of news coverage needed- not necessarily the number of stories, but the prominence of them too. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Question With regard to what AmaryllisGardener said above, is it really necessary for a story to be the main story on every major news site for it to be posted to ITN? Everymorning talk 22:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you missed the point of my comment. No it doesn't have to be the main story, but it has to have a place somewhere. Especially in the US, where the event has taken place. I'm an American, and I feel that this place is biased toward American stories. With that said, the "trial" section of George Stinney is unreferenced. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Everymorning talk 19:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17Edit


[Withdrawn] Sony cancelling of The Interview amid terror threatsEdit

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR:
--George Ho (talk) 22:38, 19 December 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: Sony Pictures Entertainment hack (talk, history) and The Interview (2014 film) (talk, history)
Blurb: Sony Pictures cancels the theatrical release of The Interview following terrorist threats made by the same group that hacked Sony in weeks prior.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States link the group that hacked Sony Pictures Entertainment to the North Korean government after Sony cancels its theatrical release of The Interivew amid threats made by the same group.
Alternative Blurb II: The FBI blames hacking by North Korea for bringing Sony Pictures to cancel release of The Interview and production on current projects.
Alt Blurb III: The FBI formally blames North Korea for hacking and threats that forced Sony Pictures to cancel release of The Interview and production on current projects.
News source(s): BBC Variety NYTimes (on NK involvment) BBC again Time re: White House response USA Today on FBI formal charges

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: This is a rather interesting piece of news, there's a lot of commentary about how the political stage and the entertainment world have collided in this. (For those not in the know, the issue is that the hack is possibly tied to NK due to the film's use of an assassination attempt on Jong-un, revealed from the Sony hack). For all we know this could be a bunch of kids playing around. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait – There simply isn't enough information yet to make a call on this. If this was some kind of political action, that's one thing, but if it was just people screwing around, that hardly warrants a spot on ITN. Let it develop further. I'd lean oppose regardless, as there are many more significant things going on. RGloucester 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I will admit this is an edge case for ITN (at the current point). --MASEM (t) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I bolded the film title for this. --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Switch to oppose – This doesn't appear to have any real relevance. It's an example of stupidity on the part of Sony for ever allowing such a film to be produced. I've never heard of something more juvenile in my life. Regardless, the state of our knowledge about what exactly happened is much too murky for us to post anything now. If more details come to light, like an investigation, that might be worth posting. This, on the other hand, is not. RGloucester 00:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait since we don't know who the hackers were. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the US government has recently said that "the individuals behind [the hack] were acting on orders from the North Koreans." [26] Everymorning talk 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Why would NK hack so many films and make threatening messages about The Interview? --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Let me put it another way; do we know who the hackers were enough to state it here on Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Now that the US Gov is stating this (see link above), that's strong enough evidence. Not conclusive for our WP style, but enough to say somethign credible here. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Just seeing that on the web now. :) Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually going to support this. This is pretty much an unprecedented example of corporate cowardice. Resolute 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Studios delay things all the time, just as they did recently after one of the Isis beheadings. This will simply be released after the new year. If such threats were credible, Parker and Stone would have been attacked already. The curious thing here is, what are the NSA, FBI, and Homeland Security doing about the hacks? What the studio does in relation to one film is of no import compared to what the government is doing. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's actually interesting in the commentary that everyone is bringing up Team America: World Police. And this is different from the ISIS thing - pulling a film because a scene was close to something happening in real life is not uncommon, but pulling a film from an implied threat (which is being taken seriously by authorities) is unprecedented. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll support now. Seems a noteworthy moment in NK-US relations. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That argument only holds if you would also have supported an ITN posting of the film being released on schedule. —WFCFL wishlist 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb to reflect the US gov't statement. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb due to the nature of these accusations. Neutral on the main blurb, however. By the way, I nominate this for DYK, but this shouldn't affect my vote. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • DYK-qualified? Possible. ITN-qualified? Never. Oppose both blurbs. Some parody film wouldn't reach Main Page, but the hacking situation would. For now, let's wait for more developments and then re-nominate. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose. With three "p"s. The notion of a credible terrorist threat linked to this film is so transparently preposterous. It's just studio PR exploitation of the gullible. Don't get me wrong, I wish them well and hope it works, but there's not reason for us to collude in it. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt this is a media ploy [27] unless sites like the NYTimes are in on it. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Considering all of the damaging info that came out from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, including racist emails and personal info of movie stars, I think it's safe to say this isn't a PR stunt. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's totally plausible that Nk is linked to the Sony hacks. It's also plausible that some random moron has sent hoax threats to cinema companies. In fact, you can probably rely on that happening. What's not plausible is that NK is about to sponsor suicide attacks on movie theaters or that Sony would take the notion seriously. It's just opportunist PR. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • That's not accurate. Sony pulled it because most (all?) of the major theater chains refused to show it on the premiere night. I doubt they found the threats credible, but they recognized that many potential moviegoers would and would likely stay away from the theater. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that all of this is a PR stunt.-RHM22 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is highly unusual for an American film to be pulled for terrorist threats. I don't think there is any basis to the claim this is just some PR stunt. -- Calidum 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning support but only if the blurb focuses on the North Korean sanctioning of the hack. That North Korea is behind this makes this more important than just a film studio pulling a film release. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Why taking US Government's words so seriously? There are other suspects, like other competitors. --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Even if it was other competitors, such an attack would be unprecedented in the film industry and (I would argue) would be worthy of an ITN blurb itself. --PlasmaTwa2 01:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The initial comment and resulting debate is precisely why I'm against posting at this time. My personal view is that I'd be amazed if this was not direct North Korean action, but that's nothing more than a logical conclusion based on the (admittedly pretty overwhelming) circumstantial evidence. History tells us that when the story is big enough, initial assumptions get tested extremely quickly, and we tend to get an inkling of whether they are correct or not quite soon after the story hits crunch point (which in this case will be over the next 24 hours).

          If this were a physical story (for instance if a shooting or bombing had been carried out with the warning that it was just the tip of the iceburg), I'd have already supported this regardless of how confident I was about the origins. But recent events have shown that it is possible to conduct exceptionally impactful cyber attacks and campaigns without the sort of state or organisational support that would be necessary for a physical attack such as 9/11 – if consensus is that the story's importance hinges on whether there was direct state action or whether the threats were viable, then I think it's a little bit too soon to post. —WFCFL wishlist 05:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support given the American government has linked the attack to North Korea and Sony has gone from saying they will delay the film's release to they have no plans to release it, a lot of the issues brought up by other contributors saying to wait are no longer valid. This is a first in film history and certianly in the news, so I don't see why it should not be in ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 01:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The government has not enough proof that North Korea is responsible for these hackings. Featuring the alt blurb on the Main Page while the US government has circumstantial evidence is degrading. As flawed as ITN may be, how would some NK spy without sufficient knowledge of Japanese and English languages be technologically wise? --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I should clarify that I prefer the original blurb to the alternate one which focuses on North Korea. Admittedly, if people are going to be unsold on whether the NK angle is true or not, there still remains the fact that a major film company has outright shelved a major movie a week before its release date because of terrorist threats. It is a unique and unprecedented event in film history, and certianly encyclopedic. --PlasmaTwa2 01:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Not that i was planning to go watch the movie but this just became a blatant surrender to random unknown hacker turned terrorists. This highlights the fear that these guys can produce just by posting a simple message online. So much for freedom of expression -- Ashish-g55 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is either exceptional or it isn't. If this is fear caused by a bunch of guys posting a simple message online, well, we've had that debate countless times and have always come down against posting, regardless of how big an effect they have – if this were an individual or small number of individuals the right time to post would be when the follow-up reaches a conclusion (be that their conviction, asylum in a country that wants to annoy the US, the film finally being released having concluded that the threats were not viable, and so on). If on the other hand this is state-sponsored cyber-terrorism with the direct political intention of curtailing freedom of speech in the United States, then yes, that is huge and we should post this in the very near future. Your answer suggests that you are in the same boat as me, you have hunch, but at this point you're not sure what this is about. —WFCFL wishlist 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Shutting down a foreign film through threats of hacking seems quite significant. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it is a start class article of low importance. This just isn't a significant event yet though something might change. Perhaps there is a story "US accuses North Korea of hacking Sony". Think about reframing the nomination. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support even if the movie seems to be a bit moronic, this is only case that i know about a film release being cancelled altogether due to terrorist threats. I find that fairly serious. SeraV (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, and oppose if an admin decides that it is appropriate to make a decision in the next eight hours or so, for reasons I'll explain further down.

    To post this without being quite confident that this is ITN-worthy would undermine our reputation for NPOV. I certainly agree that to cancel a major film release due to what appears to be a non-Islamic, state-backed terrorist threat is at least worthy of consideration here. I certainly agree that the fact that the premiere was due to be shown in New York, that the threat specifically referenced 9/11 and that Canadian as well as American cinema chains refused to screen gives the arguments that this is ITN-worthy extra weight – there are certainly circumstances under which I could be convinced to support.

