April 21, 2012 (2012-04-21) (Saturday)
Conflicts
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Science
Sport
|
|
April 20, 2012 (2012-04-20) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
Law and crime
- Marcus Robinson, due to have been executed in 2007, is ordered off death row after North Carolina Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks rules his trial was tainted by racial bias, grounds for cancellation of a death sentence under the state's Racial Justice Act. The judge used controversial statistical evidence of bias to grant the change of sentence. (BBC)
Politics
Sudan/South Sudan
Nominator's comments: Tensions are definatel at an elevated level with continued fighting and it failed last time though there was support). Lihaas (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears there is a lack of clarity about what has happened here, with the south claiming a withdrawal and the north claiming a forceful re-taking.[1] We need to either establish what has happened more definitively or choose our words very carefully in any blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bahrain GP
Nominator's comments: This has been getting quite a lot of ongoing coverage here in the UK at least. Article very well developed considering it is nominally covering something that hasn't happened yet. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- wait to see if anything happens, the race is on Sunday..incidentally when and if posted then the link to the protests aticle should be bolded tooLihaas (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but its intl stature is massive. Its akin to Prt Said in EgyptLihaas (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A plane crashes in Pakistan with 127 people on-board. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's being bashed into shape as we speak. I wish ES wouldn't create mega-short stubs as soon as something happens. There's no rush to be the first to create an article on an event. It's better to take a bit of time and get some structure into the article before posting it. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the stub is in a half-decent state, worst airline disaster of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deadly aviation incident, plenty of sources available to expand the article. Mar4d (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious support. Major airline disaster. __meco (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: 127 dead is certainly notable - 220 of Borg 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This one seems to be one of the deadliest plane crashes in recent times. It should be posted as soon as possible, while the news is still at its peak importance in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - With news of almost 120 passengers killed, it is one of the significant aircrash of last few years. The blurb should be posted ASAP. Amartyabag TALK2ME 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marking as ready, subject to review by an admin who has not been heavily involved in editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was about to mark this ready myself when I saw Mjroots had got in before me. Article looks in good shape for a current event. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Posting. SpencerT♦C 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube
Soviet King : Talk or Yell 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Nothing has really changed for YouTube as a result of this story. They've always been under pressure to hunt down copyrighted content; this is just a civil suit.--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - As WaltCip, it's a small blip but nothing (yet) significant doktorb wordsdeeds 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Decision by low-level district court, basically zero impact (even in Germany). --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Merely a procedural incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This doesn't seem that significant, nor does it appear to be definitive. __meco (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Permanent significance for Youtube in Germany. All uploaded videos are now filtered for possible copyright infringements. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Interesting development and significant in Germany. This news item has implications extending beyond that country. Jusdafax 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer This could mean anything from that the YouTube is altogether blocked in Germany to that the YouTube has to pre-approve all content from/to Germany. But there are still appeals to exhaust, so let's wait until then. If YouTube is eventually blocked in a Western democracy, it would be rather noteworthy. --hydrox (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please thats clear POV. Brazil, India and SOuth Africa ar enot western but highly transparent democracries and freedoms. At any rate, this is all part of a govt-crackdown (in actual democracies") the world over. SOPA/PIA, wider european nanti piracy measures, India had a court case recently, googles new policies will allow state-ordained censorship. Nothing stands out.Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 19, 2012 (2012-04-19) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Science
Sport
[Posted] Agni V test launch
Nominator's comments: Test launch of a nuke capable ICBM. Only 6th country (7 if you count Israel) to do so. Significant development in terms of regional military balance. The article is yet to be updated properly - can be populated as and when details of the launch are released by DRDO (The launch happened less than an hour ago). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting. The update looks good. --Tone 06:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whil i would obvious support with 2 voted in 2 1/2 hours is hardly any consensus yet. N need to be [selectively] trigger happy on postings.Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its quite an adequate consensus; such a development is of utmost importance, and the article is well done. I don't understand why you keep insisting on waiting for days before posting. There is something called "stale news". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree that this was surprisingly fast. Only two votes were even taken, and while it's certainly noteworthy I don't know of "utmost importance" is quite accurate. I don't think 2 hours and 2 votes is consensus for something on the front page. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the event is something of a rarity among countries (only 7 countries have been able to do this) then yes, the event is most certainly of "utmost importance". See the article please, and notice the international repercussions the launch has had a few hours after a successful launch. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- so where does he line be drawn? Its rather arbitrary to decide whats of "utmost importance{" t to one.Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The line is drawn at WP:NOTBURO. We aren't in the business of drawing lines. If you have reason to believe this shouldn't have been posted on the content of the article, or because it received insignificant news coverage, then show us that. But if your only objection is that this happened too fast for your comfort, without any substantive objection, don't expect anyone to care much about your objection... --Jayron32 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you can look at this item as having four supports when it got posted (nomination, two comments, and my support as I posted it). And the update is decent. Doesn't seem any premature, especially as there is still no opposition whatsoever. --Tone 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 4? I see three supports incl. the nom...still was all done without much discussion in about 2 1/2 hours?
