Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Dennis Kimetto

Ongoing: Ebola outbreak Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Be aware that RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • Be aware that the blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


October 2[edit]

October 1[edit]

South Sudan agreement[edit]

Article to update: South Sudanese Civil War and updated article: Politics of South Sudan
Blurb: Under the auspices of IGAD, the SPLM factions of the South Sudanese Civil War agree to a proposal for federalisation.
News source(s): ABC
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (give credit)

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: Its not merely the ubiquitous ceasefire that breaks down, they seem to have met demands from the rebels with this and under quite some pressure, including sanctions)...even relatively neutral Equatoria has been lately calling for this (as was my just completed masters thesis)
Its also notable as a staep forward in regional efforts to mediate conflict Lihaas (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support- The first national acceptance of a federal government in the world's newest country. A major step in one of the largest ongoing conflicts, and the institutionalizing of a federal government could even be considered ITNR by some stretch of the government succession criteria. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A very important agreement. Neljack (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a good story for ITN, however, there are no updates in the articles at the moment. --Tone 08:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just got to it. Updated the 2nd article and de-bolded the ifirst.Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

RD: Jerrie Mock[edit]

Article: Jerrie Mock
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Columbus Dispatch
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

Nominator's comments: She was the first woman to fly solo around the world, this seems to establish her as being at or near the top of her field (her field being female aviators). --Jinkinson talk to me 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment the "awards and honors" section has an orange unsourced tag. I've updated the tense in a couple of places in the article but I've run out of time to check if I got them all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose flying around the world is an arbitrary stunt. Anybody know without looking who was the first man to do so? μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think she meets DC2. I would disagree with calling it an "arbitrary stunt"; Amelia Earhart, Valentina Tereshkova, and Sally Ride were not performing "arbitrary stunts". There was a genuine belief at the time that women could not do those things. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but only if the article is improved with references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to add I agree with TRM that improvement in references is needed. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely notable enough - but as stated, references need a lot of TLC. Challenger l (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not impressed with aviation "round the world" record claims. Those aiming for it are not required to cross the equator nor even to travel a distance equal to the full circumference of the earth. Neither Mock's article nor the reference allegedly supporting her "round the world" achievement tell us where she actually went. She obviously achieved a lot, but this is a crappily defined achievement. Can we drop that claim and just describe her as a great aviator? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would completely agree if we were the ones making the claim, but that is what the sources in the article state, along with the aviation clubs mentioned in the article who accepted her accomplishments as a record. You have completely valid points- but they should be addressed to those who recognize this accomplishment as a record or achievement. As long as the relevant groups and sources recognize this as a record, we should state that they do. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're advocating we post this on WP:ATTRIBUTE then, and that requires a blurp that calls her a great aviator according to Aviatrix Weekly or Airborne Heiresses. When we can't even objectively define what she did we can't claim she qualifies under any of the criteria. We are not forced by vague sources to ignore that any more than we are forced to list the first person to ride across the us on a lawnmower as a great lawnmowerist. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not all record breakers or first-time doers are necessary leaders in the field, and I don't see that here beyond the "first woman to do so" (please note: not trying to trivialize the gender aspect, I'd argue the same about the death of the first man to circumnavigate, if that were offered). Or in terms of past ITN, her act at the time would have been the ITN point, but not her passing. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

US judge finds Argentina in contempt of court[edit]

Article: Argentine debt restructuring
Blurb: US judge finds Argentina in contempt of court
News source(s): Bloomberg
Nominator: Count Iblis (give credit)

 Count Iblis (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant, given that it is a decision of a first-instance judge in a case where Argentina denies the jurisdiction of the court and where the decision is likely to be largely symbolic because enforcement of the judgment will probably be precluded by the sovereign immunity that attaches to most property of the Argentine Government within the jurisdiction. Neljack (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what is the significance of this finding? It's not clear from the nomination that this has any kind of impact anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seeing very little news coverage of this. Also not clear on the impact or significance. This is not a case in an international body(which might have more significance) 331dot (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

[Posted] Occupy Central with Love and Peace[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Occupy Central with Love and Peace

Blurb: Hong Kong police resorts to tear gas to disperse Occupy Central protesters occupying government headquarters, but thousands remain.
Alternative blurb: Benny Tai announces that Occupy Central is launched as Hong Kong's government headquarters is being occupied by thousands of protesters.
News source(s): (The Guardian), (Reuters UK)
Nominator: Neelix (give credit)
Updater: Mangoshake (give credit)