    But I think a bit of time is needed to digest the fallout here. Is this a temporary postponement or in effect a complete cancellation? Was this state-sponsored or an exceptionally able group of amateur Western hackers? Will the cinemas change their mind if the US public quite strongly takes the Jimmy Kimmel approach to the story? We all have presumptions on those things, but then again everyone made assumptions in the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination and Oklahoma city, which very quickly turned out to be way off the mark. The to those questions will in my mind determine whether or not this should be posted, and we probably need to wait until the Thursday news cycle is in full swing in the US before we have a good grasp of the answers to those questions. —WFCFL wishlist 05:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose After thinking about it for a while, my opinion is that this isn't significant enough for TFA, although I personally find it very interesting. I see it as (presumably) Korean hackers making (probably) hollow threats, but which are reported widely enough to cause potential theatergoers to reconsider, which in turn caused movie theaters not to show it. North Korea threatens to destroy, decimate, demolish South Korea and the United States regularly, which I understand is different from a specific threat, but it does speak to the lack of credibility and suggest that the reactions from Sony and the theaters are probably based in commercial considerations rather than any real concern. If the blurb is featured, though, it should probably relate more to the U.S. accusations against N.K. than the film being pulled, because those are certainly far more likely to influence future events than the absence of a comedy film from American theaters. I hope it does get to DYK as mentioned above, though. It's one of the more interesting news stories in a while.-RHM22 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you mean ITN, not TFA - TFA's had enough criticism for one week without getting blamed for hacking Sony's servers as well... BencherliteTalk 07:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Haha, sorry! I did indeed mean ITN. TFA could indeed do without a 'movie about an assassination days before Christmas' controversy.-RHM22 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose click bait entertainment hype of the worse kind. Story based on none specific claims, not evidence based. Not significant enough. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the blurb reads more along the lines of "Company concedes to terrorists". Looked like an appalling movie in any case, so no real loss there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support., Major company writes off a multi-million dollar production as a result of an act of hacking, almost certainly an unprecedented action. Subsequent effect on the indurstry as another production is cancelled even before it starts Independent. Further escalation of tension between Japan-NK and USA and that's before we get to the implications on freedom of expression. 81.86.140.189 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    There's certainly been a fivefold increase in traffic at the movie's page over the last day or so, I give you that. But otherwise it's more sabre-rattling and Sony using the Streisand effect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If Sony are using the Streisand Effect for publicity they must be quite smart in getting the US government to support them. I suppose you have a source for this assertion? 81.86.140.189 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting and unusual, with ramifications beyond the entertainment industry. There's no need for us to be so nitpicky here; this is easily as significant as just about anything else we post, and quite a bit more significant than some. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm glad you added the qualifier, after all, the shooting of over 130 children is probably more notable than a shite American movie being canned as Sony are playing the big game. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It probably wasn't going to win an Oscar, but your opinion of the quality of the movie (which you haven't seen, obviously) is irrelevant. And nitpicky. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. It was a crass and stupid movie, a stupid idea and a stupid thing for us to even consider. The idea that we advocate posting something which is basically "let's give in to terrorism" may be your bag, but certainly isn't mine. I wonder how Americans would feel if the Russians made a mainstream movie about ridiculing and assassinating Obama. In summary, let's agree to differ on this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Point of information: A movie was made depicting the assassination of George W. Bush. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have clarified, "what if a crass, unfunny joke movie was made about the depiction of the assassination of Obama by the KGB" rather than the rather skilful piece of cinema you've noted? The Rambling Man (talk)
Point of information: Terms such as "crass and unfunny" are usually subjective, and in this case certainly cannot be applied when the movie has not even been released to the general public.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, perhaps they haven't released audio clips of the movie in your country, but they certainly have in mine, and to say it was a pointless, tasteless, crass load of junk is an understatement. But your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Stupid or not, what does this have to do about the ITN worthiness of this? --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if it was a significant piece of art or an acclaimed documentary that was being attacked, that might be a loss. However, the halting of the release of a low-grade juvenile film that should've been left on the cutting room floor is not much of a significant loss. In fact, many would say that, if these were North Koreans, they've done us all a favour. RGloucester 22:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, a very interesting story, but it's just a movie, and this event should have no large impact. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Changing to weak support alt blurb III, just so the film isn't the main article. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Any of the opposes that basically say "this is a publicity stunt" -- please show me your reliable sources to back such a bold statement like that up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And anyone supporting the alt blurb must prove that the US government is correct about the NK's capabilities. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a fairly weird ask. Original research from users can not be compared to a statement from US government. it is not the job of ITN to ensure US Government isnt lying. If they say NK is involved then ITN can say "US government says NK is involved". It is not original research whereas insinuating that this is a publicity stunt by ITN users is (without reference atleast). -- Ashish-g55 20:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess the question comes from where the so called credible threat of NK terrorism exists? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
From the sources, the reason they are linking this to NK is 1) a statement the NK ambassador stated in July strongly critical of the film and considering it an act of war, and 2) that the tools/methods that were used in the hack are ones that NK gov't sponsored hackers have used before. I'm sure there are more details that the FBI/NSA have that we'll never be privy to, but I doubt the White House would make such a statement if they didn't think there's something credible to the claim NK is involved (even if just sponsoring the hackers). --MASEM (t) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the White House is treating this as a serious national security issue now. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, then the story is that North Korea is posing a serious threat to the US (even if this is the main cause), not that North Korea caused something as insignificant as this movie to stop playing (what impact will this pose to the world? No one will ever see this Seth Rogen movie, we're doomed! I don't think so.) --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Now being reported that the film has been pulled worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Wide reporting of this story does not affect or influence the quality of this nomination's blurbs. As is, does a Canadian, Australian, or British person have a reason to believe US Gov's words or see a movie that will be potentially poorly dated in the next ten years? --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a reworded altblurb, "The Unites States government links the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack to North Korea after Sony cancels its theatrical release of The Interivew amid threats made by the hackers."; it is worldwide news and the BBC News is taking the story at face value and was the second headline on the News at Ten. It's not for us to say this isn't news, after all. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It's good enough as a Portal:Current entry, but we have already posted blurbs about deaths of Robin Williams and Philip Seymour Hoffman. And we already posted the Sydney hostage situation, which resulted just two or three deaths, including the gunman himself. Perhaps the ITN needs reform proposals from someone experienced with ITN. --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Because they all got consensus to post. This will be posted too if it gets consensus which it seems to be leaning towards already. -- Ashish-g55 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't know that yet. We are awaiting administrators' comments. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I say post it. The passage of a little time has shown that this story has stayed ITN, even intensified. Also, this sort of thing, where Hollywood capitulated to a foreign threat, has not occurred ever, or perhaps not since before WWII and Hitler. Abductive (reasoning) 02:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
abductive, how has the hacking reached the threatening levels of WWII or Hitler? The hackers haven't bombed another country yet, and they haven't declared war yet. Am I reading a paranoid hypothesis that is improbable? --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hollywood self-censored some depictions of the Nazis and Hitler prior to WWII. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To use your own discretion is the diametric opposite of being forced. These studios were not forced to take any actions. To equate editting your own work with having the government cut or prohibit it is like calling suicide execution. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
So that makes this incident even more notable. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would the North Korean government try to invade any country besides China (whose alliance is falling apart), South Korea (which NK never recognizes), Japan (long-time enemy), Russia (possibly the only ally), and the United States (an enemy whose leaders and politicians have become corrupt and dependent on whoever manipulates the general public, like the press)? Why Vietnam, the Philippines, or any other? NK doesn't have any militarily-strong ally yet besides China and Russia. --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"Hollywood" has not capitulated. Sony was faced with a film which theaters didn't want to exhibit, so it has delayed the film's release. Also, on Weds they government was saying that an announcement of who was responsible would be made Thursday. Then on Thursday they backtracked, saying they will make an announcement Friday on their conclusions and response, in other words a face-saving Friday news dump, about 18 hours from now. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "Hollywood". As for the order in which theater chains and Sony caved in to the threat, how is that germane? Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cinema chains are not part of "Hollywood". RGloucester 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this a joke, Abductive? The movie industry in Los Angeles is not Sony, and Sony realized it could not make a profit with so many theaters declining to show the film, so they have delayed its release, since the advertising budget would be a loss. But thanks for the personal insults, it makes it so much easier just to ignore you as unable to reason, rather than waste further time attempting to convince a dead horse. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I hate to break this to you, but have you forgotten that Sony owns American film studios, Columbia and TriStar? --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, Mr Ho, it is an American subsidiary of Sony that owns those studios. This American subsidiary usually operates independently of the Japanese company. However, in this case, the Japanese owners stepped in to make the call, for a variety of reasons. Regardless, the cinema chains that refused to screen the picture are not "Hollywood", they are separate corporate enterprises. RGloucester 06:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Think: there is no unified entity called "Hollywood". So then it can be defined as the entire production and distribution system for American films. The theaters are part of that, and just because they proved to be the weak link in the chain does not change the fact that the threat worked. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Rightfully, they took a stand against juvenile rubbish that no one with even a slight bit of propriety would tolerate. Of course, that wasn't their reason for cancelling the picture's release. It doesn't matter, though, because the end result was good. It is quite simple, though. One must take responsibility for the rubbish one produces. If one is going to produce rubbish, one must be prepared for a bit of a beating, whether from film critics or dictatorial regimes (is there a difference?). RGloucester 06:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"Don't post this, because the film sucks" has to be one of the most stupid ITN rationales that has ever been conceived for a film that has not even been released yet. On top of that, you are forgetting how subjective that film critics of certain time periods can be; recall that The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly was released as a critical flop. Seriously, when did a blatant POV become a valid rationale?--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Clips have been released, and I've read The New York Times' reports on the matter. The fact that you are comparing an epic saga of a western to a parody film that involves "exploding" the head of a world leader is quite concerning. The thing is, I love parody, when done tastefully. This was not tasteful. It is nothing like The Great Dictator, which is an example of parody done right. It was sensationalist, made to pull in money and draw in attention. It was not any kind of art. RGloucester 15:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the movie is a distasteful and juvenile attempt to get a rise of NK, and it has done. So well done, bed made, time to lay in it. Outside of further commercial hacking exploits, there's nothing here discernible to equate to "terrorism" or "potential terrorism" from NK. In fact, if anyone believes that, we're genuinely back to square one with the Cold War and paranoia wins. Reds under the bed and all that. Really? No. Not at all. Get over it US/Sony, your crap movie got owned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the film itself (never even heard of it until these hacks started), and given the actors and concept, I wasn't expecting much from it. But we're not here to be critical of the film, we are here to determine if a story that the US gov't has now blamed another gov't for hacks and attempts at terrorism (remember, the group threated theaters that chose to show this, which is where the ball started rolling), has made it something on a political stage, not entertainment anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is that you can make a really crass and offensive movie and expect the world to deride it and those offended by it to be offended by it, or you can make a decent movie whose possible censorship from others is actually genuine censorship because they don't like specific issues. In The Interview, we have a total crap-fest which is of no relevance to modern times, a comedy about assassinating a real living person? Do me a favour. Sony junked a junk movie, and have escaped a bomb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────── In other news, many theatres have refused to show re-release of Team America: World Police, and Paramount pulls it out as well. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
what does that have to do with this item. if you believe US is just making all this up please prove it and show some references otherwise please give it a rest -- Ashish-g55 06:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable or not, one personal website. --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The FBI now has officially stated they have linked NK to the cyberattacks [28]. A suggested updated blurb: "The United States FBI has officially charged the North Korean government behind cyberattacks and threats towards Sony Pictures Entertainment that had forced the studio to pull its release of The Interview." --MASEM (t) 17:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll support this now if we have a blurb along the lines of The FBI blames hacking by North Korea for bringing Sony Pictures to cancel release of The Interview and production on current projects.. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Technically a bit off - that's saying that FBI is blaming the hacking to why Sony cancelled; we want to say the FBI blames NK for the hacking. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd support posting about the FBI announcement, but the current altblurb is 32 words long. Count them! We don't really need to incorporate the whole story, we can just say that the allegation has been made (i.e. trim the fat and end the blurb on the word "government". Formerip (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would recommend a blurb like The United States FBI blames North Korea in the hacking of Sony Pictures, which resulted in project release and production cancellations, maybe a slightly different wording. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Name of the movie must be mentioned otherwise it will just look odd. Its by far the biggest part of this story. There is no reason to duck around it -- Ashish-g55 19:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it should be mentioned, but not as the main article of the story. I've changed my vote as you can see above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Unusual, important, interesting, significant - however you currently measure ITN nominees, this story meets that measurement. I think this will last beyond a few weeks (with award season coming up, that's a given), so there's no worries about the story getting 'stale'. I believe it is perfectly within our current ITN policy guidelines to post it to the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Just a curiosity, what relevance does "award season" have with this movie? Has it been slated for an Oscar? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major story of international political significance, as well as major story about IT security. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To address Masem's concern about the blame, The FBI blames North Korea for hacking that has brought Sony Pictures to cancel release of The Interview and production on current projects. This is 23 words instead of 32. I don't think specifying the US FBI is necessary, given its widespread fame, and I don't think formally is necessary, since the FBI doesn't informally do anything. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The only reason I added "formally" was because while we've had officials state things before today, the FBI has officially made it clear that NK is behind this, but as we are at ITN, it could be taken implicitly this is the case. Also I would make sure to be clear it was "hacking and threats", as that is how this became a serious situation. If they just hacked sony for details, I doubt there would have been this much attention to it. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose great marketing campaign! The hack is notable, but a commercial release is of little importance, especially since the movie is intended to be some sort of comedy. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Omnishambles even Barack has said that withdrawing the movie was a mistake. This is now even more clearly a non-item, a lame and fundamentally depressing concession to the commercial implications of hacking a studio. To tacitly claim some kind of terrorist threat overshadows cinema goers is pure and golden bollocks: I, for one, don't fear the NK ninja on my high street, prove me wrong.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose two additional blurbs. While a great improvement from the other altblurb, I'm convinced that, while we have made dead celebrities big news on Main Page, posting either nonsense from FBI could bring about big attention without quality merit and significance merit of news. Who can trust the FBI anymore after years of incompetence and lying? Remember the days of J. Edgar Hoover and spying on civil rights activists? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me be perfectly clear, GH. You are opposed because of a blackmailer with strange habits who died over 42 years ago? If this story were renominated as FBI announces it has discovered NK has caused 100's of millions of dollars in damage with a hacking attack it would instantly be posted. The movie has always been a side show, and the story should be posted because of today's developments, not because of one of the out falls. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll give you another example: the FBI didn't prevent September 11 attacks. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I recommend closing this for now. The story is just too fluid to know what to post. After a day or two it might be possible to reformulate this in a way that it would gain support. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I was going to suggest that since I posted the story, many things have changed and would agree it would be better to start with a fresh nomination, after letting the news of at least today settle. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 19 December 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] Cuba–United States relationsEdit

Article: Cuba–United States relations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American aid worker Alan Gross is released by Cuba after five years in prison, as a result of a prisoner exchange also involving the release of three members of the Cuban Five.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States and Cuba move to resume diplomatic relations as American aid worker Alan Gross is released in exchange for three members of the Cuban Five.
News source(s): The Globe and Mail, Fox News, USA Today, New York Times, BBC

Nominator's comments: Has major implications for relations between the US and Cuba. According to the BBC, for example, the US and Cuba are going to "start talks to normalise relations". --Everymorning talk 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; highly significant, especially if it leads to normalization of US-Cuba relations. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; but use the alt blurb. Jehochman Talk 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but let's wait until Obama's announcement, scheduled for 17:00 UTC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but more work on the article is needed. The "release" section is currently a single sentence with a few other proseline updates scattered through the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The story is clearly worthy of posting, but media sources seem to be reporting the Obama statement as the big news, rather than the prisoner exchange. If we do go with the prisoner exchange, our blurb should be neutral and not treat the release of the Cuban prisoners as of secondary importance (for example, by naming only the American). Formerip (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering why the blurb article isn't Cuba–United States relations. The prisoner transfer seems to be the handshake that sealed the agreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Alt-blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above and agree with Muboshgu regarding the blurb. Gross' release is not the main story. Jusdafax 17:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Agree per above suggestions by Jehochman and Muboshgu. L337p4wn Talk to me! 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is no longer the big news. They've announced that US-Cuba relations are now being normalized. I suggest changing the blurb to be about the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, or perhaps creating a new blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Agree. Check the new alt blurb. Jehochman Talk 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb – Such a thawing would be extraordinary, given the way America has treated Cuba for so many years. RGloucester 18:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would think adding a mention of the duration of the break in ties would better reflect the magnitude of this, something along the lines of The United States and Cuba move to resume diplomatic relations after 53 years of none, as American aid worker Alan Gross is released in exchange for three members of the Cuban Five. --Varavour (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb, since the prisoner exchange is clearly a sideshow. Thue (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • insufficiently updated. I just read the whole article, and there is hardly any text about this latest action. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16Edit


[Closed] 1 million mummies unearthedEdit

Nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 17 December 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: Fag el-Gamous (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Archeologists claim to have discovered more than a million mummies in an ancient Egyptian cemetery.
News source(s): International Business Times RT Live Science Economic Times
Nominator's comments: There is no article yet (working on it). Major discovery and is the top story when I search "egypt" in Google. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant discovery. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, old news. This was known and reported upon at least as early as 2010[29][30], ... Would make a good DYK though. Fram (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do write the article and submit it to DYK if it is not posted here. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - Yup, this is old news per Fram above, and apparently the archeologists still fail to confirm if the cemetery contains 1 million mummies. The story is very likely about the discovery of one child's mummy. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:28, 17 December 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.