- ahng on a minute: admin support because it was posted? Admins are not supposed to post what they support, that is not the role of an admni..Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I had forgotten to write Support in my first comment. My mistake. Pardon me please. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record I'd like to praise Tone for the speed of posting. The article was in good shape, no argument against posting had been put forward, and crucially, he or she made the judgement that a convincing argument against the importance of a nuclear test was unlikely to be put forward. Collectively, we claim to be about being bold and judging things on strength of reasoning. We also claim not to be a bureaucracy or democracy. This posting showed that, at the very least occasionally, Wikipedia can be what it strives to be. —WFC— 19:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the first time; Lihaas has very often tried to stall the posting of news on the same reason of "too fast" or"too little consensus" despite the importance of the news. I don't think Lihaas as yet understands that news is not meant to be kept for days in the refrigerator. Other users have also commented on Lihaas' insistence on certain matters. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First comment on content not editors NPA is blatantly uncivil.
- Secondly what is "very often" the fact that people dont get to adjuge or have input...if you bother to READ what i said, i too supported it. I too comment about the red tag.Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to point out, but commenting on editors does not make the comment a personal attack automatically. Second, I have not personally attacked you in any way, only pointed out that your behavior is not conducive for the ITN section. And yes, I did read your support. Follow WP:AGF as well. All opposition to you is not necessarily a personal attack. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's enough, Ankitbhatt. You're reminded you were unblocked on grounds of civility mentorship, and it's best if you didn't even think of commenting about other editors. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 18, 2012 (2012-04-18) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Sport
First Solar
Nominator's comments: Not only is this a minority topic and a major event for an industry leader, but it comes amidst a U.S. investigation as to whether or not China is infiltrating the American solar industry. --—Bzweebl— talk 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[(Re-)Posted] Dick Clark
--HotHat (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose.: ITN is not a memorial page and I can see virtually nothing sugnificant or unusual in his death, at old age.
He wasn't a well known figure outside the US and his death is unlikley to have international impact. (sorry for any spelling mistakes, on Tablet PC ¥_¥)--Τασουλα (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: per rationale given by Tasoula. --RJFF (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Who? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In agreement with the other editors in this section. I do not believe this person has the notability to be included on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Unknown.--WaltCip (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Made the front page of The Guardian, Vancouver Sun Toronto Sun, and the Montreal Gazette websites. Truthsort (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unknown? He was one of the most influential pioneers in the history of popular music. Comparable to Ed Sullivan. Secret account 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard of the guy before (from watching Friends), so I agree he's not unknown, but he had nowhere near the impact/importance of Ed Sullivan. Jenks24 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Secret. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support host of American Bandstand, helped careers of multiple musicians from across the world. Definitely comparable to Ed Sullivan Show. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 22:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support American icon. W. Stephen Lush 23:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlush2 (talk • contribs)
- Oppose- Our main death criteria is international impact. His death did not have any impact on the world asides from making people sad. That is not significant. —Bzweebl— talk 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure on the international impact of Wisława Szymborska, Rauf Denktaş, Václav Havel or Christopher Hitchens. They represent all the non ITN/R deaths posted to ITN since December. Oh, and they were all European (yeah ok you can argue Cyprus either way). *shrugs* --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hitchens was English-American, and only really prominent in America, but hey. GRAPPLE X 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're really doubting the international impact of Havel, I'd strongly urge to you read his article. Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: He has a massive chain of media organizations. For example, on New Years' Eve, it's Dick Clark that hosts the ball drop in NYC (just an example). Many TV shows are from "Dick Clark Productions". How in the world can you not know who this is? Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 94% of the world population lives outside the country where his New Year activities are of any cultural relevance and that production company broadcasts most of its output, possibly. An extraordinarily insular comment. Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's unreasonable to assert that everyone should be familiar with Dick Clark. Whenaxis's message probably is an emotional overreaction to the equally unreasonable assertion that Clark was "unknown". I certainly had to temper my response to that. (Please understand that we're discussing an American entertainment icon.) —David Levy 06:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a rebuttal as strong as the first argument that people had no idea who he was. "I don't know who he is", is not a valid reason. However, I provided reasons for why he is notable. And no, the New Year's celebrations are broadcasted worldwide. I'm sure the ball drop is internationally renown. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think "I don't know who he is" is invalid, surely you must agree that "How [...] can you not know who this is?" is an equally poor argument. Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I have evidence to support my opinion, at the very least. However, I suppose my rebuttal was just as bad as the first. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But your response amounted to an accusation of wilful ignorance against anyone who happens not to share your cultural history. That is very different from an admission that this individual lies outside one's cultural experience, with the reasonable implication that this will also be true for many others (essentially the response of Strange Passerby and WaltCip). No amount of evidence of his fame within your sphere of experience invalidates the honesty of the admission of others, which you derided as implausible. I stand by my charge of insularism. Part of the problem lies in the proposer (possibly assuming that everyone shares his/her cultural experience) failing to present any rationale as to why they considered this individual to be worthy of posting at ITN, or to explain his importance. Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whenaxis has acknowledged that his/her remark was inappropriate.