Article updated

 --Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose and I'm guessing this will be a WP:SNOW close. Protests are rarely posted, and this one doesn't even reach the national level, just one protest in Hong Kong that has not spread to mainland China. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest alternative article and blurb: Police disperse pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong with tear gas. Now headline of CNN, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and more. This isn't going to be a snow close anymore. The fact that it hasn't spread to Mainland China is due to active media suppression by China (one result of which was that Instagram has been banned in China since today). Deryck C. 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The alternative article and blurb you propose look good to me. Neelix (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether that's true or not, but this is certain getting more media attention. Formerip (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
New York Times, The Globe and Mail, BBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal, CBC, Forbes, Fox, and plenty more. This thing is in the news in nearly all the main places except Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevant article is now called 2014 Hong Kong protests. Neelix (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This looks like it's moved beyond protests. 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support this is now top news story on the BBC News homepage and is having an impact on HK's business operations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think there may be a good story here, but I don't think either the main or the alternative blurb does a good job of communicating it. Right now, neither blurb mentions 1) how many protesters or 2) why they are protesting. They also don't do a good job including conflicts with police, which seems to be an important part of the news coverage. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing really groundbreaking has happened so far. The "pro-democracy" camp are often protesting and they often use these kinds of disruptive tactics. --Tocino 08:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support story and Deryck Chan's blurb ("Police disperse pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong with tear gas."). The protests in Hong Kong are presently in the front page of the BBC website and account for 2 of the top 10 most read articles on that site. Regardless of how common such protests are, this one is getting vastly significantly more media coverage than others have and so it is unquestionably in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's valid to compare this to the climate change march. They haven't used tear gas there for the most part. Now, what was the last protest action that the cops used significant amount of tear gas to disperse the protesters? That's the valid comparison. Did ITN post that? –HTD 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Google suggests the three most recent examples prior to HK were in Liberia [1], Ferguson, Missouri [2] (both in August), and Sao Paulo [3] in June. As far as I can tell (and my search-fu is very weak today) the Liberian protest was not nominated and would unlikely have gained consensus because it relates to the ongoing ebola outbreak. I can't see that we posted anything to do with the Ferguson shooting (which surprises me) - it was nominated (and rejected) for ongoing twice in August, but I don't think a blurb was proposed. The Brazilian protests again don't seem to have been nominated. Protests in Thailand in December 2013 that involved tear gas were posted, but the gas was not mentioned in the blurb [4]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand that the current situation may look like nothing extraordinary. But the 24-hour mark is approaching and crowds are still up and running as ever. And with international impact emerging like emergency rallies around the world planned or in progress (SCMP), there is good potential this expands to Main Page material in due time (say by the end of the week perhaps). PS It coincides National Day on Wednesday. Guess how that turns out. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Thryduulf. Saying Hong Kong is not at the national level ignores its history and economic status. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, ongoing, very significant event in the region, reported worldwide. I would change the blurb to something like: The longest series of political protests since the 1997 handover shake Hong Kong. [5] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, this type of protest (which includes both peaceful elements and perhaps-over-aggressive authorative response) is too common around the world to single out one. If it becomes overly violent (hopefully not) then that might be reason, but not at this stage. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This is a top news story, far more significant than any previous protests. I don't understand nonsense about "national level" and "mainland China". Hong Kong is functionally separate from the mainland, both culturally and politically. In fact, that is one of the reasons for these protests. This is a watershed moment in Hong Kong history, and perhaps in the history of the democracy movement in China itself. RGloucester 16:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – top news on all news outlets. Also important to highlight the Chinese ridiculous regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy and article in good shape except the "Global responses" section (for now I guess). Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, has gotten a lot of international media attention; I think not in the least because no one imagines Hong Kong as a place where this kind of protest could happen and because this has a lot of bearing on the future of the most populous nation on the planet and its region. I also feel something of a connection, as I imagine those of us not from HK who attended Wikimania 2013, seeing places I walked or otherwise traveled through on the way to other things I went to see being the sites of all this civil unrest. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
True. Being a Hongkonger, I have to say protests are extremely common in Hong Kong. But this is a serious case.--Good afternoon (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know about the past protests. But the world is used to pro-democracy protests taking place in countries that are far less democratic than even the OCwLP people would describe Hong Kong as. And there's the implications for China as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
HK is that place where "it's not democratic enough" but "people are somehow free to protest" that's ripe for "pro-democracy protests" (see also Venezuela, Malaysia). In places where there's supposedly "democracy" people don't have to do "pro-democracy protests" (they'd protest about something else), and there are places where protests are not even allowed at all. HK is the perfect candidate for such protests to happen, and they're doing it quite frequently. –HTD 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Hugely important event that could change the political landscape of Hong Kong forever. WinterWall (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Gained international media attention. Also, I have changed the caption to a clearer one. --Good afternoon (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The media is already calling these events an "umbrella revolution", [6], [7], [8]. Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This protest seems to have enough legs both literally and figuratively to have an encyclopedic value. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Smurrayinchester 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Revise blurb - is "using tear gas" the best we could come up with for the blurb? I don't recall any protests in recent memory to be framed in such a way. Would it not be more informative to the reader to say what the protests are actually about? Such as "Protesters gather in Hong Kong to demonstrate against proposed electoral changes announced by the Chinese government." Also I would consider putting this story in "on-going" as it is still developing. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "Protests in Hong Kong against proposed electoral changes are countered by the police using tear gas." That way, we make the protests more generally, but still mention the police response (which is the main story in the West, it seems). Also, we don't need an "Ongoing" as long as there's an entry in ITN - Ongoing is for when stories are still in the news by the time they reach the bottom of the page. Smurrayinchester 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tear gas is the western story. The story is the protest, with the context of Tiananmen Square etc. The tear gas is just a red herring, stupid over-reaction. I prefer the Colipon blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I second TRM's preference for the "Colipon" blurb. RGloucester 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I too support Colipon's blurb and believe it should be posted as there is consensus for it, but disagree with Ongoing. Ongoing was not made for every event that is not instantaneous, only for the most important events that consistently have new stories each day. Only Ebola and IS meet that criteria right now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Revised. I posted the Colipon blurb, as annotated by Vejvančický. Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Ryder Cup[edit]