[Ready] Methane and organics discovered on MarsEdit

Article: Atmosphere of Mars (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Curiosity rover detects a tenfold spike in methane levels in the atmosphere of Mars and makes the first discovery of organic molecules on the surface of Mars.
Alternative blurb: ​On Mars, the Curiosity rover detects a tenfold spike in methane levels in the atmosphere and makes the first discovery of organic molecules on the surface.
News source(s): NYT The Independent

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The discovery of methane on Mars means either (1) life is generating methane or (2) there's a geological source that involves both heat and water, conditions hospitable for life. In the absence of a fresh source, methane on Mars is destroyed within a few hundred years. This is also the first time organic molecules have been definitively identified from a surface sample. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't know much about this story, but it seems to be basically that the amount of methane in the Martian atmosphere briefly increased to 7 parts per billion. Yes, that's billion with a b. Before considering this for posting, I think a clear explanation of why this might not be pure tabloid fodder is needed. Formerip (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    The second part, first discovery of organic molecules on the surface of Mars is the culmination of 40 years of research and multiple landers sent to investigate the chemistry of Mars. The methane discovery is significant because it's not the concentration, but the fluctuation from 0.7 to 7.0 ppb that indicates some sort of active chemical process, either methanogenic microbes or water + minerals + heat creating methane "burps". Either way it's a major discovery, about as exciting as things get in planetary research. The tabloid fodder is "signs of life discovered on Mars". We're not going there. This is a discovery of a magnitude that happens less often than once a decade, and will lead to further exploration (including possibly even a manned lander) to determine the source of the methane. Jehochman Talk 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Has anything new actually been discovered here, though? Methane in the Martian atmosphere seems to have been known about for some time and, although this may be the first time that the rover has detected fluctuations in the level, that doesn't seem to be really a discovery, since the alternative would be stable background methane, which is not possible. So this looks like an example of the rover just confirming things that were already known - and it probably does a lot of that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Formerip (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The prior measurements were suspected to be in error. These measurements are viewed as much more reliable. In science things tend to move by small steps, and are rarely "true" or "false"; rather, there is always some doubt and chance that things can be overruled. At this point, the methane measurements are certain enough that there is scientific consensus for the first time that something is happening on the surface of Mars, not just a few organic molecules falling in meteors and being broken down to methane by UV radiation. Secondly, this is the first time that organic compounds have been conclusively found in a rock sample, and forward contamination by the probe has been ruled out. Usually we won't publish a story when it's just speculative; we say wait for conclusive proof. The current news is one about conclusive proof. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If this is correct, then the linked article would need updating to reflect this prior uncertainty before we can post. The way it reads at the moment, there has been consensus that the atmosphere on Mars contains fluctuating levels of methane for at least a decade. No dissenting opinion or reason for caution is mentioned. Formerip (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support , acknowledging the concerns of tabloid fodder but well explained by Jehochman that we do rightfully avoid this. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Reported worldwide, this is a fine story for ITN. Support alt blurb. Jusdafax 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant discovery of 'encyclopedic significance'. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator SeraV (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Either blurb seems eye-candy but doesn't conclude possible surviving oxygen. It says methane and organisms that might breath something without oxygen. As said, no contest against the information is made. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just read The Economist's account which indicates that the discovery is literally quite tenuous. The traces detected are within the range expected as a result of meteor impact (c.f. the recent Geminids) and so suggestions that this may indicate life seem fanciful. Methane is a simple molecule comparable with water or carbon dioxide and so we shouldn't be reading too much into these blips. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think an economics magazine is the best source of info about science. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    The nomination gives us the NYT and Independent as sources and both of their headlines hype up the "life on Mars" angle. The Economist's headline presents the matter in a more sceptical way, Curiouser and curiouser: More data have served only to stir up the mystery of the Martian methane. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stale. These spikes have been known about for some years now. See Formisano et al. 2004. The outgassings could be extra-Martian, or the result of small impacts releasing methane from the soil. But the use of non-peer-reviewed sources that are passing on press releases makes me uncomfortable. The only real news is that the Curiosity rover has now confirmed what was already detected by other means. Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sad oppose "don't believe the hype" strikes here. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Reday this is strongly supported and has a 3KB update with no tagged problems, had assumed this went up a while ago. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian financial crisisEdit

Article: 2014 Russian financial crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Central Bank of Russia (pictured) raises its benchmark interest rate from 10.5% to 17% as the Russian ruble rapidly declines in value against foreign currencies.
News source(s): WSJ

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The large and fast decline in the Russian ruble has had a major impact on the Russian economy, both on consumers and on the companies who must repay their foreign currency-denominated debt. It has also had a notable impact on global financial markets. Hello32020 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Its more of an ongoing event albeit a slow one. i dont think any particular news about Russian crisis is worth posting unless Putin decides to leave Crimea -- Ashish-g55 04:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, strongly. Russia is one of the biggest economies in the world, not to mention a nuclear power. The developments for the last few days there have been quite dramatic, and are already having significant economic and political impact, both in Russia and internationally. Nsk92 (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – The global economic (and potentially political) consequences of the economic collapse of Russia are certainly worthy of ITN. This is exactly the type of item we should post. I think the blurb should make clear that the interest rate was raised to stop the rouble declining in value, but that it did not work at all, and that rouble collapsed shortly afterward. RGloucester 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Major story, international impact. Jusdafax 06:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I nominated this for DYK, but this should not affect my votes. As is, some interest rate hike wouldn't reach the levels of biggest news, despite support arguments. The ruble fell from 35 rubles per dollar in February/March 2014 to 65+ per dollar in December 2014. There are other attempts to stabilize the ruble as interest hikes are not the only one. (Maybe I realize the difference between "(not-so-)deadly" Sydney hostages and the troubled Russian economy. Never mind the violence.) Since we're talking Russian economy, I must say that Indian rupee is as valuable as Russian ruble... right now. Id est, one Rupee is one Ruble. I must oppose this sensationalism. I wonder if Russian economy will be all right; India and Russia signed multiple deals on improving economy by rebuilding infrastructure and more power plants and defence and other kinds. --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot, one Chinese yuan is 10 Rubles; one American dollar is 12–16 Mexican pesos. You see? WP:NOR discourages original research in articles, not talk pages. Russia can easily trade India and China with currencies that are convenient for each other, while the West can kiss each others'... well, I don't know how will the West survive as long as three giants (excluding Brazil and South Africa) can easily trade without worries. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding of what a financial crisis means. The ratio of one currency to another doesn't mean anything much - what is important is how that ratio changes, how volatile it is, and how well it balances prices between countries. One Japanese yen is worth barely one US cent, but the two currencies tend to follow each other quite well, so import/export between Japan and America is quite strong and investors in the US tend to feel safe investing in Japan and vice versa. In Russia at the moment, the ruble has fallen very quickly and is very volatile (yes, even in relation to the Indian rupee), which increases import prices and scares away foreign investment (why should an Indian investor put their money in Russia right now, when they have no idea what the ruble-rupee rate will be six months from now?). That's why the sudden crash is an important story. Smurrayinchester 09:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This BBC News story might help to explain the issue a little more - Apple have suspended sales in Russia because the rouble is too volatile for it to set prices. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. George Ho's comments seem to miss the point that this story is about the dramatic fall of the Rouble and the hike in interest rates, rather than speculation about future trade partnerships. Whatever the long-term significance to the economy turns out to be, there will be a long-term significance - my limited knowledge of economics tells me that instability of a currency is not regarded as a good thing. Russia is a major player on the world stage and so this is getting a lot of news coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? What are other countries depending on the Russian ruble besides China and India? Lower value would mean buying Russian imports, but, with Putin in the way, high tariffs will be added among his enemies. --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Extra! Extra! Russian ruble recovers to 64 Rubles per dollar... Still not enough to change your minds? --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A major crash in an economy of 150 million people (plus the millions more who live in countries where Russia invests) is significant news. Smurrayinchester 09:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I'll request speedy deletion on my DYK nomination. I can't prevent this from being part of ITN, but even such a blurb is better than no blurb at all. Switching to neutral (unless more opposes come through) and crossing out my comments. If it's big news, it's big news. At least it has some significance. --George Ho (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Widely covered story with many potential effects. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Jehochman Talk 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentCollapses might be a tad strong. How about plummets?
PS: Gained a bit Wednesday. Sca (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not opposed but this may be a bit premature. I definitely oppose the word 'collapse'--that's an exaggeration. I might have suggested waiting until an notable government response to the drop or an event such as a default on payments or similar event.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    "Collapse" is the word that's being widely used in the media, but "plummets" sounds just as good. @Sca: dead cat bounce. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
How does that differ from a dead dog bounce? Sca (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I dont' think 'collapse' is the word used, it is a word used. Many of the articles I read simply refer to a decline, a drop or similar word. As an encyclopedia we should avoid any hyperbole or unnecessarily vague info. The ruble dropping from roughly 35 against the dollar to around 60-65 against the dollar isn't really a collapse by any commonly understood definition of a currency collapse.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, a better wording would be: "In an attempt to curtail the rapidly declining value of the rouble, the Central Bank of Russia (pictured) raises its benchmark interest rate from 10.5% to 17%". I think it needs to be made clear that the reason they raised the interest rate was to attempt to stop the decline, as the techno-jargon might not imply that. RGloucester 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I reworded it based on your excellent suggestion, RGloucester. I think that "rapid decline" is a bit more encyclopedic than the somewhat sensational "plummet."-RHM22 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Dov Charney fired as American Apparel's CEOEdit

this is unlikely to gain any meaningful consensus. No need to keep it open any longer--Jayron32 03:31, 17 December 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: Dov Charney (talk, history) and American Apparel (talk, history)
Blurb: Dov Charney (pictured), founder of American Apparel, is terminated as the company's CEO after months of suspension.
Alternative blurb: Dov Charney (pictured), founder of American Apparel, is terminated as the company's Chief Executive Officer after months of suspension.
News source(s): Reuters

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: So much violence. So little peace. This should bring us more peace of our minds. --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, would this be the first CEO firing ITN would ever post??? ETA: This is apparently the same guy who insinuated that ITN should only feature "globally significant" events. –HTD 22:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't insinuate that. I checked my comments at project talk page and here and found none explicit. Anyway, immigrants working in the company's places are affected by possible replacement news. I don't know how this is not globally significant to you, but we'll wait for others. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: Your statements at WT:ITN -- well... okay. If you say so. However, if you want some piece of happy news, I humbly suggest to pin the globally significant 2014–15 Los Angeles Lakers season to the "Ongoing" section (#lol). –HTD 23:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politically connected guy gets fired after millions of dollars in settlements paid and 17 losing quarters? I'd oppose this even for RD. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose American Appeal is not that large of a company. If it was something on the order of a Microsoft or McDonalds, under the same conditions, that might be something, but I'd still have to consider it carefully. As Medeis suggests, this should not be a surprise to anyone that was watching their economic performance. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem significant; as Masem says, this isn't that well known a company. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This looks like it would have been news back in June, when Charney was originally removed as CEO, but now? Unsurprising termination after about six months of disgrace? Not news. Challenger l (talk) 01:57, 17 December 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.

2014 Rada' bombingsEdit

Article: 2014 Rada' bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​31 people, including 20 children, are killed by two car bombings in Rada' District, Yemen.
Alternative blurb: ​More than twenty people, including children, are killed by two car bombings in Rada' District, Yemen.
News source(s): CNN BBC Xinhua Le Monde

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable attack that has gained significant coverage. Andise1 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support but we need to clear up the discrepancies in the casualty figure - CNN and BBC are giving different numbers of fatalities and child victims. Either we need to be vaguer or we need to wait for more information. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I added the vaguer alt blurb for all of you. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support absolutely. High-casualty event.--WaltCip (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If we have an idea whom the bomb planters were (the article seems to suggest it) that should be in the blurb. The article really needs a bit more expansion, though. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Many deaths, expansion needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If the article won't expand, it should redirect to List of terrorist incidents, 2014, where I copied most of the former's content. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The article should not be merged because it is notable on its own as shown by the reliable sources both in the article and available via a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:N, notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article. WP:MERGE should apply. --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As small as is, this article should be featured in ITN portion. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm convinced by RGloucester's rationale. Switching to neutral. --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Rather run-of-the-mill for this region (sadly), doesn't seem to be particularly signifiant in a global context, or even in a regional one. In addition, the article is of a very poor and un-illustrative quality. I do not see why such an article should be featured on our main page. RGloucester 22:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Peshawar school hostage crisisEdit

Article: 2014 Peshawar school hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 126 people are killed when gunmen storm a school in Peshawar, Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article no longer stays a stub, this should get greater attention. --George Ho (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There can surely be no dispute about whether this shooting warrants posting. Neljack (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd ideally like to see the article fleshed out more before posting, but what's there now is of sufficient quality to post. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Could be a bit more fleshed out, but contains all the major info. Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a major attack. Nsk92 (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; the minimum information is there, and given the event it is likely the article will be improved further upon posting.331dot (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready and waiting for a non-involved admin to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  Working Posting to ITN. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  Done Updated . -- Tinu Cherian - 12:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree; media do attribute to Taliban. Reuters: "The Taliban ... immediately claimed responsibility." Sca (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15Edit


The end of 2014 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Hong Kong Police Force clears away protesters and their camps at Causeway Bay, ending the protests on occupied sites.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, BBC

Nominator's comments: I just want old news out of the way. I don't mind altblurb filled out though. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think we should wait to avoid WP:OR, the protests have recently resumed after some break, so there's no need to pronounce them dead yet (as they may revive again). Brandmeistertalk 10:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Maybe consider adding these protests to ongoing? Have all the people been satisfied, or is this something that's just going to pop up again? Jehochman Talk 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't; there is no room in WP:ITN/R. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Pennsylvania shootingsEdit