- Indeed, the nominator failed to provide an adequate rationale (or any rationale at all). As you know, this is a common occurrence.
- I disagree with your interpretation of Strange Passerby's and WaltCip's messages (especially the latter). It's one thing to convey unfamiliarity with a person (as other users have done) and quite another to assume that said individual is "unknown". That's every bit as insular as Whenaxis's response. ("This person is famous in my culture, so how can anyone not know who he is?" and "I've never heard of this person, so he obviously isn't well known." are two sides of the same coin.) —David Levy 06:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin McE, the same goes for them saying that they are assuming that everyone's cultural background is the same and should not know Dick Clark. I suppose that becoming accustomed to your culture, you assume that people know the same as you do, but obviously not. I'm not here to judge people's competency levels of the real world, I'm only here to provide my opinion. Though saying, "How in the world can you not know who this is?" is my own personal opinion and that people around in my country, Canada, knows who he is, or ought to know who he is, was just my opinion and does not constitute any valid reason for you to scrutinize me for saying so. I don't see you bombarding the others who merely stated their opinion with no valid evidence. There were several misconceptions coming into this argument for those who voted oppose. The nominator had not provided reasons why he is notable. Or the voters providing their opinion, merely didn't take the time to look at the article and see his notability. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral support: a popular media figure and front page news; oppose: limited to no international impact, no surprise an old man dies. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was surprised to see this hadn't already been listed. His role in the development of Rock 'n' Roll and television including such things as MTV can't be overstated. Their importance exists regardless of one's personal value judgements. "Who?" comments are ipso fact expressions of ignorance, which is not a wikipedia criterion. Lack of international impact implies the lack of importance of rock itselfμηδείς (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose. I know who Dick Clark is; but deaths on ITN are generally expected to be of international importance (such as heads of states like the recently-included Václav Havel), or unexpected due to their circumstances (Michael Jackson's murder or Osama bin Laden's assassination, for example). A broadcaster dying at 82 of heart problems isn't quite the same (and no, my opinion would not be any different if this were a European counterpart like Gay Byrne). GRAPPLE X 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Our own American Bandstand page claims that AB inspired other dance shows including Top of the Pops in the UK. This shows the internation influence and importance. Furthermore although he was old, he wasn't known to be in ill health so his death is still rather sudden and unexpected. If we can agree that Rock and Roll has cultural significance worldwide (and I hope we can), then Dick Clark, one of the first to mass market RNR in turn would have to be as well, wouldn't he? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm a Brit, and anyone who is interested in music of my generation knows who Dick Clark is (hence international influence); definitely worth a mention here.
Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm beginning to think this site is controlled by a bunch of 20-something beatnicks typing in their parents' basement when I hear "who" comments above. The man's career spans several decades. It appears the vapor-grade entertainment prevalent for the past 20 or so years (which no one remembers a year or so past peak) gets more attention on this site. Don't forget the "because he's American" penalty points either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.63.71 (talk • contribs)
- Support. Excuse me if I'm being a bit ageist but I bet quite a few of the opposers are younger. If you were born in 1950 and you were from just about anywhere in the world and were wordly, you'd know exactly who Dick Clark was. What I am really saying is, you're just wrong but you don't know it. My American kids might say "who?" also. Just a random example.--108.54.27.24 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." You are making claims about other editors !vote reasoning without any evidence to back it up. —Bzweebl— talk 02:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be so ridiculous. He's pointing out that comments such as "Who?" above are made by people who aren't familiar with how important this person was at a certain point in time, and hence should be ignored - and he's quite correct. Black Kite (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but he's claiming that these people aren't familiar with how important he was at a certain point in time because of an age bias, for which he has no proof. —Bzweebl— talk 02:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I opposed in full knowledge of who the man is, having already mentioned as much, and fall well within the age range being accused of ignorance. I think anyone, regardless of their age, is capable of making a judgement call on these things when they're already using a resource which makes finding the man's achievements available in a few clicks, but what do I know, I'm only 23. GRAPPLE X 02:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Black Kite. Bzweebl, let me put it a different way. Do you know who Christina Aguilera is? Do you think that most people all over the world do? Do you think that in 40 years those people who know her today will still know who she is? Do you think it unlikely that their children will not and would say "who?" and think she's just an American star? I hope the answer to these rhetorical questions is obvious and my point comes through, though the choice of comparison is not perfectly situated, i.e., Dick Clark while just as famous across the world in his time was a dynamic figure within multiple industries. If you feel like taking me to the woodshed for this comment, as apparently you did for my last, remember that I have socks older than you (or so I surmise).--108.54.27.24 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'm sorry if I offended you. Second, earlier I was just trying to remind you of the policy of the top of the page because I felt like you were violating it, and I'm sorry that somehow it ended up becoming a debate. It is no longer important at this point whether your arguments are valid, because I was not trying to dispute their validity, just keep you from making assumptions about other editors. I apologize that it turned into an argument; I didn't mean to "take you to the woodshed for your comment." —Bzweebl— talk 03:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We posted Leslie Nielsen and Peter Falk deaths and almost posted Harmon Killebrew not that long ago, and their impact is nowhere near Clark. Clark along with Ed Sullivan transformed popular music by introducing early rock and roll, R&B acts and so forth to their nationally televised television shows. He always been one of the biggest career boosters in music, getting Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Janis Joplin to popular mainstream among others. He helped integrate it by using black artists performing their original songs back in the 50s instead of using white artists, is an example of his impact. He just never jumpstarted The Beatles or The Rolling Stones careers unlike Sullivan, I read that Clark passed on The Rolling Stones, that's what preventing near unanimous support. We posted celebrities that made an iconic impact to culture despite old age and this is no different, and in fact much more deserving. Secret account 03:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I think some of the opposes here would make a lot of sense if they were to say, "I am familiar with the history of Rock 'n' Roll, with the history of popular culture in the 20th Century, with the history of TV Broadcasting, with the popularization of such artists as Chuck Berry, Simon and Garfunkel, Ike & Tina Turner, and Smokey Robinson, with the racial integration of artists and audiences on American television, with the history of game shows, with the history of broadcast New Year's celebrations, with payola scandals, and the like...and I have never heard of Dick Clark." That would be a helpful comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (after a significant article update occurs). Death criterion 3 isn't the relevant one; criterion 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.") is. Dick Clark was an extremely influential and famous person in the fields of music and broadcasting. He's credited with helping to popularize rock and roll (our Dick Clark article quotes Los Angeles Times writer Geoff Boucher as stating that "with the exception of Elvis Presley, Clark was considered by many to be the person most responsible for the bonfire spread of rock and roll across the country in the late 1950s") and to foster racial integration on American television.
He also hosted the most popular New Year's Eve TV program in the U.S. for decades, was among the best known American game show hosts, and produced such broadcasts as the American Music Awards (which he created), the Academy of Country Music Awards and the Golden Globe Awards.
The article has not yet been substantially updated, but numerous notable persons have publicly commented on Clark's death and legacy (so there's plenty of material with which to work).