Article: 2014 Ryder Cup
Blurb: In golf, Europe wins the Ryder Cup.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment dare we get some prose in that article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I could replace the content with IN THE HOLE!!! if you like. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the article now has prosein the sections describing the game. CaptRik (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is good. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Marathon World Record[edit]

Article: Dennis Kimetto
Blurb: Dennis Kimetto sets a new marathon world record with a time of 2h 2m 57s at the Berlin Marathon
News source(s):
Nominator: ShakyIsles (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 --ShakyIsles (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment It could be OK if the marathon article contained text about the record, detailing how it was established. I wrote the blurb, feel free to change it. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There is also Marathon world record progression. Thanks for sorting blurb! Also the Dennis Kimetto page needs some work.ShakyIsles (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Some work is needed before posting but marathon world records are usually the ITN stuff. --Tone 10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notability doesn't really need to be established here since the Berlin marathon is ITNR. I can't see us covering the marathon and neglecting to mention the record. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment target article (marathon) is a bit of a mess and covers this record in a single sentence (with redirect). Would prefer to see Kimetto's article being the target with a good update. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool, I've updated to reflect this. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a new world record is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A worthy sports record and the marathon is on ITN/R. It's only been a year since the last one, but I don't think that's a big deal, especially combined with the marathon (we're getting down to physical impossibility in the near future here...) IRW0 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tone (talkcontribs)

September 27[edit]

RD: James Traficant[edit]