Closed by Jehochman before we see more opposes. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 16 December 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 Pennsylvania shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least six people are killed and three are injured in a shooting spree in Pennsylvania, United States.
Alternative blurb: ​At least six people are killed and three are injured when a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder goes on a shooting spree in Pennsylvania.
News source(s): BBC, ABC, Fox, LA Times, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, USA Today, Reuters, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, CNN, El Pais, Le Parisien, Bild
Nominator's comments: On a day when we posted a siege in Australia where two people and the gunman were eventually killed, the US trump it with a guy killing six, injuring three and going on the run. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope you're not being WP:POINTy. In case there is any doubt about my view, OPPOSE posting, OPPOSE article creation, OPPOSE crap imprecise article title, and OPPOSE this kind of queer behaviour even though I was against the Sydney posting. RGloucester 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not at all. This is way more serious, at least six people have been killed and the perp is at large. This could go on a while with serious consequences. If you'd prefer to redefine the article title, please suggest such. (Oh, and what's "queer" about my behaviour? I take it you're using that term in its traditional sense?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
OPPOSE turning Wikipedia into a theatre of the absurd. We are not a police blotter, by Jin(m)g(b)o! The word "queer" means "questionable" or "suspicious", or perhaps "odd". RGloucester 20:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Understood. The shouting is unnecessary, but thanks for your explanation of your particular usage of "queer". Very traditionalist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Not traditionalism, sir, but correctness. I believe I remember a certain Fry and Laurie sketch… RGloucester 20:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, many will beg to differ, I certainly agree but you should be cautious about using such terminology. In any case, the shouting and bold is entirely unnecessary and diminishes your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I truly thought that this nomination was a ruse. I'm much more vexed now. I shall retreat. RGloucester 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I hardly think the murder of at least six people with the gunman on the run is a ruse. Nor would I expect you to believe that I would game the system. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't know - Once the facts come out we will see if this gets massive coverage, or not, to determine the notoriety of the crime. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Wow, that's admitting something. The fact that you have a lone killer who's already shot six people to death isn't enough for ITN? Is it because he's American? I'm genuinely curious by this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Do you have additional news sources besides the BBC? I think we can wait 12 hours or so and see what develops. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't December Fools, is it? Or is this nomination a parody of the Sydney hostage crisis itself? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    No, its about a serial killer who's on the run in America who has killed six so far. Why is that so "December Fools"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, bad joke. I don't see it as "impactful" as Sydney hostage. As for the runaway, he can't even afford to get out of the continent. Perhaps he can cross to Canada or Mexico without trouble? --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, okay, if he absconds, it's not a story. Fair enough. Really. What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the situation escalates significantly Shooting rampages like this are quite ordinary in the United States. They should not be compared with the type of terrorist incident that happened in Sydney. The Sydney shootings will be an important sources of focus for months and years to come, whereas the American shootings have all the characteristics of yet another silly dispute that ends with guns, something so common for Americans. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment incorrect closure: I didn't object to the posting of the Sydney siege, I said wait. This is a pointy close because apparently we now accept that six murders from a single gun-toting moron is just business as usual. Several of those commenting clearly didn't even see the news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • TRM, I thought you've been opposed to nominating shootings in the U.S., seeing as we kill each other so often. Is this different because the guy is on the run? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Six dead? And more to come perhaps? I don't recall opposing a single gunman killing six and legging it. As usual, feel free to diff me up with contradictions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    It could be others, I'm not certain. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Me neither. If you find anything, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith - let this discussion run to its natural conclusion. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. It looks as if The Rambling Man is a genuine content contributor who is here to build an encyclopedia (see his Boat Race article), not one of those users who spends his time creating drama on talk pages, ARBCOM and ANI. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the nomination, but thanks for your insight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on number of sources and the angle that this is a veteran with PSD. Not exactly an everyday occurrence, and number of fatalities is rather high. If we have a slow news period this could be posted. If better stories come along, we could give priority to something else. Jehochman Talk 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article doesn't even mention the veteran /PTSD status. Needs further expansion. Seattle (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Death toll is an indicator of significance, but is not the b-all and end-all. We should be asking questions about the level of coverage a given incident has received, especially internationally, and the impact it's likely to have rather than just about how many people died. On this one, I'm inclined to oppose because, in a country where any nutter can walk into a shop and walk out with a gun and a culture that glorifies the ownership and use of objects that are useless for anything other than killing people, it is (contrary to popular opinion) hardly surprising that these nutters go on killing sprees. There have been dozens of school shootings and hundreds of shooting sprees since Columbine (the most notorious, at least of recent times) and the impact of all of them has, heartbreakingly, been next to nothing. There's no reason to suspect this one will be any different. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I agree, which is why I said, in the original nomination, we need a bit of a wait to see how it pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    If the end result of this latest tragedy is that there's some sort of national outcry that results in a change to the gun culture, that would be worthy of posting, but that would likely take longer than is typically allowed for ITN nominations and would probably be better off as a separate nomination, which I'd likely support, while eating my hat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A duplicate but more detailed article, "Montgomery County shootings", was created. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose appalling but no wider ramifications that would make this especially memorable except to those involved on an encyclopedic time scale. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, assuming this is a genuine nomination. There are no indications whatever that this event will have any lasting significance.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis and HJ Mitchell. There is no indication that this will have any lasting impact, unlike the Sydney hostage situation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This seems a significant story for a fairly large group of people (ie most of Pennsylvania - there's a nutter with a gun on the loose). The persistent references to the Sydney item in the nomination might have been misguided, but I'd encourage people to AGF here and not dismiss this as a tit-for-tat nomination. GoldenRing (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Shootings are a near-weekly routine in the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Jehochman. This is getting a great deal of coverage, likely due to the fact the suspect is on the loose. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose toll might be significant, but this is a PTSD guy killing his own relatives. Not a real serial killer or terrorist. This isn't that unusual in a country where there is about a gun per capita, nor does it seem to have an actual wider impact. Also, it was nominated by TRM. Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Does it matter who nominated this? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Various comments. First, the article says the dead are family members, so it looks like domestic violence, and although I still oppose, strongly at this point, we shouldn't be making some sort of synthesis with PTSD. Second, Pennsylvania is quite a large place. Montgomery county is the suburbs of Philadelphia, so something like "in Eastern Pennsylvania" or "in the Philadelphia suburbs" would make more sense. But again, this seems to be a family tragedy, not an outbreak of some larger event. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"Large", like each of two Koreas, Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala, and some African countries? --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not exactly quite sure what your point is, although the fact you mention other countries makes me think it's some sort of nationalist complaint. If something happened in South Korea we would specify the town or district. We wouldn't just say six people were shot in Cuba. But saying "Montgomery County, Pennsylvania" is a bit much, so I have offered alternatives. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unlike the Sydney hostage crisis, which is perceived as a terrorism event, this one is viewed as a domestic violence situation that has escalated into several murders. At this stage at least, the story does not appear likely to have any significant political or social consequences. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I get the point of this nom (and by that, I don't mean WP:POINT), but mass shootings in the US are hardly news anymore, let alone ITN-level news. Resolute 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this shouldn't be discarded just because it happened in America. However, this seems to be little more than a family dispute gone wrong, so it isn't ITN-worthy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please Close it's bad enough we've got people screaming and someone saying he won't support a nomination for personal reasons. The consensus is clear and the civility factor is unlikely to better. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose crackpot with a gun story. It's bad enough that the one yesterday got posted, let's not repeat that.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 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] Sydney Hostage SituationEdit