Opposing the item is one thing, but comments along the lines of "Who?" and "Unknown." are patently ridiculous. —David Levy 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral while i wouldnt support this (As i do for other entertainment biz deaths other than Whitney Houston or Michael Jackson), thre is precedence on lesser known figures in the biz whove been posted.Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you listed as the nominator? --RJFF (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Beats the heck out of me. Seems like the sig on the top copied a template from somethign i nom'd.Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —David Levy 16:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "do not change this"!!! Grumble , grumble...i could have had my cake and eaten it too ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. --RJFF (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a damn sight more notable than Davy Jones. Brit = Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:ITN#Deaths, "the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death". There is just one line. Therefore, the update is not satifactory, notability aside. --RJFF (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can someone make a decision on this, if it is to be posted it would be best to post it today. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 12:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet ready, per RJFF. A deluge of supports won't get it posted if there's only one line about his death. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What more do you need to know? An old man died of a heart attack at age 82. What more detail is required? Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 13:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If he was really significant, there will be various reactions to his death, tributes paid etc. If you can't find anything of this type to add, then he probably wasn't significant enough. Modest Genius talk 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Henryk Górecki#Death for a good example of the sort of content that can be added even in such cases (this was posted on ITN at the time). Modest Genius talk 13:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the article some more. Tributes and reactions to his death have poured in from the music industry, also from the US president, SEN john McCain, Ryan Seacrest ect. Sources are in the section under death in the article. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I initally balked as I thought he was a celebrity mainly good for New Years TV specials and the like; I hadn't known of his history in the formative years of the Rock music industry. I agree saying he's unknown is pretty unfair; he's obviously unknown to a lot of people but that's the case with many celebrities. Bob Dylan is unknown to many people in the world too.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not a complete unknown internationally but ultimately fairly obscure outside of North America. The blurb would need to do a lot more to explain who he is - he doesn't have universal name recognition by a long way. However, my oppose is based primarily on the update: there has been a lot of editing activity to the article in the last 48 hours, but the actual update (as opposed to re-drafting) amounts to three sentences, two of which are reactions as opposed to covering the actual event. I may be moved to reconsider if that is developed in substance - there's clearly a lot of interest in this nom - but right now there simply isn't anything worth highlighting on the main page. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree that the update is insufficient, but nowadays, it's customary to support or oppose based on the event itself (with the assumption that the item won't be posted until the requisite update occurs, regardless of the amount of support received). —David Levy 16:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we have to take a balanced approach and consider the overall merits of the story. Considering the quality of the update is a key thing to consider there - ITN is not intended as a news source but to highlight newly updated content. Restricting discussion simply to notability is putting the cart before the horse. If we didn't consider article and update quality there would be nothing at all to discuss for ITNR noms. This has now had two days, over twenty editors updating the article, and ~180 edits. That is enough shakedown time in my view and the update is still insufficient. If it hasn't happened by now I don't realistically see it changing in the next few days. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm well aware that "ITN is not intended as a news source but to highlight newly updated content" (and probably have explained this more times than anyone else has). As stated above, I agree that the article hasn't been sufficiently updated.
- You appear to have misunderstood my point, which is not that the update's quality shouldn't be discussed/evaluated here. (It absolutely should be.) I'm merely noting that it's no longer customary to "oppose" an item's inclusion on the basis that the article update is insufficient. It's common to note the issue (and express the opinion that an item shouldn't be posted until a better update emerges, as I did above), but the bold "support"/"oppose" comment is understood to refer to a hypothetical scenario in which the requisite update has occurred. (If 100 users unanimously support an item, it still shouldn't go up unless and until the update criteria have been met.) —David Levy 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - not very well known outside America.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this, unfortunately, during that period of time, globalisation was still in its infancy thus the cultural influence of America was still very limited to its own region and extremely close allies such as Australia and Britain. Much of the world did not see or experience the "influential power" of Dick Clark hence many of us perceive him as just another game show host or musician. YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's entirely understandable that many editors outside North America have little or no familiarity with Dick Clark. Likewise, there probably is (or was) an Australian of comparable background and stature with whom I possess little or no familiarity. And if he/she were to die, I would support an ITN item's inclusion. (The same, of course, applies to other countries.) —David Levy 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I'm sure that outside of South America, the oil company YPF is unknown. I have no idea where East Timor is, as I'm sure is the case with much of the Western world. Just because somebody's influence was primarily North American (READ: He is well known beyond just the USA) does not mean that they are suddenly less important than somebody being elected to the head of the world bank (whooo, I'm sure the next time their name will come up anywhere is when they resign!). Dick Clark had a major impact on popular music, not just in America, but in Britain as well. Between the 1950s and 1970s, these two countries dominated 95% of popular music, and so something relevant to one of them has worldwide impact in this subject area. Dick Clark is an icon, not an American nobody. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dominated 95% of popular music in 15% or so of the world's regions? In the 1950s, the Soviet Russia and half of today's Europe were still strongly communist with no signs of weakness, God forbid someone bring America's capitalist media in, China followed suit. A very small percentage of Africa was even connected to the power grid, same can be said for South East Asia where numerous areas were still in war. Before oil dominated the United State's agenda, the Middle East had relatively little Western Influence despite military occupation in several countries there. During this period of time, the only exception where a band actually had worldwide influence is The Beatles. YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confusing popular music and music. Those countries didn't have popular music until very recently. I'd be surprised if many of them even had inspirational musicians that the country as a whole could recognize... And communism prohibits self-expression, so no music for you. Really, in conservative Britain and America, there was a great disdain against popular music like rock-and-roll (the movie Pirate Radio is nice historical recount of this atmosphere). Sex was breaking out into music, and the censors were working overtime. It was people like Dick Clark that brought these musicians to the bedrooms of the media-accessing world, against the wishes of the cultural elites. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clark's contribution to the British music scene can easily be dismissed: the idea that he was a towering figure here is wide of the mark - he's a virtual unknown and what recognition he has is purely in an American context. And this position that Eastern Bloc countries were somehow lacking in the arts is probably more based on ignorance than reality: Andrei Tarkovsky comes to mind immediately as someone who was at the very top of his respective field (film in that case). Or does it not count unless he was churning out mass-market Hollywood dross? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Not at all. But likewise, I don't believe that being a mass-marketed Hollywood drone takes away from one's notability in any way (nor does it add). I don't believe he was a towering figure in Britain or even in Canada, but he was certainly well known and he had an enormous impact (Britain listens to American music too, no?) on popular music. I don't believe Eastern bloc countries had popular music. Few if any had a national chart or authority until the last 20 years. It's not ignorance to know that socialism and communism started by burning artefacts of popular culture - records, books, newspapers, magazines, artwork. Everything! That's how it is pushed onto cultures: by removing the identity of that culture and rewriting history in favour of communism/socialism. Liberal arts and individual opinions were suppressed. This isn't to say that there were none... but certainly very very few. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm a Brit, and my initial reaction was "Who?". But it's clear that he was a very influential figure in his field, and I'd like to see a longer-range view of pop culture reflected here. I'd hope that a similar European figure would also be included in similar circumstances. But please, stop attacking the people who haven't heard of him: his direct influence over here was negligible. It's his wider impact that clinches it for me. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not agree, bu thats certainly sound reasoning and more so when compared to the silly "per X/nom"
- bw- where did my nom go? ;(Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - While he seemed like an influential figure, the name doesn't mean much to me (or my whole generation, likely). If this is posted, please add to the blurb with what he's known for. Mamyles (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is to post, and so I have done so. If someone is able to update the picture, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll do it later when I have a chance to look over the instructions for posting pictures. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine without the picture. We don't have a good recent picture of Dick Clark. -- tariqabjotu 00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- it's in an awful state. there are {{citation needed}} and there is a {{citations missing|date=April 2012}} on top of dick. there are entire sections with no references, example "Pyramid game shows" (three paragraphs), "Theaters" (one paragraph), "Radio programs" (four paragraphs), "Other media appearances" (four paragraphs), "Other television programs" (one reference for nine paragraphs), "Personal life" (one reference for nine paragraphs again). really shouldn't be placed so prominently on the main page of wikipedia in this condition. wouldn't happen with anyone else.
Article has been temporarily pulled due to orange tag - my apologies for not realizing it was an orange tagged when I posted it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is not the correct place to discuss the broader issue, I apologize, but I've become frustrated at the continual debate about posting INT blurbs regarding "famous" peoples deaths and feel I need to pose a question to clarify my understanding of the "guidelines" or to make a point if my understanding is anywhere near correct.
- My understanding of the death criteria is that the person's death must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1.The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.
2.The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.
3.The death has a major international impact that affects current events....
The criteria does not say the person must meet ALL of them nor is any special emphasis placed on number three "international impact".
So why then is the international impact of the person the seemingly most important factor in most of the discussions about any particular posting?
The criteria would seem, at least to me, that if a person is significantly important in his/her home country and particular field, he/she would then meet two of the three criteria and should be posted irregardless to how he/she meets criteria three.
Am I missing an overriding criterium or discussion that has superceded the posted three Death Criteria? If so, we really should change the posted criteria. If not, than the overwhelming focus on international impact really should be curtailed and not permitted to veto a nomination.