Article: James Traficant
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News International Business Times Daily Mail
Nominator: 331dot (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Important to US politics for the bad things he did; convicted of bribery, only the second person since the end of the Civil War to be expelled from Congress. Died somewhat unexpectedly. RD is empty at the moment. --331dot (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not top of field (being notable for crimes is not top of field) , and while the death was somewhat unusual, we are talking a 70-some old not recovering from a bad accident, so not really a surprise. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is being notable for crimes not important to a field? Being important isn't just for good things. Richard Nixon isn't known for the good things he did. I knew this was a longshot, but I thought the discussion was worth it. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mediocre personality with no real shot at being "top his field", no awards, nothing. Death was unexpected, but doesn't elevate this individual to the heights of Lauren Bacall etc., regardless of the emptiness of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Being expelled from Congress is essentially a negative award. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll take your word for it. Doesn't change anything about the oppose at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You can oppose for any reason- but it is wrong to say "no awards, nothing". There is clearly something; people are not expelled from Congress even once every 50 years. Only twice in 150 years. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. But this is not really relevant to anything. So what if was expelled? What relevance does that have to being top of his field? Top of his field for being crap in his field? Brilliant. When you say "wrong to say "no awards, nothing" - can you clarify what actual awards he won? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Being expelled is essentially an award; a great rarity in US politics(and I'd be willing to bet somewhat rare worldwide, at a national level) equivalent to an executive branch official being impeached and removed from office. (you can see Expulsion from the United States Congress for more information if you wish) It really doesn't bother me if you or anyone oppose this, I just felt it would be better than a blank line on the main page. I truly appreciate your consideration. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, fair enough, I just wouldn't rank this individual along with Lauran Bacall etc. Enough from us. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose His expulsion from the US congress was a notable event, and had ITN existed back then it would've been featured. However that happened years ago. He doesn't get to "double dip" on the same notoriety twice. WinterWall (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support probably most well known US House member during the time of his service, except Gingrich, but not other speakers, on the news nightly, widely seen as prosecuted in order to be silenced. Adding him will not bump anyone else, and it is unquestionable he will be remembered 100 years from now by anyone interested in the politics of the era. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd be more willing to post someone known for their enormous positive contributions to the country as a member of Congress, but being the only member expelled since the Civil War is more Congress trivia. Didn't really set a key precedent for expelling members of Congress and did not substantially change the way Congress is run (if at all). SpencerT♦C 04:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume you're not an American old enough to remember his term in office? He's what would be called a backbencher in the loyal opposition who spoke truth to power. He regularly brought to light issues the majority parties, both Democrat and Republican didn't want raised. The fact that you describe him as basically a criminal makes it clear you are unaware he was one of the least culpable members of congress. Look, for example,at the $100,000,000.00 worth of the senior senator from Nevada, who cannot account for any of it as private earnings. Look at what Trent Lott earned from Bernie Ebbers, and took home as legal spoils that would have landed Tony Soprano in jail. Trafficant was an inconvenient voice. We're not supposed to be here to puppet narratives.μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the current article (James_Traficant#U.S._House_of_Representatives) does not do a very good job explaining his Congressional contributions. For something that I would consider an equivalent standard, see Robert_Byrd#Congressional_service, describing Byrd (who was posted on ITN). If the article is better filled out and makes a better case for his importance, I will reconsider my position. SpencerT♦C 19:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Spencer, but at this point it's a lost cause and I am basically coming here to recreate since I have real world deadlines. The big thing with TRafficant was he was on the news weekly for pointing out other's lies and hypocrises, a household name during his service, and while hated by the leaders of both parties, beloved of everyone else and continuously returned by his constituency. Byrd was just a corrupt ex-Klu-Klux-Klan member who graduated to the political boss of the landlocked state of West Virginia. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant enough of a career to be considered "top of his field". Rhodesisland (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The expulsion should have been here if this existed in 2002, the death shouldn't. Busy Moose (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per 331dot and Medeis. This RD nomination is exactly what the RD slot is for: a recent death of someone notable in the news. Trafficant's death, as befit his service in Congress and his personality, was unusual. I acknowledge the concerns of opposers but am unconvinced. This would a fine RD addition. The article appears to be in good shape and is an interesting read. Jusdafax 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mount Ontake eruption[edit]