Article: 2014 Sydney hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunman takes hostages in a Sydney's Central Business District cafe.
Alternative blurb: A gunman takes hostages at a cafe in Sydney, Australia.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: This is very breaking right now. And i can not find an article at the moment, but given that its Sydney where these things are awfully rare and multiple hostages with like 100 officers on scene it might be worth discussing and getting ready for. Obviously wait for details ---- Ashish-g55 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. It's claimed to be tied to ISIS, but so far it seems only to be a hostage situation, and how tied it is, we don't know yet. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Whether it's ISIS or not, this is front page news and important enough for ITN. Don't say it's ISIS right now, just as the blurb is currently worded. If they claim to be ISIS, we can update it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree just being covered worldwide makes it ITN. It could be a desperate grasp for attention by acting they are ISIS. We should wait until we have a better idea of what the situation really is. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important enough for ITN. Covered by all media worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have something more to say than the breaking news. It's fine for us to leave this to the primary sources until we have something encyclopedic to say. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [Moot, and well done, all around.]
  • Support covered all over the world. --Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In my opinion, this is exactly the type of thing we should not post. It simply doesn't have encyclopaedic relevance in a wider context. WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. I believe the purpose of ITN is to promote articles on news that has encyclopaedic relevance. A simple hostage-taking event does not fall into that category. Hostages are taken daily all over the world. This event is not particularly different, other than that it will get more media coverage because of where it took place. However, that doesn't mean it has actual relevance in the large scheme of things, or in a historical context. RGloucester 01:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Exactly. If this does turn out to be an ISIS cell of Australian citizens suddenly acting into taking hostages, yeah, that would be ITN. But if this is just a random hostage situation where the name ISIS has been thrown around, it isn't much of anything. Waiting for better clarity is important here. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That's why we are waiting for details but "where" it took place is very important and could alone be the reason for posting. -- Ashish-g55 01:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If it was something like a major bank or finanical center where they would have access to key resources, then perhaps, but this is a cafe in the financial distract of Syndey (not to trivialize the situation to any degree, only for purposes of ITN). --MASEM (t) 01:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I meant Sydney vs. lets say somewhere in Pakistan. The place where something happens does matter and gives things a lot of weight. Ofcourse this all depends on what actually ends up happening here. Right now its a man holding people hostage and hopefully it just ends here -- Ashish-g55 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until we get the whole picture of what is going on(which might take some time). It may merit posting, but it is too early to know. Though the phrase is sometimes used in a cavalier manner, this is indeed a case of 'we are not a news ticker'. We need at least a clear picture of what is going on. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Status: the consensus at present is to hold until more details emerge. Looking at the target article, it is very, very short. When more details emerge it will be possible to expand the article, and to properly gauge the level of coverage. Jehochman Talk 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not one of "level of coverage", but of relevance. RGloucester 02:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. WP:ITN states its purpose quite clearly up-front, and part of that purpose is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. Now, to my mind, that's all too often used to justify posting fairly trivial items because Hey, man, it's, like, on the front page of everything everywhere, but nonetheless, that's what it says. GoldenRing (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue at this point is that live TV coverage or banner news on the internet is ahead of us, even if that's no-where at this point. Once some verifiable news comes in, given the weight, we can post it. Until then we'd actually be doing a disservice to readers to lead them to a stub. There's no reason not to prepare an article with things like time and location awaiting some better resolution. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait According to the NSW Police Commissioner, it's not even clear yet whether this is terrorist-related. The fact that it is happening in a Western city should not be a reason to post it. We should be mindful of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Several hours have passed since the above comments and this is still ongoing. Even if there is limited information that is certain, there is plenty of verifiable notable speculation and plenty of verifiable reaction from political and religious leaders, etc. and undoubtedly there is more to come. Sieges lasting 11 hours don't just fizzle without trace. The article looks in good shape (just one citation needed, that I'm about to try and rectify), so this should be posted soon. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I've fixed that missing citation (and got edit conflicted with someone else improving the referencing elsewhere in the article) so I've marked this ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This should have gone up as a headline hours ago. I understand it's early and it's ongoing, but it's the number one news story in the world right now. Front page headline on major international newspapers like Telegraph, The Guardian, LA Times, NY Times, exploding all over social media, trending worldwide on Twitter. Whether or not there is any terrorist link, the coverage has exploded beyond what WP:NOTNEWS outlines. Hostage situations, whether terrorist related or not, do not happen like this often. With respect, somebody should've gotten their shit together on this hours ago. This is major news. CR4ZE (tc) 09:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @CR4ZE: (ec) Please understand that being major news is not the only consideration in posting something to the ITN box on the main page, as we aren't a news ticker. In this case, it was not clear what was going on immediately and the article was not at a good spot yet. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But this is more than a news story. This is an unusually long, still-ongoing hostage crisis in an already volatile climate. There was a foiled IS-related terrorist plot here in Sydney only three months ago. And there's the cultural implications—we're already seeing an anti-Islamophobia campaign with #illridewithyou, plus the Sydney Telegraph "Death Cult" headline. As stated above, WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". It's important to accept Wikipedia as a platform that people use to find information on ongoing or recent major events. Citing policies at each other in the wake of a situation that clearly has international interest is pointless. CR4ZE (tc) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Wikipedia is not a news ticker, nor should it be. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would tend to support this as there does seem to be a terrorism connection(the gunman has demanded an ISIS flag and a phone call from PM Abbott) but it should be posted at the right time. Not sure that's right now. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • So posting an item to ITN when it is the worldwide top story in the news is not the right time? When is? Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • When the details have shaken out of what exactly is going on(which I admit is starting to occur) and when the article is of sufficient quality. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medias, Gloucester and other above. Wikipedia is not obliged to post every crackpot with a gun story.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed it isn't, but not every crackpot with a gun locks down the CBD of a major city for 11+ hours and becomes front page news on newspapers in dozens of countries around the world. They especially do not do this in Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree with Thryduulf's comment; we aren't talking about posting every such story, just this one with its unique circumstances. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, I think when you look at the immediate local and international response that's ongoing, this a bigger event than a news story, even if the massive response it causes ends up being more notable than the event itself. CR4ZE (tc) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I still oppose this, because I still don't see what encyclopedic relevance this has. But if it's directly tied to what's going on in Ghent, then I would support. It would need a different blurb, though, and if that's the case, then this should be closed and it should be re-nominated.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be closed and renominated, an alternative blurb can be proposed. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I can do it. I don't normally hang around ITN though—do I just create a new template below here, or what? CR4ZE (tc) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You just need to fill in the "altblurb" parameter in the template at the top of this section, and note in a comment at the bottom that you've added an altblurb so that people spot it. If you start a new nomination it will just get speedily closed as a duplicate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant creating a new template below here, not initiating a new nomination. CR4ZE (tc) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added an alternate blurb. It's quite short and to the point as the crisis is still ongoing and it's hard to find sources indicating number of hostages, motive of perpetrator etc. CR4ZE (tc) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting I've re-reviewed the situation, and see that most of the opposes and waits up above are based on the article not being sufficiently developed, or there not being enough details known to say anything encyclopedic. I've just look at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis and it is in quite good condition for such a recent event. If a reader were looking for information about this incident, the article compiles all the facts that have been published by reliable sources, and is worthy of the home page. The opposes based on the personal opinion that crackpots with guns don't deserve our attention aren't convincing when the story, for whatever reason, is making headlines around the world. Although the nomination lacks links, it is easy to verify that the story is "in the news", by checking major news sites in different countries (NYT, BBC, ABC (Australia), Xinhua, Al Jazeera). Jehochman Talk 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Post-posting comment: The wait comments were about not being a news ticker - just because the story is published far and wide across major papers does not make it a ITN story. We've already come to regard most gun-shooting events in public places in the US as non-ITN worthy, for example; this appears to be falling into the same logic in that all signs point to this being the effort of a single person with no ties to ISIS or the like, just a disgruntled person. WP, and particularly at ITN, need to avoid being too focused on events of the now and instead focus on the events with more long-term, larger-scope impact, and if this is just a single person trying to get attention, that's not going to have that type of impact we would really should be giving to ITN. If we are just going to report what is being reporting in the majority of news sources, we might as well just be a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think you are intermingling the policy argument about what we should be posting with the discussion of this particular item. It's generally accepted that we post items that are widely in the news, which this one clearly is, per the comments. If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion. I recommend taking up that question at Wikipedia talk: In the news and start an RFC if you want to get enough comments to possibly generate a new consensus. Keep in mind that this situation is very similar to 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa which attracted >100,000 reader views, a good strong number for an ITN item. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The Parliament Hill shooting (Which I actually did nominate for ITN/C) was a case where one person was already killed and the major gov't building was the scene of a second set of shootings - whether it was international terrorist or a crackpot with the gun, that was a direct threat to leaders of a world gov't. Here, we had a hostage situation in a public cafe. We've had gun shooting incidents in the US that have been rejected but with just as much coverage simply because it was nothing major in the larger picture of world events, and this story, the more we learn about the hostage taker, seems to be someone simply disgruntled and upset and taking actions to try to get attention. I know the story is still developing but this seems to have all the marks of a story that will be soon forgotten by the world at large within a few weeks if this was just a disgruntled lone wolf, which is a means of which we have evaluated stories for ITN in the past, the permanency of the event. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: — Premature, IMO. Still developing. Besides, according to BBC, it's said to be the work of a lone gunman. Sca (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Anders Behring Breivik anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    If this actually resulted in numerous deaths, that might make it a story, but as I'm typing this, it looks like the police have rushed the cafe, freed the rest of the hostages, and finishing defusing the situation with no apparent casualties. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I hope so. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yup, it's over. Sca (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It's over, but there's reportedly two dead, but no word if those are hostages, the hostage taker, or police. Would wait to update to get that information. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support keeping posted. Despite the low body count, this story has already developed into a major terrorism event which has been greatly traumatizing for Australia and will certainly have significant political and social consequences both in Australia and in other western industrial countries. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support keeping posted - major terrorism event even though low death count. political consequences.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support keeping posted, and as soon as we have 100% confirmation of the gunman's death, the blurb should be revised. Masem, I have to take your comments quite dubiously; I don't see how you, or any of us, are in the position to judge the lasting impact of the news story. If we were able to do that, I'm sure that 90% of blurbs wouldn't make it through. For example, we have two blurbs up right now on general election results in Japan and Mauritius, and I doubt western outlets will be writing about it in a week—that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been posted, but I'm sure you can agree that a hostage crisis in a western country amid political tension is more likely to have a lasting impact anyway. CR4ZE (tc) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Elections will affect gov't policies for years to come from said countries even if the details of the election are trivial, hence why they are covered. This may or may not - now that it's clear it was a lone agent with some history of legal problems - have long-lasting events. Not that this isn't an appropriate WP article, but we have to be careful of just using predominance in news sources to determine ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but we also have to be careful about removing ITN posts as well. It has to be a decision based on facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support. Article is in good shape, item is clearly prominent in news sources. Those are usually the two criteria.--Jayron32 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose (seems ineffective for now). This topic is not very significant to the whole world except Australia. Somehow, I don't see how it affects people in the Middle East unless it discourages them to go to Australia. Even so, I still don't see how this affects the country's neighbours, like Southeast Asian ones and the Oceania. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Obviously. This is the news story at the moment; it's been getting wall-to-wall coverage across the world and this sort of thing is probably even rarer in Oz than it is in Canada. The article is in decent shape, and this is exactly the sort of thing ITN was designed for. If we dont' post things like this, we'd only ever post elections in who-knows-where that passed completely unnoticed by the mainstream media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's just an Aussie influence mainly done by Rupert Murdoch. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, major event known around the world. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I would have said wait earlier but new sources have emerged recently. In the last few hours several sources have confirmed enough information to allow us significant coverage. At the talk page of the article for the gunman there is a pending edit request with multiple sources confirming the death of the gunman. Chillum 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. Wikipedia offering further publicity to the sensationalism sought by a criminal nutter. Nothing educational. Pathetic ITN reaction. --ELEKHHT 20:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'd rather that we didn't encourage psychopathic people who use violence as a means to get attention, but that cow's out of the barn already. For good or for ill, our mission is to list articles "In the news" so people can learn about current events. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Suggest blurb be made more specific by saying, "A gunman and two hostages are killed when a siege is forcibly ended at a Sydney, Australia, cafe." Sca (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Could the current blurb be reworded? It suggests either that the siege by law enforcement is the news event, and not the hostage crisis itself, or that the hostage crisis was the siege being referenced. If the latter is the actual intent, then it seems that it's hardly accurate to call it a 'siege.'-RHM22 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The blurb can be reworded, but it is extremely unlikely to be without a suggestion of what to reword it to (see also WP:ERRORS). In this case the news event was the hostage taking and the siege together. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • We have to be careful with the wording because we don't want to imply that police shot the hostages. It's not clear exactly who shot whom. I think something like this might work: "Police storm a cafe in Sydney, ending a hostage siege, and three people are dead including two hostages and the gunman." Jehochman Talk 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • (ec)I'm always cautious about articles using non-American English in case there's some popular usage of which I'm not aware. It seems as though the article also uses the word 'siege' to refer to the hostage-taking, so maybe the blurb is indeed referring to that. I would probably word it as such: A gunman and two others are killed following a hostage crisis in Sydney. I changed 'hostages' to 'others' in my suggested blurb to avoid redundancy, but that could prove controversial. However, if 'siege' is indeed the preferred wording, then the blurb is fine as it is.-RHM22 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we add "Man Haron Monis" in the blurb then? --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done Jehochman Talk 05:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    And bold the name then? --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull A supporting opinion described this as a "major terrorism event". Two hostages were killed, one victim via apparent heart attack... that qualifies as a "major terrorism event"? Meanwhile, we refused to post anything about when 33 Egyptian soldiers were killed in a Jihadist ambush in October. Jihadists are committing acts of terrorism in many localities throughout the world, but ITN seems to have a bias towards those incidents that occur in the West, no matter how small in a grand scheme of things that they may be (see: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa for a similar incident to this one, which was also hurriedly posted on ITN) --Tocino 08:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you have a valid point. But this event is a very unusual one for Australia itself. And is Australia really "in the West"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    ITN's bias is towards events that are uncommon in the place they happen, and for Australia this was a major event (I'm not sure I'd personally use the "terrorism" label, but reliable sources do so that's irrelevant). For example, if the Philadelphia shootings nominated above had happened in the UK there would have been a greater chance of it being posted as significant firearms incidents are about 1 per decade on average there versus about 1 per week in the USA. There is a bias towards stories from western nations, but a not insignificant component of this is the bias towards stories from western nations in English-language news sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 14Edit


Syrian soldiers captured by rebels in Wadi DeifEdit

Article: Second Siege of Wadi Deif (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Second Siege of Wadi Deif ends with 80 rebels and 100 Syrian soldiers dead and more than 200 Syrian soldiers captured.
News source(s): Syria Human Rights

Nominator's comments: The slaughter of Pakistani children was terrible. So is Syrian Civil War, including this event. Perhaps this should intrigue people at the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Japanese general electionEdit

Article: Japanese general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito coalition secures a supermajority following a snap general election.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Asahi Shimbun, ABC (au), NBC

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.

Nominator's comments: Needs official confirmation but exit polls show no change in power. Stronger majority could help Abe push his economic reforms past the upper house. --Fuebaey (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • questions Do we need the word "snap" in blurb? Should "supermajority" be linked? Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The "snap" part is important, given the politicking surrounding the calling of the election. RGloucester 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "snap" is an essential part of the story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support - an general election is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Rolene Strauss wins Miss WorldEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:58, 16 December 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: Rolene Strauss (talk, history)
Blurb: Rolene Strauss of South Africa wins Miss World 2014 in London.
Alternative blurb: Rolene Strauss of South Africa is crowned Miss World 2014 during the final in London.
News source(s): [31], [32]

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Question On what do you base the assertion that this is the "most prestigious"? 331dot (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[33], [34]. It is the biggest pageant in all aspects. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainly based on it not being important or interesting and on the notion of beauty contests being objectively bogus, but also on the poor quality of the Rolene Strauss and Miss World 2014 articles. Formerip (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I also feel beauty pageants are too subjective an item to be posted. While I see that one of the links calls this "most prestigious", it doesn't really say why. Biggest isn't always the most important. Outside of People-like magazines, coverage of this seems limited. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Formerip. Neljack (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a throwback to a bygone era where we somehow feel the need to subject attractive women to "swimsuit" and "ballgown" rounds and ask them how they'd change the world. Out-dated as of around 1975, certainly not an ITN item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Objectification. Sca (talk) 15:02, 15 December 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.

[Ready] Haiti PM Laurent Lamothe resignsEdit

Article: Laurent Lamothe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Haiti's prime minister Laurent Lamothe (pictured) and other ministers resign in the wake of violent anti-government clashes.
News source(s): BBC, Miami Herald]

Article updated

 --MASEM (t) 08:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I updated the article with information from the linked BBC story. Whether or not it's suitable for ITN I will leave to the more experienced editors to decide.-RHM22 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@RHM22: How about now? --George Ho (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Haiti is across Dominican Republic and surrounded by Caribbean Sea, but both sovereign states are part of Hispaniola, a small island. Leadership of Haiti is important, and news of the current President of Haiti is also important. Perhaps those remembering the 2010 Haitian earthquake should see this as also international big news. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable. reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated- Update relies on only one ref. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. A head of government resigning (especially due to a scandal or protests) is notable. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but needs a better update. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Neljack, 331dot, Bzweebl: That's as far as the update goes. I have not found any other events that led to protests and resignation. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 13Edit


December 12Edit


Oil priceEdit

Article: Price of oil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The prices of oil hits record lows.
Article updated

Nominator's comments: This has been all over the news this week. The prices have not been this low since the recession, and this time the reason is primarily the oversupply not the underdemand. Peak oil anybody? If this doesn't get posted, then when should it be posted? When the Brent goes below $50? 23:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved this nomination to December 12, according to what the article says. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose on the basis that the article is entirely insufficient. It only refers to "North American" practice, and doesn't seem to be about the "price of oil", so much as the "WTI Cushing Crude Oil Spot Price", whatever that is. Honestly, it seems like a mish-mash of random information about oil. If a new article was created for this specific oil glut, I might be able to support such a blurb. I cannot support showing this article on the main page, though. RGloucester 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Indonesia landslidesEdit

Article: 2014 Indonesia landslides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Banjarnegara Regency of Indonesia, a landslide kills at least 32 people.
News source(s): Sydney Morning-Herald, BBC News, USA Today, Al Jazeera, ABC News

 --Everymorning talk 02:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • To increase you chance of success, please add a few more links to news sources, especially if they are in different countries. Jehochman Talk 03:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice, Jehochman; I have added some more links and will add multiple ones for my future nominations. Everymorning talk 12:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Tragic, but compared to Hagupit Typhoon, which killed the same number, and did not get posted (see below), this did not affect such a wide area. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A note on process: Each item is assessed independently. If one is arguably decided wrong, Wikipedia shouldn't decide others incorrectly just to be consistent. Jehochman Talk 18:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If that is a note on process, why is it indented as if countering something I didn't say? You may note I've had the courtesy to await the full facts before voting. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I should correct my statement: the Typhoon may yet get posted if the article is updated, which seemed not to have been completed last time I looked. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Busaba Suwadi's relinquishmentEdit

Article: Busaba Suwadi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The former consort to the Crown Prince of Thailand Busaba Suwadi (pictured) relinquishes her royal title of Princess Srirasm.
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times, etc.