Again, I apoligize if this is not the correct area to address this broader issue, perhaps the ITN Talk page would be better; but since the issue has arisen again in such force I was moved to ask. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the debate is about his international impact on the field. Nowhere in the criterion does it say the "in his/her home country," as you mentioned. His impact on the field cannot be limited by geography because then they are not "widely regarded" as an important figure. I hope that helps. —Bzweebl— talk 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't this part of criteria one, significant contribution/impact on the country/region, imply his/her home country? What other country/region would we be talking about other than that person's home country?? Furthermore the "international aspect is specifically mentioned in criteria three, so wouldn't it be redundant if criteria one wasn't about the person's home country? And in addition, the criteria says that only ANY ONE of the three is neccessary; no one should be more important than the others or carry more weight.Rhodesisland (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An update of four sentences is still too slight to justify posting the death of a (notable) person on ITN. ITN is a project to highlight significant updates, not just to publish news that many users consider to be important. I would also like to remind admins that consensus is not the same as majority. --RJFF (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But again the criteria states recognizes the difficulty in defining how much of an update on a page is significant enough of an update and guides that a paragraph should be considered sufficient. By my definition, a paragraph is upwards of four sentences; so shouldn't four or so sentences be enough?Rhodesisland (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment , article has been significantly updated with refs in all sections. Can this be posted again?Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 15:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My two cents is that, all of these problems over these 'controversial' posts would be solved if we were to give way to a 'stickies box' section where we simply post the names of subjects that may be in the news without having to go into details about blurbs and repeated discussions over notability, significance, criteria and such. This would allow obviously notable (but heavily regional) events like the NCAA "March Madness" to appear on the main page and in my view does a great service to our readership, who are looking for articles related to current events of wide interest, while also satisfying on opposing editors who may believe that there is too much 'undue weight' given to certain events. Colipon+(Talk) 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a lot of these problems could be solved if some American editors learnt enough to take a more global view of things. I believed all along that it was right to post this, but some of the "arguments" in favour were so pathetic, and insulting, assuming as they did that everyone all around the world already had the same knowledge of who Dick Clark was as the average American. These editors actually create antagonism among non-Americans, rather than helping the case for posting. I winced when I read some of the support posts here, even though I agreed with posting. Do get a broader perspective, and be willing to present a decent argument to those who have never heard of some all-American hero. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been noted on many occasions, the behavior in question is not confined to Americans. Editors from around the world do the same thing, but you routinely single out Americans for criticism. Even in this thread, it was a Canadian editor who expressed astonishment at others' unfamiliarity with Dick Clark, but you've nonetheless decided to blame Americans. —David Levy 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) As opposed to curt comments like "Who?" and "Unknown"? It seemed like you just took advantage of yet another chance to snipe at how insular Americans are, using your support of this news item as a defense against accusations of further anti-American sentiment. If you want to talk about things particular people said, go for it. But this "if Americans would just" line is tired and insulting, more insulting than assuming that people commenting here would do some cursory research before making a remark that doesn't address its newsworthiness. There are 300 million Americans. Probably ten of them posted here. Not all of them even said the same thing. Comment on what is presented, not on your apparently deep-seated bias against Americans. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quite right to say "Not all of them even said the same thing". That's why I used the word "some". (Sorry if one was a Canadian. He's a dill too.) (Or "She", as the case may be.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Please refrain from name-calling.
2. Who, other than Whenaxis (the aforementioned Canadian) and possibly 108.54.27.24 (whose message focused primarily on editors' age) made comments along those lines? To what "Americans" are you referring?
And why haven't you criticised the editors who assumed that Dick Clark was "unknown" because they hadn't heard of him? Does that reflect a "global view of things"? —David Levy 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. You know exactly what I mean. And I think you are lowering yourself. You are a thoughtful, well-informed poster. You shouldn't be defending those who aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, given that there was clearly no consensus above, under the current system of decision making I would still have to Oppose this, if only on procedural grounds. I also believe that honestly we need a higher standard of scrutiny for 'deaths' in ITN - in my view the only deaths that have really fit the criteria in recent years are Michael Jackson, Osama bin Laden, and Whitney Houston; even Vaclav Havel is debatable. Colipon+(Talk) 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Post Posting Support - An icon has passed, and if some here don't know it, my respectful hope is that they will be big about it and learn from this experience. Of course Dick Clark's abrupt death should be on ITN. Jusdafax 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a pic...Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe File:Dick Clark.jpg should be sufficiently recent and of sufficient quality to use if cropped. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shows up a bit blurry on my screen, but usable. I'd say keep the Grammy in the cropped shot if possible. Jusdafax 19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —David Levy 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great in the thumbnail shot. Thanks to all. Jusdafax 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MalianPM
Nominator's comments: Good opp to list both new leaders + can add "amidt crisis" with links to the coup and/or insurgency pages. --Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Diarra's article has an OR tag, this should be fixed first. Otherwise, support. --Tone 07:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am rather sceptical. This is still part of the ongoing, unstable situation after the coup. This is an interim administration for a forty-days window until elections and the envisaged return to constitutional order. This provisional government still belongs to the aftermath of the coup which we have just featured on ITN three weeks ago. --RJFF (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- I consider this to be unnecessary updating, as these people did not even take power in an election. Just a part of the coup. —Bzweebl— talk 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We post unelected leaders and controversial removals as in hungrian prez.Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 17, 2012 (2012-04-17) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