Article: 2014 Mount Ontake eruption
Blurb: In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, killing at least one person and seriously injuring more than 30.
Alternative blurb: In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, and the bodies of at least 31 hikers are found.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ordered the Japanese military to mount a rescue operation in response to this eruption: [9] --Jinkinson talk to me 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment It does not look like there are wider ramifications at this point (evacuations past the mountain itself, travel disruptions, etc.) 250 people near the volcano are staying put, and the "volcanic alert level" has only been raised from 1 to 3 (on a 5-point scale.) [10] There is a good bit of worldwide coverage, but perhaps wait to see if initial media interest quickly subsides or not; I think it's borderline at this point. IRW0 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant. If we rotated blurbs (like DYK wants to do) every eight hours, then yes, but this isn't Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Like the Kiluaea eruption in Hawaii (currently threatening a small neighborhood and state highway) I don't think this is significant enough yet. If that changes, I would reassess. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - BBC TV reporting that the eruption was not forecast, and 30+ deaths. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending suitable and clear update based on the breaking information that 30 hikers have been found, most likely dead but awaiting the official Japanese medical verdict. BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
looks like The Rambling Man has changed his mind from the oppose he wrote above - so that might want striking out?EdwardLane (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, why not directly message me or ping me? 18:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to Support; now starting to appear as a top story in CNN, more effects seem to be coming out. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • was coming here to nominate it based on the 30 dead - pending update obviously EdwardLane (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major volcanic eruptions are still relatively rare and the death toll from this seems to be > 30 (once officially confirmed). CaptRik (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe a little expansion of the eruptions section with the current event would help. Newsworthy nonetheless. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ditto The Rambling Man; it needs an update! Rhodesisland (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely for ITN per coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've suggested a more suitable alt-blurb, article is a little light but once the deaths of the hikers are confirmed, and the article is updated, it should be posted ASAP. According to the BBC, there are at least 45 people "missing. Highly significant natural disaster for Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - pending article update. A big story in the international news right now, but the article needs fleshing out as it is too brief as of this posting. Jusdafax 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article is light but I don't think that's a problem; information is sparse. BBC simply says "The hikers were not breathing and their hearts had stopped" about the apparent deaths. I assume they are dead, but an AP image shows a medical team transporting a frozen body "for urgent medical help". [11] (That article says Japanese officials can only announce deaths after a formal doctor's examination.) IRW0 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    31 confirmed dead: [12]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    That only says 4 confirmed dead at the moment. ("Four people were transported back down the mountain on Sunday and later confirmed dead") The other 25+ are still "not breathing with their hearts stopped." I can't find other sources confirming those deaths yet, but I assume it'll happen soon enough. For now, we could use a blurb like "In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, and the bodies of at least 31 hikers are found." IRW0 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that "not breathing with their hearts stopped", when covered by volcanic ash, at the top of a mountain, is not a good prospect for most people. In fact, I think it's rather likely to mean death. Especially if they are not the four transported down. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing they're not dead; I'm personally quite sure that they are in fact dead. But the RSes do not support calling them "dead" yet. All sources are very careful to frame it in "bodies found" or "apparently dead", etc. IRW0 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant event, reported worldwide. The article as it stands now is acceptable for the main page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting altblurb. Feel free to change it. --Tone 08:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

[Closed] 2014 air traffic control facility fire[edit]

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 07:22, 28 September 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_air_traffic_control_facility_fire
Blurb: *An act of arson at an air traffic control facility in Aurora, Illinois causes close to 2000 airline flights to be grounded.
News source(s): [1].
Nominator: Jax 0677 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Caused close to 2000 airline flights to be grounded and pointed to potentially significant flaws in air traffic control security --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reported injury was the alleged arsonist, and no planes crashed. Just at ORD/MDW, a comparable number of flights were canceled after a fire at the Chicago TRACON about 4 months ago. [13] Inconvenient for some travelers, but not newsworthy. IRW0 (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Basically no similar at the end of a day to a bad weather front shutting down a number of regional airports and messing up traffic. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely significant act of vandalism results in minor disruption to a minor portion travellers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; it was a very large act of vandalism. It disrupted quite a few travelers. You don't have to downplay the event to argue against its posting. Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Worldwide we have around eight to ten million air travellers per day. This is a minuscule glitch. It has no real impact, it's not in the news, it's not ITN. Move on to something else. Thanks for your advice though, always welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unusual and worrying but, compared to the misery imposed regularly by French and Italian Air Traffic Control, not such a tumultuous event. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UNGA 69[edit]

Clearly no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 28 September 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: sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly
Blurb: The 69th session of the UNGA opens with the General Debate.
Nominator: Lihaas (give credit)

Note: Opening of the UN session for the zear is akin to a state of the world address. (should be more in the news when netanzahu speaks)

 --Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine meetings and their openings are not normally fodder for ITN. If and when something happens to be specifically newsworthy, we can post that. --Jayron32 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is in the news.. (im on a public comp so the formatting aint there sorry)Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not, in fact, in the news. Proposed airstrikes on ISIS are getting more attention right now.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - it is in the news. seems newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If something notable happens, let's post that. Calidum Talk To Me 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Routine meeting. If this is in the news, it is buried in it. Not a story garnering a lot of interest. As others said, if something notable happens there, that's another matter. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment It definitely is in the news, buried or not: [14] It seems Mahmoud Abbas is very unhappy about Israel's negotiations with Palestine. Perhaps we could post that. Jinkinson talk to me 17:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to see here, more bureaucrats spending their various tax payers money to discuss various items, most of which are ignored by many members of the club. Not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yawn. The UN was actually established to end all wars. Epic failure. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Fairly routine. Agree with Calidum, something unusual I'd support. Busy Moose (talk) 14:32, 28 September 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.