Article updated

 --Brandmeistertalk 10:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose She was the consort of the heir apparent. In my opinion, this lacks the necessary import to justify an ITN appearance.-RHM22 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is notable enough for inclusion at ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: On what do you base that opinion? Saying something is "notable enough" is only helpful if you state why. As stated on this page, simple support or oppose votes are not helpful. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I'm not seeing a great deal of news coverage of this, but I think we would post an item if Kate was leaving Prince William and giving up her titles. This seems similar to me. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Even if the ramifications are not massive for the entire world, this is a big enough regional story. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - We can't post this but can post some terrorist/hostage situation in Australia? This is as significant as it goes. Give ourselves to royalty, baby! --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting The supports have more support, and we have room in the template for this story. Generally we want to post a new item every day and items should be retired after a week or so. We've got items that are currently older than that. This is something different and there's an argument in favor of variety. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 11Edit


[Closed] Microsoft and BitcoinEdit

Although this nomination has not been open for very long, it's clear that this won't be posted. SpencerT♦C 03:48, 12 December 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: No article specified
Blurb: ​2nd largest corporation in the world, Microsoft has started to accept Bitcoin.
News source(s): CoinDesk RedOrbit
Nominator's comments: 2nd largest corporation in the world enough said --66.36.138.57 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Microsoft hasn't acquired Bitcoin or anything. They've just started accepting it in payment. A complete non-story. ETA: Do you have any coverage of this whatever from news sources not specialising in Bitcoin news? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If I could buy gas with acorns I'd want to know. Buying Microsoft products with Bitcoin is far more interesting than gas for oak nuts. This involves two industry-toppers and hence, if updated, meets ITN hands down. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If Microsoft accepted acorns, I'd want to see that at ITN. This source (hidden away in BBC NEWS Technology) says: "Microsoft is the latest in a series of big firms to back bitcoins... and now Paypal, Dell, Expedia, Newegg and many other firms accept payments made with them." This Microsoft story might be a far more worthy item. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, interesting, but seriously, ITN-worthy? No. Not ITN worthy unless Microsoft acquires Bitcoin, etc. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So? In contrast to Martin, I would also oppose a Microsoft accepts acorns story. Lots of things are potentially fungible, some of them make decent currencies, and some of those will be used by large corporations in pursuit of commerce. More and more corporations have started using Bitcoin, which is good for Bitcoin enthusiasts I guess, but is still a very niche issue. Acceptance by Microsoft strikes me as just another step in that progression and not otherwise worthy of note. I can't imagine we would decide to post a "Microsoft starts accepting the Turkish Lira" story, or any other small currency, even though the utility of small national currencies is probably more important to many people than Bitcoin. Dragons flight (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only way I'd support this is if there was consensus to follow up with a blurb about Wikipedia deciding to accept stories about who's accepting bitcoin as newsworthy. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another large corporation decides to accept Bitcoin. This isn't remotely ITN-worthy. Challenger l (talk) 01:58, 12 December 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.

December 10Edit


[Closed] Monaco twinsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:49, 12 December 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: Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco (talk, history) and Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carlades (talk, history)
Blurb: Charlene, Princess of Monaco, gives birth to twins, the first and second in the line of succession to the Monegasque throne.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator's comments: I think this is pretty notable royal news. Albert finally has a legitimate heir to the throne and the twins were the first to have been born to Monaco's royal family. --JuneGloom07 Talk 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor royal news from a minor royal family. Not notable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was somewhat cautious about Prince George of Cambridge's birth being ITN. This is a far smaller story. Congratulations to the couple, of course, etc etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not getting a high level of attention; the head of state of Monaco is a relatively minor position as TRM suggests above. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Nominator is correct. Royal twins are rare, and there is the creation of an heir to the Monegasque throne. Articles are in a good enough state. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    I guess the rarity is novel, but would lend itself better to a DYK than a serious news article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the novelty, and the fact that these are likely going to be stubs for some time, making them poor front page links. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Birth of the heir to throne itself would be notable, an d I'm suprised it's not itnr, that they are twins is more than doubly notable. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, birth in a royal family = ITN worthy. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Royal births. Mjroots (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. George is the heir to the throne of more than a dozen countries across the globe. These twins aren't. -- Calidum 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A birth in a royal family of a city state does not seem particularly noteworthy. Compare to the events of a birth in the Imperial Family of Japan, which (at least for now) solved a succession crisis. Challenger l (talk) 02:03, 12 December 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] General Election in MauritiusEdit

Article: Mauritian general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Alliance Lepep coalition, led by Sir Anerood Jugnauth, won the general election in Mauritius.
News source(s): Bloomberg, Reuters India, Daily Mail, AllAfrica.com, L'express.mu, Le Mauricien, Le Défi Media, Le Matinal

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.

 --174.95.128.224 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when the article is updated. The item is in the news, and the article has substantial enough content to appear on the main page once it is touched up. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if article is updated within a reasonable time following the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Top level election of a sovereign state, once article is improved. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Changed to conditional support because of article quality concerns. -Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not quite sure I understand the supports above, the article is junk and because it's ITNR it doesn't really need a "support once updated" vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • These votes serve the useful purpose of reminding the nominator and others that timely updating may lead to the article's being posted, thus perhaps inducing a knowledgeable editor to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. I thought the "Article needs updating" note in the infobox and the nominator's own comments were sufficient for that purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Wow, so much friendliness. This is the friendliest TRM I've seen in a while. Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated I guess there isn't much interest for this article, probably due to systemic bias and the language issue. I have updated the article to put it in descent shape for posting. --174.95.128.224 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for the update. Let's post this. Marking ready. Jusdafax 06:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm posting this with minor tweaks. Can David Levy or somebody else skilled with images update the image please? Jehochman Talk 15:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the image was a copyright violation (cropped from a non-free image and passed off as the uploader's work). I've deleted it at Commons. —David Levy 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 9Edit


2014 oil spill on SundarbansEdit

Article: 2014 oil spill on Sundarbans (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: An oil-tanker carrying 350,000 litres of furnace oil was sunk in the Shela river of Sundarbans, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and spread over 10,000 square kilometers area.
News source(s): (The Hindu), (Aljazeera), (BBC), (The Economic Times), (Hindustan Times), (Prothom Alo), (Times of India), (Google News search)

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: Very serious environmental issue. Sundarbans is the world's largest mangrove forest and the oil tanker is threatening the wildlife of the forest. -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately stale. This happened on the 9th only one of the news links above is from more recently than 2-3 days ago, and that seems to be more of a followup article rather than a news article. If there was more to the article than there currently is (one paragraph), I would have likely supported at the time, but this far after the event we really need to offer some in-depth encyclopaedic treatment to justify a slot on the homepage. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA tortureEdit

Article: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A report harshly criticizing the use of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Alternative blurb: ​A report harshly criticizing the interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
News source(s): BBC Guardian NYT VOX Bloomberg NBC Fox Le Monde SMH

Nominator's comments: Lead story on BBC, the New York Times and CNN. An obviously controversial issue is whether we should say "torture" or "interrogation" in the blurb. For this reason, I have proposed two blurbs. --Everymorning talk 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, although it looks to me like the article is not quite there (e.g. use of lists, no infobox). Don't really need to say "of the United States", and surely it's "interrogation techniques" rather than "tactics". Formerip (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're probably right. I have changed it. Everymorning talk 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per FormerIP (and I agree with their suggestions too). Technically though the report hasn't been released, only the executive summary to it has. I don't think this materially affects the story or the blurb though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article title and the report itself both use the term "torture", so I think we should go with that. Neljack (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose / Wait. This is a report written by Democrats (and criticized by most Republicans) from within one committee in the US Senate describing and criticizing interrogation practices (i.e. torture) that were used under former President Bush and that have already been forbidden by current President Obama. Unless the report leads to protests in the street or new violence (both of which some people predict are possible), then I'm not sure how significant this really is. Sensationalist, yes, but is knowing exactly how we tortured people really a major story? It is certainly no surprise that the current Democrats oppose torture. If there are broader consequences / events arising from the publication of this report then I would support it, but I'm rather dubious about posting the report by itself. Dragons flight (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    To be exact on the partisanship authorship angle, the final report was approved by 7 Democrats, 1 Independent who caucuses with Democrats (Angus King), and 1 moderate Republican (Susan Collins). It was opposed by the remaining six members of the committee, all Republicans. The dissenting Republicans on the committee concurrently released a separate 167 page document criticizing the majority's process and conclusions. Most of the Republicans in Congress who have spoken after the release have been highly critical of it as well (excluding John McCain who is notable as a Republican supporter). In part, the report is being released now because once the newly elected Republicans take control of the Senate in January, they would almost certainly have killed it. Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The fact that it's leading news internationally doesn't make it significant? Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    It is a significant news story in the basic sense that the news is definitely covering it, but it is still true that only a minority of news stories end up on ITN. Personally, I tend to look for a degree of encyclopedic relevance and long-term significance. This particular news story has a strongly partisan and sensationalist undercurrent to it that tends to undermine its significance in my opinion, especially in the absence of any apparent consequences to the report itself (e.g. new legislation, protests, prosecutions, etc.). Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dragons flight. The partisanship here is apparent, similar to the Benghazi hearings.--WaltCip (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, any substantive content within the report has been known about for years, it carries no legal weight, and was released now only because the Republicans wouldn't release it next year when they are the Senate majority. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive, DF, and others. Not "new"s, no criminal indictment, a political report against a prior opposition party administration, no deaths, (how many people died attempting to save Luke Somers, and was that posted?) How many failed rescue missions against ISIS have we posted from this year? And the fact that Klaid Shiekh Muhammad, who personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, was rectally hydrated should be posted as news? No. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A big story with international impact. Report has been in preparation for five years. I don't buy the "partisan" angle of the opposers. Obama himself was reported as opposing the release of the summary. Jusdafax 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not a definitive report issued by the government (i.e the 9/11 Commission or the Warren Commission), its a dossier released by an opposition party which just one month ago lost massively in nationwide elections. Furthermore, it won't have any lasting effect or consequences (Obama has said it's time to move on). Posting this would set a bad precedent, and just because its top of the news today doesn't necessarily mean it should be posted (we didn't post anything about Luke Somers, for example) --Tocino 08:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until/if there is some sort of effect of releasing this report(as Dragons flight suggests might happen). I disagree with the partisan reasons for not posting(it is still the official committee report even if not supported by most GOPers) but I do agree that little new information is being shed here and that little will change from the report itself. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't get why some say this is not news. This is an extremely important report, and is the top headline all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb, oppose alternative blurb: this is an incredibly large international story, even though it does confirm what we all knew years ago: that an intelligence community in a world superpower routinely tortured military prisoners. Additionally, some of those opposing, I feel, are going further than opposing it on criteria grounds and are actively making excuses for torture, to which I whole-heartedly say: fuck you. Sceptre (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pointing out that this is opposition party politics does not at all equate to "making excuses for torture", and how dare you imply that.--WaltCip (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Implying the torture of KSM in American custody was comparable to an enema is making excuses for torture. And if Medeis wants to complain to ANI… well, that's his torture-supporting prerogative. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Sceptre. Fuck any claims of partisanship. American forces used torture extensively and systematically, with official approval, and that fact is everywhere in the international news today. Fight your party squabbles some other time. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support What this says about the CIA, let alone the United States of America, should be enough on its own to get it to the front page. This is clearly significant, clearly historical, clearly notable, clearly front page news. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow The report is being released by a committee of one house, a committee which is in the hands of the opposition to the war, but which won't be as soon as that house returns after New Year's. There is no input from the currently minority party or soon to be majority party, or the other house. It's a political report meant solely to embarrass past and future bugaboos, and while it implies criminal activity, it neither proves nor even charges any criminal activity. And it's gotten so desperate that we have two users, one an admin (I am not sure what Alex Tiefling is) screaing obscenities? Where are the summary blocks? I'd expect to have been blocked if I'd even come close to this language. Righting great wrongs is not our job, and certainly doesn't excuse the above comments, which should be collapsed, if not rev deleted, with blocks for the appropriate parties. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on whether this report should or should not be printed in ITN, but I've become greatly concerned by people pushing their own points of view and original research in the above comments. This also applies to you, Medeis. All parties above, please stop the editorialising. RGloucester 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have to take advice on editorialising from the person who described the death of Eric Garner as a 'little parochial strangling' and tried to get an entire nomination written off as 'simply wrong'.
Medeis, I'm not an admin, I'm an ordinary user like you. I think this is the second time I've had to explain that to you. Do I need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, too? And I'd love to know why you think I'm screaming obscenities in a text-only medium. I cannot think what justification there would be for a summary block of me or Sceptre, but if you want to call for one, WP:ANI is over there. As I noted on a RefDesk thread recently, Medeis, I see you making provocative, content-free replies there and here almost every time I look. But (as other users are now discussing on the general RefDesk talk page) it seems futile to take you to ANI. If you want to take me on, go for it. But don't clutter this page up with empty threats. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am an admin. I can state with reasonable confidence that any attempt to have sanctions applied would be very likely to WP:BOOMERANG. The story is what it is: the only question is whether it has sufficient international prominence. I live in the UK< it is massive here, so I think people who try to claim it's not significant are onto a loser. Remember, this is Wikipedia: verifiability not truth. The report reportedly characterises the CIA as using torture, and more importantly the reliable independent sources that cover the story almost all (with notable exceptions being Faux News and its ilk) call it torture. If someone's loyalty to their country precludes admitting that a government agency that has a long and inglorious reputation for believing the ends justify the means, well, bully for them, but I sincerely hope that Wikipedians will be above such jingoistic tomfoolery. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically speaking, the report doesn't describe the interrogation techniques as "torture". It describes in detail many tactics that a reasonable observer would likely conclude are torture, but in the bulk of the report it avoids labeling them as such. (I wonder if avoiding that label was done for legal reasons?) That said, the committee chair Diane Feinstein and many other commentators on the report have described the tactics as "torture". Feinstein also described them that way in a foreword published with the report but signed only by herself. Dragons flight (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order There's no need to recriminations against other editors. Let people say what they want, as long as they aren't insulting you. If you have insulted somebody above, please strike it. Keep in mind that this item will be decided based on whether it is widely reported in the news, article quality, yada yada other criteria, not whether you think the item is newsworthy. If its a bunch of partisan bluster, and news sources say so, then our article will say so also. What's lacking in the nomination are links to international news sources. If this is reported widely around the world, that's an object fact that can be determined. Either it's widely reported, or isn't. Jehochman Talk 22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
While I broadly agree, and think each nomination should be discussed on its merits, I don't think we can pretend that each user's posts in one thread are wholly distinct from their posts in other threads. There are patterns, and some of the patterns are highly poisonous to this site. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of news sources, as requested. Mostly just scraped from the bolded article. GoldenRing (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Support, first blurb not bowdlerised version (this is Wikipedia: the source says torture, so we say torture). A rare and truly remarkable piece of honesty in respect of a situation that has been spun so hard thus far that it's got its own quantum state. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It is in the News but there is still no link to a Wiki article unlike in most other cases. Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting The support arguments, based on news appearance links now added above, demonstrate that this story is being reported widely and that reader will be interested in our article that can provide all the nuanced details, such as the fact that this was a report prepared by a Democratic-controlled committee about a Republican administration. What we think of the news (good, bad or ugly) is immaterial. Jehochman Talk 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The wording "brutal interrogations" [35] is attributed as a quote to Dianne Feinstein or the report itself by most sources (e.g. [36] [37]), and is simply a euphemism for torture. I think the wording should go back to "torture", which is supported by a large number of sources ) and is in the title of the article. If we need more neutral wording, then the altblurb of "interrogation techniques" could be considered. But "brutal" seems to be non-neutral in that it reflects the report more than it reflects the sources. D7QB (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how neutral we need to be in describing practices that included pureeing a man's lunch ration and then forcing it up his arse. Let's call it torture. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I also support changing it to "torture"; everyone else is calling it that, after all. Sceptre (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I also support the wording change to "torture" so let's do it. Jusdafax 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur. I'm also OK with the posting, since the story is staying ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Including use the word "torture". Let's call it for what it is, per what reliable sources are calling it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I switched to "brutal interrogation" because that's what the BBC story said, the first news story linked above. I am more than happy to change that to something else if somebody proposes other word(s) and links to sources using those same words. Jehochman Talk 01:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Proposed wording: "A report harshly criticizing the use of torture by the United States Central Intelligence Agency is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee." Refs: [38] [39] [40] [41] D7QB (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not necessarily opposed to posting this (even though we've known everything substantive for years), but the wording of 'torture' is obscene. There is absolutely no reason to use such biased language, except for the emotional pleas put forth by some of the editors above. Just because something seems bad to us, doesn't mean that it's not biased to say such. Even the phrase 'brutal interrogation' is more biased than I'd like, but at least that is used by Feinstein. Personally, I'd prefer the wording 'interrogation techniques,' and the reader can determine for himself whether or not it's brutal and/or torture. I must say, the appealing to emotion and inflammatory foul language being used here is troubling and may speak to the motivations of some individuals.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing biased about using a term that a vast number of sources use, is concise, and precisely describes the events. While the report itself does not call these practices torture, they fit the definition. Not all members of a government that participated in torture are going to call it torture; that's why we use what secondary sources say. D7QB (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that news outlets are saying that doesn't make it unbiased. The blurb says that the reports condemns torture, which is not only biased, but also inaccurate! As you say, nowhere does the report use that word, and its inclusion here is clearly editorialization. It is troubling indeed that such is being displayed on the main page when simple, unbiased alternatives exist, such as the alternate blurb above.-RHM22 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The report itself is a primary source. We go by secondary sources, which are generally saying 'torture'. There's also a plain English question here: do you seriously expect me to believe that sodomising a man with the remains of his lunch in order to make him say certain things is not torture? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Next time Dick Cheney hosts a luncheon, I'm not going. Jehochman Talk 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's not torture, but again, that's not for me to decide. The headline here is regarding the primary source and making an incorrect statement thereabout. The secondary sources are interpreting the report, just like we're doing on the main page now. No matter what the secondary sources say, it's not accurate according to the wording of the report, and it's also needlessly opinionated when there are other, very simple and completely uncontroversial alternatives. There is simply no need to use this wording when 'interrogation techniques' functions in the exact same way; the difference being that a blurb with that wording doesn't produce that coveted, tabloid-style 'shock' reaction.
Regarding Jehochman's posting above, I wouldn't be concerned if I were invited to Cheney's luncheon: with friends like that, who needs…-RHM22 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With friends like that, who needs enemas? Jehochman Talk 16:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support including the word 'torture'. A huge story globally. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This is news, right? It should be decided much more quickly than other Wikipedia processes, resolved so that the news can be displayed before it's stale. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're referring to this story specifically, but it's been on the main page for two or three days now. If I remember correctly, it was on there the same day that the report was released. Very important news stories are sometimes fast-tracked even more quickly than that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Senate staffer tries to scrub 'torture' reference. Count Iblis (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support and support use of the word 'torture'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 8Edit