[Posted] YPF
Nominator's comments: Heating up intl disputes, Agentina also has oil issues with the Falklands that we missed. Also the growing prominence of Latam without external dependencies on the US/Europe (missed summit of the americas) --Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- This has major ramifications in many countries and throughout the world and is one of the biggest business stories we will have for a while, so otherwise we would never be posting minority topics. I hope this nomination doesn't get degraded just because we already have the World Bank up. —Bzweebl— talk 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If posted, please alter the blurb to explain that YPF is an oil company – I has no idea what the acronym might stand for and I think many of our readers would be in a similar position. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. edited blurl "re-nationalized" and "oli company".--Feroang (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready- Our material is getting really old, and no one has opposed this yet so I am marking it ready early in the discussion, although I welcome someone to oppose. —Bzweebl— talk 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting, it seems support is here. --Tone 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- itn tag is not on the talk page...Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to add one, you don't need admin rights for that ;-) --Tone 08:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] World Bank election
Nominator's comments: First non-european descended president and first election with non-American candidates. Also a Biz/econ topic thats been absent from ITN a while --Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with the suggested blurb. It's irrelevant for ITN that there were non-American candidates etc. --Tone 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prob (it is after all my nom and article) but with 1 support? Sudan below is ready tooLihaas (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the ITN tagis not on the the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Gregcaletta (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ? -- Ashish-g55 06:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Promoting a television show should have no place in ITN. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: promotion for a TV show. --RJFF (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOAPBOX, and not being what this part of the site is for. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not disputing here, but I am curious. Why is it that reporting on a new television show is considered "promotion" of that show, but reporting on a new president is not considered "promotion" of that president? When we report on a horse race, are we not "promoting" that horse race, in your sense? And where does the difference lie? Is reporting the existence of something necessarily promoting it? By that definition, we would also be "promoting" an earthquake by reporting it, and everything that we include on ITN would be a "promotion". I'm just curious what you mean by that. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's because a large amount of your proposed blurb is about how big the show is going to be in the future. That kind of speculative material is not suitable for an encyclopedia and is inherently unverifiable. It also reads like (poorly thought-out) promotional material. I also feel that (in general) broadcasters shouldn't be the story themselves; if the programme breaks any big stories in the future, it could be mentioned then. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. My description was highly inadequate. I have updated it further, and here is a fuller explanation:
- Comment. There are three notable events that coincide here. The airing of a new controversial international TV show is perhaps the least notable. A more notable event is that this that the leader of Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. the U.K. and other countries, has given his first interview with the West in over six years. And the third notable event is Nasrallah's announcement "he would act as a mediator in the Syrian conflict" (BBC). Several articles will therefore have to be significantly updated in an event that has been covered on ever major news channel across the world: the Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah articles, the Julian Assange article, and the new article for The World Tomorrow, which will not remain as a "stub-class" article for long. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your predictions for the future of the article to be just as speculative as for the future of the show. And while I dare say the show may be reasonably notable (and thus my AfD for it may well fail), the simple debut of a TV show is not notable. Did we run and ITN for the BBC show Hardtalk? Not as far as I know. This isn't really news as we know it; it's people talking about the news. The frequency of the interviewee's interviews with 'the west' (is Russia the west?) isn't exactly compelling evidence of the show's newsworthiness. If Nasrallah's announcement about acting as a mediator is noteworthy, let's have a story about that separately; but I'm not convinced that it is - there's no evidence that anyone except Nasrallah regards his intervention as interesting or at all likely to succeed. And really, don't delude yourself: this has not happened on 'every major news channel across the world' - this is primarily the work of RT, which can hardly be regarded as a reliable or unbiased source. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by "every major news channel across the world". You must be ignoring the links I posted to BBC, CNN, The Guardian, AFP etc. There have also been articles in the New York Times and, need I repeat myself, every major news channel across the world. Look it up. Gregcaletta (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nasrallah's announcement is the lead aspect of a lot of these stories. If you want to write a separate ITN nomination for that, go for it. I'd still oppose it myself, but I think it has a lot more merit than all this absurd puffery for Julian Assange. Once again: "TV show launched" is fundamentally not real news. A lot of the reporting that is not about Nasrallah is in the 'people' sections of these news outlets: they are reporting on the entertaining behaviour of a narcissistic blond suspected rapist, not proclaiming that this TV show is a major breakthrough in our lives. And repeating a claim does not make it true; does anything in the stories actually support your contention that the launch of the show is itself newsworthy? The burden lies on you to demonstrate this with facts, not wild assertions. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same reaction as Ashishg55. How is this ITN material? —Bzweebl— talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In agreement with the oppose votes above, I find this nomination completely lacking in credibility. We have not promoted a television programme in this way through ITN at any time that I can remember. We certainly have not promoted the launch of a specific person's new career move. It has no credibility as an item of "news". This is a press release, and as such falls in the same category as 'Apple releases new moving picture frame". doktorb wordsdeeds 03:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment thats one giant ass blurb by the way... that alone can take most of ITN -- Ashish-g55 11:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose now if we had cut it to something like this: Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, appears in his first interview with the West in six years, in the first episode of The World Tomorrow. I might support. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] 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.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox.jpg)