Cambodia Australia deal[edit]

Article: Australia–Cambodia relations#2014 refugee resettlement deal
Blurb: Cambodia and Australia sign a controversial refugee resettlement deal.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: SovanDara (give credit)

 SovanDara 02:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article update could use a little more expansion to clarify what the actual deal is; article right now just says it would "allow refugees from Australia to resettle in Cambodia". SpencerT♦C 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I might be interested if the blurb or notes associated with the nomination actually tried to explain the story. Right now, it's a no. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Intriguing story, article needs to be sorted out before this can run though. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - noteworthy story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 25[edit]

[Ready] Shellshock software bug reveals several severe vulnerabilities[edit]

Updated article: Shellshock (software bug)
Blurb: Undiscovered for 22 years, the Shellshock bug reveals several remote exploit vulnerabilities in software widely used on web servers; severity considered by some to be similar to Heartbleed.
Alternative blurb: Undiscovered for 22 years, the Shellshock bug reveals several remote exploit vulnerabilities in software widely used on Internet servers.
News source(s): NIST National Vulnerability Database (first bug), New York Times, The Register, Arstechnica, iTnews, ZDNet, etc
Nominator: ZeniffMartineau (give credit)
Updater: Edprevost (give credit)
Other updaters: Drbogdan (give credit) and IRW0 (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Apple seemed to downplay it because many users might not be running affected services, but is promising a fix (Mac World).