December 7Edit


Typhoon HagupitEdit

Article: Typhoon Hagupit (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 27 people are killed as Typhoon Hagupit impacts the Philippines.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This news is a little old, and the effects appear to be trivial compared to last year's typhoon, but recovery efforts are ongoing and the current impact is notable enough for ITN, especially considering how slow it has been lately. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Needs update to state what the ongoing recovery efforts and current impacts are. SpencerT♦C 04:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ralph H. BaerEdit

Article: Ralph H. Baer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [42] [43], [44], [45]

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: Known as "The father of video games", given a National medal for his work. RD only, as death by age (92) --MASEM (t) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support clearly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, notable as the "The father of video games". --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- clearly very important to the field, as he had a big hand in creating it. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written--there's no actual reference to him as the father of video games, the creator of pong, or such, just mention of the controversy. Give me some referenced support and I'll vote otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • First line and the source has it. It's pretty much in every source that I've added. (He didn't create pong, however.) --MASEM (t) 23:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Baer is widely considered to be the father of video games and was the recipient of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, meaning he was recognized by the United States government for making groundbreaking contributions to technology. Condition 2, being considered an important figure in one's field, has been meet. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nationally recognized as an innovator, decorated and lauded as the forefather of an entire industry and beyond. Once the article's in the proper shape, this is an easy support. Challenger l (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support meets RD2 by a mile and then some. Article looks to be in decent shape now so marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 12:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

December 6Edit


[Withdrawn] United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014Edit

Withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 7 December 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: United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Republican Party candidate Bill Cassidy (pictured) won the 2014 Louisiana runoff election, defeating the Democratic Party incumbent, Mary Landrieu, and raising number of Republican Senators to 54. ← (links to 114th United States Congress)
The Republican Party candidate Bill Cassidy (pictured) won the 2014 Louisiana runoff election, defeating the Democratic Party incumbent, Mary Landrieu, and raising number of Republican Senators to 54. ← (links to United States Senate elections, 2014)
Alternative blurb:
​The Republican Party candidate Bill Cassidy (pictured) won the 2014 Louisiana runoff election, defeating his incumbent Democratic Party opponent, Mary Landrieu.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal

Article updated
 --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @HiLo48: While you are correct about your general point- I don't think this sort of comment is terribly helpful at getting people to see that. Even with systemic bias here it is still a good faith nomination- even if one that should not be posted. There are better ways to make that point. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. Nothing else works. Might as well try this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar- or at least an explanation rather than sarcastic condemnation. People don't always know what one wants them to know. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Both ITN/R and for the same reason we always post unexpected minority take-overs of a nation's upper house. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say in ITNR that we post a result from a single state? And there's nothing in the blurb about this vote being an "unexpected minority take-over of a nation's upper house". HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't an "unexpected minority takeover"; the GOP had already taken over, this was icing on the cake. I don't see that criteria written down anywhere, either. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the mid-term election that switched the GOP to a position of power in the US Congress was important and thus ITN, this single re-election for one Congress seat is nowhere close to that. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that this election did not change the existing control of the Senate, just gives them a bit more distance. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Control did not hinge on this election. We would not post any other election for a single legislative seat. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A runoff (or special election) for a single Senate seat isn't important enough for ITN except in very unusual circumstances (e.g. if control of the Senate hangs in the balance). Nothing particularly special in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - absolutely no international significance, recommend snowball closure. --W. D. Graham 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Per previous comments. Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no international significance as said above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:20, 7 December 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.


2014 hostage rescue operations in YemenEdit

Article: 2014 hostage rescue operations in Yemen (talk, history)
Blurb: US journalist Luke Somers and South African teacher Pierre Korkie held as hostages by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen died in a failed US Navy SEALS attempt to rescue them
News source(s): "US forces raid al-Qaida hideout in Yemen; hostages reported killed". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 6 December 2014."How Navy SEALs Tried Rescuing al Qaeda Hostage Luke Somers". ABC news. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable, a high-prifile event in the War on Terror Olegwiki (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support unsure if this should be RD or blurb, but it's an act of war, and hence deserves publication of some sort. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD neutral about blurb currently. RD is for people who were at the top of their field where the death is not newsworthy beyond that it happened. This is definitely not the case here where their death is the story. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD per Thryduulf. Also neutral on blurb. Jusdafax 01:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I contacted the ones who created this article; I suggested merger because 2014 rescue mission in Yemen looks smaller and should merge with this article. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now the article has become 2014 hostage rescue operations in Yemen. I changed links and name accordingly. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD. Weak support for a blurb as a notable act of war. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Too many times do botched rescue attempts result in the death of the intended rescuees. Tragic, but not particularly noteworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless I am missing something, this was not nominated (maybe it was changed) as RD. In any case, 13 people died in the raid, not two. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both also. We should donate money to Wikipedia to help the website improve rather than allow advertisements and turn it into a news-spinner. I'm going to close my above nomination as withdrawn soon. --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is this template incomplete? Who are the nominators and updaters? Is this updated? μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 5Edit


[Posted] RD: Queen Fabiola of BelgiumEdit

Article: Queen Fabiola of Belgium (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Libre, ABC News, Daily Mail, Het Laatse Nieuws, Bangkok Post, Reuters, Le Soir, RTBF

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: One of the 8 ever Queen of the Belgians and held the position for over 30 years. Also notable in her own right for her charity work, especially working in the field of children's health. Since her retirement, she's also been subject to death threats (2009) and tax evasion scandals. Still very recent story. --—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as nom.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support there'd be no question of posting Prince Philip were he to pass. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only. This absolutely should get posted; if someone can fix the referencing issues. Most of the text of the article is unreferenced; what is referenced is shaking on WP:RS issues; for example there's things like random photos with no context, a blogspot post, etc. It'd really be a shame to miss putting this up on RD, but someone with access to sources should fix it up... --Jayron32 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    All good now. Fully support. Thanks to @AmaryllisGardener: and anyone else that helped. --Jayron32 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on major article quality issues only; support for RD once fixed. Several unsourced quotes, per Jayron's statement above, are clear problematic signs. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree with above that we're good enough for now - there's still a few places I'd like to see sourcing but nothing to stop posting as RD. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, Masem and Jayron32, I don't know what your standards are, but I have added some references as you can see in this diff. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Generally, any statement that would take me more than a simple google search to identify (such as medal and honors she's won, those would be easy to locate) should be sourced for a bio article; at minimum this should be a reference per paragraph, but need not be as stringent as one reference per sentence. The first paragraph of "Marriage" has bare quotes that absolutely need sourcing to affirm. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Source added for the quote, although the source article (which is most likely the only one available to verify the quote) at time.com requires a subscription. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Paywall sources are fine - we just need to make sure verifyability is met for something like that. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The former queen of one of the few remaining monarchies is surely worthy of RD. -Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Former queen is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as Ready Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - queens are notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable as former queen. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Post pleese, this has no opposition and meets all requirements. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Arrest of Zhou YongkangEdit

Article: Zhou Yongkang (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Chinese official Zhou Yongkang is arrested and expelled from the Communist Party of China.
Alternative blurb: ​Former Chinese domestic security chief Zhou Yongkang is arrested and expelled from the Communist Party of China.
News source(s): (BBC) (New York Times)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I nominated his 'investigation' announcement in July 29 and was told to wait until something more concrete happened. This is a huge story and currently on the front page of BBC and New York Times, as well as almost all Chinese-language news portals. Back in June we posted the expulsion from the party of military official Xu Caihou, who is of a lower rank than Zhou. Zhou's expulsion from the party, the most serious form of political condemnation in the world of Chinese politics, is the first of its kind since the Cultural Revolution. --Colipon+(Talk) 18:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For those not familiar with Chinese politics, could you clarify what "first of its kind" is referring to? I'm guessing it's not simply the first expulsion since 1976 given that it would contradict the previous sentence. Fuebaey (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should not take knowledge of these arcane subjects for granted. Zhou is the first member of the Politburo Standing Committee, China's top council of rulers, to have ever been charged with corruption; also the expulsion from the party is an extremely serious verdict in the world of elite Chinese politics - akin to the death sentence. It is first time that a PSC member has been expelled from the party since the Cultural Revolution. It is not a stretch to say this is the largest corruption scandal in the history of China under Communist rule. Colipon+(Talk) 03:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - he is a much bigger name than Xu Caihou. Indeed #1 story on BBC now. starship.paint ~ regal 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The article appears to be in good condition. This regards a very powerful man who has fallen hard from a major position of importance in China, possibly analogous to the head of the FBI, though that appears inexact. I support posting the altblurb. Jusdafax 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - According to the NYT, he's the first member of the elite Politburo Standing Committee to be arrested for corruption. Prefer the altblurb, per Jusdafax. -Zanhe (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Article has been updated and looks good. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jehochman: - thank you for posting. Could we use his photo? File:Zhou Yongkang.png starship.paint ~ regal 13:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Can you upload a copy locally, and then I will protect it and add it to the home page? Jehochman Talk 13:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Orion launchEdit