Nominator's comments: I thought this might be worthwhile news, due to the bug's severity (NIST rated it 10/10 and it can affect OpenSSH, CGI in Apache, DHCP, and possibly anything which uses Bash, such as Mac OSX, some routers, etc), possibility of unauthenticated remote code execution, the 22 years it went undiscovered (meaning old and new systems affected), further bugs discovered while trying to patch it, and reports of a botnet and malware actively exploiting this bug as of the day it went public. --Zeniff (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: the BBC quotes an expert as saying that Shellshock could be worse than the Heartbleed bug. It Is Me Here t / c 12:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Significant and newsworthy, given that it went unnoticed for 22 years and that the vulnerability is present in a wide variety of devices and machines. The blurb can be worked on, though, so that it flows better. (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose I've seen the news of it, but while it technically might be equivalent to Heartbleed as how widely spread the affected software is, I'm also not seeing the same level of possible threat to all internet users that heartbleed could have done (eg massive password problems). --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually this bug allows full access to the remote machine which allows full reading of the machines memory. It can do everything heartbleed can do as well as allow the system to be taken over. It is worse in every way. Chillum 16:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm aware the effect is potentially more dangerous, but at the same time, the amount of effort to actual get the bug to work to get into that system seems much more difficult than the Heartbleed, hence that being much more a serious threat of its exploitability. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    This is simply not so. Heartbleed required slow and extended memory reading, interpreting remote memory maps and all sorts of fuss. This allows you to simply run a command over many types of systems. This requires less effort to get more access. In particular the lack of need to interpret remote memory addresses makes this bug more automatable and creates a greater threat of a prolific worm. I have worked in computer security for over 15 years so I can be pretty confident in my assessment. Chillum 17:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Support: The Devil is in the details here, really the only similarity the two events have is that both can be executed remotely. In a nsut shell, heartbleed allowed a malicious attacker to leverage a software feature (heartbeat) to dump portions of memory, basically being able to 'see' things that shouldn't be allowed, and yes, potentially seeing passwords. But shellshock is an attack against the program that handles pretty much every function on the device, allowing an attacker to do quite literally anything. Forget poking around dumped memory for passwords, with shellshock you literally just make yourself a new admin account. [15][16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edprevost (talkcontribs) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is much more serious than heartbleed. This one allows for arbitrary command(and by extension code) execution which could allow for an incredibly effective worm. Heartbleed only allowed read access. Considering this has been here for 22 years it is on of the biggest stories in computer security in decades. Chillum 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm concerned that there is no event to the story. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, people are doing their best, but the article is very messy and hard to understand at present. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to severity and nature of the bug, but have concerns about article quality as well. I don't think we should compare it to Heartbleed in the blurb, though; it's significant enough to stand on its own. Bug also affects more than web servers; I suggested an altblurb to address both issues, though the bug affects more than servers so it should be improved further. (The "22 years" bit may still be too sensationalistic, as it potentially implies the bug was being actively exploited during that time, which would've been noticed.) IRW0 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd echo some of the above concerns (although any paraphrasing and erroneous assumptions are entirely of my own creation). This could be like the Millennium bug, a lot of bluster and fuss and all, without an actual derogatory outcome. In which case, the story, paraphrasing (once again) becomes "Security flaw in many OSs discovered, all fixed up now, no major trauma". Right now we have "Security flaw in many OSs discovered, something bad may happen...........". So although the numbers (in their billions) are scary and impressive, the genuine impact may be negligible. No actual story to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The derogatory outcome is that probably 100k+ machines (more?) have already been newly infected by botnets, starting within an hour of the embargo on the vulnerability being lifted. [18] (To the people running the botnets, this was a special, rare gift. This vulnerability affected far more "high value" targets than a typical vulnerability, e.g. Unix servers with lots of bandwidth or valuable data rather than primarily home computers, than all but a few recent things like Heartbleed.) I would agree there is not a great single story to post, but this wasn't a non-event like the Millennium bug. The article still isn't great either (I'd work on it, but I'm still busy with fallout from the actual bug, as are many people.) The article is improving. IRW0 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with TRM's comment; if something bad actually happened, that would be worthy of posting, but I'm not convinced the possibility of something bad happening merits posting. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support WP is the first place I'd come for a clear, objective, informative discussion of this. My sole objection might be article quality, which I will leave to the qualified to judge. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support wortwhile item, but the article is currently meant only for experts. Less jargon pls? Also, there should be a section on what was/is the current impact, who or what got exploited. Nergaal (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The jargon has been cleaned up somewhat and reported impact been summarized better. The article is orange-tagged now, but that will hopefully be resolved soon enough. ITN is pretty dated right now, so even if the article takes a bit longer to be in a good shape, it should still be worth posting. IRW0 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not a connoisseur about this topic, but this is intriguing and seems very newsworthy in my opinion. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until impact is certain. Also, "The bug causes Bash to unintentionally execute commands when they are stored in environment variables in a non-standard form", but I thought that was a feature? I knew about that quirk years ago, and presumably many others did, too. So, "undiscovered" really means "undiscovered by IT agencies needing headlines." (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Having any service that executes a shell-level environment itself seems like waiting for trouble to happen, so there's a matter of bad programming by those that relied on bash for some aspects...--MASEM (t) 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The orange tag is gone, and the article is in decent shape for ITN. There's more of an impact section now, etc. Shellshock has turned into a series of bugs with patches that trickled out until just a couple days ago, so this item is still in the news despite the initial release being a week ago. (Apple just released an incomplete patch, for one. A Google News search shows tons of hits in the past 24 hours alone.) There is a good deal of botnet activity and large-scale scanning due to this bug. Given that ITN is pretty sparse, I don't think it'd hurt to post this one. IRW0 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- "Revealing vulnerabilities" is not news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Holder resigns[edit]

Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Calidum Talk To Me 22:23, 25 September 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.

Proposed image
Article: Eric Holder

Blurb: Eric Holder (pictured) announced his resignation as the United States Attorney General.
News source(s): Bloomberg and ABC News
Nominator: George Ho (give credit)

Note: The recent news is still developing.

Nominator's comments: The subject is well-known to Americans, Canadians, and Europeans.[citation needed] People would expect who will be the next Attorney General. I welcome alternative blurbs because this is my first nomination. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been through this before with cabinet-level individuals resigning. It happens often and does not represent any major shift in policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (edit conflict) Thanks for the nomination, and welcome, but unless there is some unusual circumstance(such as being convicted of a crime/impeachment, corruption, etc.) I don't see a reason to post this, as cabinet officials carry out the policies of the President and serve at his pleasure, so there won't be a massive shift in policies here. I don't think any such official would be posted (such as the Home Secretary of the UK, Russian Foreign Minister, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with the above. Minor blip in US politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose that he would resign in the fall was announced earlier this year, he's not been asked or forced to resign for some scandal, we don't post such routine resignations for other countries. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Eh, he was planning to resign at the end of the year no matter what. This was not due to some scandal of some sort. –HTD 17:12, 25 September 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.


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

  1. ^ "Contract Employee Charged in Fire That Grounded Chicago Flights". ABC News. Retrieved 27 September 2014.