Articles: Orion (spacecraft) (talk, history) and Exploration Flight Test 1 (talk, history)
Blurb: Orion spacecraft completes a successful maiden flight from Cape Canaveral.
Alternative blurb: NASA successfully conducts the maiden flight of its Orion spacecraft
News source(s): ABC, Daily Mail etc.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The article looks updated at first glance. According to it, the spacecraft will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids and Mars. --Brandmeistertalk 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Not to be too technical, but the rocket Orion is being launched on is not new, nor is this a manned orbital flight, so I don't think this is ITNR. I do support posting this test flight, though.331dot (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't think this is terribly important news unless it blows up. Why we are still putting people on spacecraft? Robots can do more for less money. If anybody is listening, please take the few billion dollars to be wasted on these PR stunts and invest the money to in something that will benefit us more directly, like the Portal Bridge or I-84. (By "us" I actually mean "me", but let's not quibble.) Sorry for the editorializing... Jehochman Talk 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentAP says "for the first time in 42 years" NASA launches a spacecraft built to carry humans beyond Earth orbit, i.e. to Mars. Perhaps this makes it significant — but maybe we should wait 'til it splashes down, only 4 1/2 hours after launch, to see if all goes according to plan? Sca (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe wait until some humans actually take a flight? There will be a bunch of tests before anybody gets on board, and I think there's a high probability the program will be cut before any human ever flies. Putting a human on board a space ship greatly reduces performance and utility. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
AP: "NASA deliberately kept astronauts off this first Orion." Good to know; glad they weren't kept off inadvertently. Sca (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)  
  Facepalm Jehochman Talk 16:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While a launch and considered successful (it's made waterfall as I write this), being unmanned and only a test flight isn't really that significant; it's comparable to the routine shipment launches to the ISS, for example. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's more significant as it's a vehicle designed for humans, that has gone farther from the surface of the earth than any vehicle designed for humans in over forty-two years; that time we called it Apollo 17. I understand that it's hard to put the distinction down in facts and figures, but manned spaceflight (and the lead-up to manned spaceflight) is generally considered more noteworthy than routine supplies deliveries. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm also fairly sure that we posted the first flight of every single one of the cargo craft that delivers supplies to the ISS (with the obvious exception of Progress which pre-dates Wikipedia) --W. D. Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per my comment above. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Tho I've never been a big fan of the $$$pace program, I reluctantly agree with Evan that this appears to be the beginning of a new phase, potentially at least. Sca (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If I understand correctly, it's a typical spacecraft, with a bigger capsule and a higher orbit than most. It doesn't seem that significant. While it's possible it might lead to humans landing on Mars, that's still sci-fi at the moment. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    The only comparable spacecraft is Apollo; no manned craft capable of operating beyond low Earth orbit has flown, manned or unmanned, in the last 40 years. While the Mars plans are somewhat vague there are concrete plans for beyond-Earth-orbit missions with this type of spacecraft in coming years. --W. D. Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As the first launch in NASA's plan of placing an asteroid in orbit around the moon and landing on Mars, this launch represents the start of a new era in space flight. Ryan Vesey 18:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Ryan and Sca and Evanh, this is indeed a new era. A story of worldwide interest. This program is intended to move humans out of close earth orbit and into the further reaches of space. Jusdafax 18:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I support mostly because news has been slow with the oldest ITN now 11 days old, and this has a fairly interesting article attached to it. In general though, if we were busier I would be against posting a rocket test launch as the first real mission of a new design would seem to be the more important milestone. Dragons flight (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - first flight of a spacecraft designed to carry humans beyond Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. First manned flight is still years away so no harm in posting twice. I have removed the ITNR flag from this entry because it doesn't meet the ITNR requirements - though mostly because of an oversight on my part when I proposed the criteria - but this does not mean that it isn't significant. I do think the blurb should mention Exploration Flight Test 1 which is specifically about this mission, so I have proposed an alternative blurb. --W. D. Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I was going to support this, but this isn't really some notable achievement. It seems more of a NASA PR event. The mission itself is not more notable than a regular ISS personnel transfer, so it those get posted this should to. Otherwise, NASA just tested the capsule, not the REALLY important part, the rocket. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I thought maiden flights were itnr, and I think most readers would come here if they wanted encyclopedic coverage, not to a tabloid. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR says the "first or last launch of any type of rocket", not spacecraft. The rocket used here was not a new one, though eventually there will be a new rocket for this craft. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 4Edit


RD: Jeremy ThorpeEdit

Article: Jeremy Thorpe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Liberal Democrats, The Telegraph, ITV News

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: MP for 20 years, Leader of the Liberal Pary for 9 years, involved in a famous scandal. --The Theosophist (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality grounds. Would support for RD, but the article is almost entirely unreferenced. Clearly a recognizable figure, so would get posted on notability grounds, but the article really needs some work before we could put it on the main page. --Jayron32 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits but oppose on quality, per Jayron. Seems to be notable in UK politics but article needs references. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Famous Scandal? can we have a link to this from outside Leftbritain? I might support it, but haven't seen anythingatall about this. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD but only after article is suitably referenced. The death has been covered widely, including in The New York Times and The Washington Post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment May I point out that the Thorpe affair is a featured article?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, do be aware I would not have known that from anything else in the nomination. Reading the guy had a dog shot by a hitman makes him sound more a criminal than a victim. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I thought that after clicking the article, it would be obvious. Sorry.-The Theosophist (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD subject to referencing. A major figure in British politics in the 60s and 70s, who led the Liberal Party to levels of popularity they had not had for about half a century and was famous for his acerbic wit. His career of course ended in a sensational murder trial, notwithstanding his acquittal. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Grozny clashesEdit

Article: 2014 Grozny clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​20 people were killed and 28 injured in the aftermath of clashes between security forces and insurgents in the city of Grozny, Russia.
Alternative blurb: ​Dozens of people are killed or injured in clashes between security forces and insurgents in Grozny, Russia.
News source(s): BBC Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bloodiest terrorist attack in Russia since 2013. --Catlemur (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Big story with international implications. Jusdafax 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but we may want to wait until the death toll is more clear. Right now, the blurb says 16 and the article says 20. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Let's not let the wording of the blurb get in the way of a major flashpoint. If ITN serves a purpose, it should do so timely. See altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose How is a clash at a protest suddenly the "bloodiest terrorist attack"? It's certainly not featuring on news outlets that I trust, and a question for Jusdafax, how does this have "international implications"? The confrontation between Russia and Chechnya has been ongoing for years. Finally, the article is not good enough for main page inclusion, by miles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • What protest?Please provide proof of a bloodier incident.I have to agree though, that the most respected news outlet has yet to report this event.Catlemur (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're calling Conservapedia the most respected news outlet? Are you joking? Everymorning talk to me 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I'm sure it's not intentional, this is the funniest response to an oppose I have seen in nearly ten years at Wikipedia. Conservapedia? Brilliant! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated as of at least this edit the article is well updated, with major international sources, including the BBC, Washington Post, and Russian media. The article meets the three paragraph minimum for posting, and one presumes more news will arise. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is a stub and is full of blustering reaction, but nothing substantive about the event itself. Inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Even per the article, Putin says "I'm sure, the local law enforcement authorities will take proper care of them". This is of no consequence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that the article is assembled from quotes from media sources, (According to the Lazy Writer, "I cannot be bothered to paraphrase".) Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    You mean, you "don't believe the hype"... ? Good answer... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest, Abductive, that you look at the article now, and revise your estimate. The article is not a stub, has many reliable sources from around the world, and uses quotes in the reaction section, where they are appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is fixed now.--Catlemur (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT. SpencerT♦C 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Pull for both notability and article quality. While this is a larger than normal outburst of violence, it doesn't cross the line from a quantitative difference in the status quo to a qualitative one. This isn't Beslan redux. The article has NPOV problems that make it unfit for encyclopedia. It says that Putin's state of the union speech was "rambling", interprets the reactions of people that listened to the speech, and in fact, seems to spend a lot of time going over the state of the union speech instead of, you know, the actual event.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have edited out the word "rambling" as unencyclopedic and a vio of WP:UNDUE and agree that the 'Reactions' section needs additional editing. Jusdafax 09:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Both Time and the Washington (Nixonslayer) Post commented on Putin's "rambling" but it's not essential for this article. What other editting do you suggest on the reaction section? It has quotes from involved parties found in reliable sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The edit by an IP, right after mine, improved the article to my satisfaction, though like many articles it could stand further work. New articles are seldom perfect. I'm not sure the material about the "light applause" is needed. That's merely an alleged reaction to a reaction, and of dubious value as I see it. Jusdafax 23:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Late comment It's been days since this was posted, so I took a look at the article after all the work. There are all of 8 sentences that deal with the actual event, most of which are repetitive. The lede appears again in the (questionably titled) "Timeline" section, almost word-for-word. There are apparent non-sequiturs: the line about people carrying Putin's picture in a parade some years ago; and the still-present commentary on the State of the Union speech. Additionally, this is a minor spurt of violence in a part of the world where this is common. By my reading, the article is in poor shape and covers a trivial event, so I guess I'm still confused how this got approved and so quickly.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

December 3Edit


RD: Ian McLaganEdit

Article: Ian McLagan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian CNN NPR BBC Rolling Stone

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: Prominent member of the Faces and Small Faces. According to the Guardian, his "evocative playing became part of the fabric of rock’n’roll history"-this seems to meet the second RD criterion. --Everymorning talk to me 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about this one. He was a member of a band that is in the RandR hall of fame, though I'm not clear on how influential he was. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD: Recognizable and significant member of a top-of-their-field musical group (Small Faces/Faces). --Jayron32 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sad that he died, but I don't see him as main-page newsworthy. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless I misread the Faces discology, his involvement with notable songs was as part of the ensemble for "Stay with Me" and "I'm Losing You". Let me know if I have missed anything. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, very funny (and not true, as I was busy listening to Elvis, Sinatra, Cash and Cline back then). Can you point out bigger hits than the one's I've mentioned where he's given credit? I'm willing to change my mind, but the research doesn't tend to make me want to do so. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"I feel inclined to blow my mind, Get hung up feed the ducks with a bun." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's from Itchycoo Park. The BBC adds that McLagan played on "Cindy Incidentally" as well, [46] which according to our article on the song was on the UK charts for 9 weeks. Everymorning talk to me 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say those piano riffs on "Cindy Incidentally" were pretty distinctive, "iconic" even. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nowhere near the top of his field. Wood and Stewart would meet the criteria, but McLagan doesn't have the profile of a guy like Ray Manzarek. Teemu08 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just not sufficiently notable I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a tough call. How do you measure the influence of a talented sideman? He worked alongside some of the most well-known people in music, some of whom were notoriously discerning (the Stones, Dylan) about who they would work with. Challenger l (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Death of Eric GarnerEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:11, 4 December 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: Death of Eric Garner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A grand jury declines to indict police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner.
News source(s): NBC News
Nominator's comments: I realize this is nowhere near as significant as Michael Brown. However, it is still getting a lot of news coverage, [47] and has sparked protests across the country. [48] --Everymorning talk to me 02:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Does not reach the significance of the Michael Brown case, and even the nomination of that story on ITN was rather controversial.--WaltCip (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the murder of the black-market cigarette vendor was done against NYPD regulations by an illegal choke hold, not the shooting of a charging theft suspect. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Can we please not play this game again? We're already stuck with one parochical matter in the ITN box. Now you'd like to add another even more parochial matter into the ITN box? Absurd. Little parochial stranglings, however distasteful, disdainful, or inciting, do not belong at ITN. We need to be selective. We are not a news ticker. What's more, merely because such a story happens in America does not mean that we post it. Think about what has encyclopaedic value, not about yellowness. RGloucester 04:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester. Hard to believe this was nominated seriously, really. Do we report every grand jury outcome in the United States now? GoldenRing (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is it so hard to believe someone made a good faith nomination about an item they saw getting a lot of news coverage? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Good faith or not, this nomination is simply wrong. RGloucester 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
How is it "wrong" to nominate something getting news coverage for "In the News"? This comment isn't constructive. People should be encouraged to make any good-faith nominations they see fit to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is we can extend good faith so far, but extending it to every decision of every court in the US which results in a few disgruntled people is simply not required. When nominating, people should demonstrate that the are aware of what is required. This is a snow close and, like the Ferguson "riots", which have come to absolutely nothing whatsoever, we should remind ourselves that this is an encyclopedia and not a news ticker for American racial tension issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a sad result to the case, but in the end it's about the notability of the event, and this isn't covered enough for ITN. I'd like to remind μηδείς that the suitability for ITN this has is not about your personal opinions. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment change it to "Large protests take place in New York City after grand jury fails to indite