:Support as its the first of its kind/world record and is aso a technological achievement which we dont ge much of. Good to get something other than politics/econ/disaster on ITN.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:Support as its the first of its kind/world record and is aso a technological achievement which we dont ge much of. Good to get something other than politics/econ/disaster on ITN.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Been wondering how that thing had been doing; figured I'd only find out when something tentacled crawled out of its hole. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Support as its the first of its kind/world record and is aso a technological achievement which we dont ge much of. Good to get something other than politics/econ/disaster on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Been wondering how that thing had been doing; figured I'd only find out when something tentacled crawled out of its hole. GRAPPLEX08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Chen is one of China's highest profile dissidents, and his anti-corruption demands posted to YouTube are even bigger news on the heels of the Bo Xilai scandal. Front page of BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc. I was torn on whether or not to include "blind" in the blurb--it's both interesting and gratuitous--but did following the headlines of NYT, AJ, and other sources. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Do we post "notable" public relations challenges to other governments, such as Australia, Canada, the UK, or only those against governments we disapprove of? HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of comparison, if Bradley Manning escaped federal custody, went on the run, posted a YouTube video alleging mistreatment and making a series of demands of Obama, and sought refuge in the Chinese Embassy, I have trouble imagining that that wouldn't make Wikipedia's front page. Khazar2 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is a little difference between Manning and Chen Guangcheng, a little difference between a high-profiled dissident and a whistleblower, and a little difference between challenging a dictatorial regime and a democratic government, and ... you know the difference. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I heard this story on the World Service this morning. It's a curious little thing but I can't say it's got the 'weight' we usually require for the front page doktorbwordsdeeds04:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seven people are killed in Nigeria after a suicide bomber detonates a bomb in his car. The attacks took place in Abuja, at the This Day newspaper offices. (CBS)
Nominator's comments: This could have greater implications than SOPA. CISPA allows Internet service providers to monitor and share private user information with the government. President Obama is promising a veto but the White House is "in a camp all by themselves." --MarcusQwertyus00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until this is passed into law, it is not noteworthy enough. Anything can happen between then and now. Once/if CISPA is passed into law, I would support posting it. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This isn't a particularly large story in the US, and it isn't even likely to become law (there are other proposals). --Orlady (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Son of SOPA, cause of our very own Wiki-blackout. Posting is ITN-worthy for that fact and the radical change this law would introduce to US statutes. House passage is itself notable, as I see it. Jusdafax04:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: notable development in relations and after several bombings of the pipelne. (probs cost the co. too much money) --Lihaas (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A mere blip of a story, nothing that a few hours on a rolling news channel won't fix. Nothing important enough to justify front page prominence doktorbwordsdeeds21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Change in head of government...not to mention under pressure of common changes since the Arab Spring. Instaibility...if Jordan is the next revolution...? --Lihaas (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No gun-shots, no election, no coup d'etat, no clown in a fright wig, nothing. No news here. Just a 'thing'. Nothing to justify front page inclusion. doktorbwordsdeeds21:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Although there was no coup, this was a legitimate and surprising change in power that does not happen often in these circumstances. There most certainly is substantial global news here. —Bzweebl—talk21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support in principle but beyond the need for article updates the blurb doesn't seem to properly reflect the subtleties of the verdict Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - v. significant that a former head of state convicted for war crimes. The blurb should probably contain the words "aiding and abetting", as the court determined that while he aided the crimes he fell short of effective command and control. LukeSurltc12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. I'm not sure the either the Taylor page (which the link in the proposed blurb did not take me to--only a disamibg. page) or the Trial's page are ready (I noted several "citation needed" marks its page) but once its agreed the articles are in good enough shape, then I support. Rhodesisland (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Conditional support The article(s) require clean-ups and updates. This is a highly notable and important story, though, and is being carried by many news companies around the world as the lead or near-lead. doktorbwordsdeeds12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. I've made some corection to the blurb so it no longer refers to "all charges" given that he was cleared on some counts.
However, this is a clear case of a premature nomination being actively disruptive. By nominating before the verdict is known Lihaas assumed that he was guilty on all charges. This turned out not to be correct but people have commented and expressed views based on that premature and factually wrong position. How then are we supposed to read their positions when a factually accurate lesser story is known? Jumping the gun like that does not help a speedy post, it muddies the waters considerably because now we don't know what the views of the first respondents are for the actual story. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The articles say he was found guilty of all. So some corrections are needed here before this can get posted. --Tone14:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about when the nomination was opened, but when I made my comment, 12:04 UTC, the judgement had been reported by several news sources. Is it really necessary to hide all these comments above? LukeSurltc15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be sure what those comments mean, they may still stand, or they may reflect an inaccurate blurb and (as Tone noted) an inaccurate referenced article. There's nothing to stop those editors confirming their position as you have done, but in the absence of explicit clarification we can't read anything in to them since we're not clear as to the intentions. He's been found guilty of aiding and abetting but cleared of direct culpability - that is a distinction the original nomination didn't make and could affect views. Whether it does or not we don't know without clarification. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
First, AGF, read it. Second, comment on content NOT editors. Secodnly, see the nom it assumes nohing and i was watching the verdict beign read. Sorry, but there was NO MISINFORMATION WHATSOEVER.Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Former Liberian President Charles Taylor is unanimously found guilty of "aiding and abetting" all 11 counts of war crimes committed during the Sierra Leone Civil War" (emphasis mine): that is clearly wrong - he was cleared of some charges. AGF concerns a presumption against malicious intent, not against calling a spade a spade when considering the actual effect of an action. You nominated this before it happened and you posted a misleading blurb about it. As a result what should easily have been a clear-cut, up in a matter of hours nomination has been clouded by misinformation. These are matters of record, not assumption. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, no, thats not what AGF is. wheres the malicious intent? rather its the misguided assumption that was against what i posted. See the original posting, it was when the verdict was being read (or rather just as it was about ot start) and it was notable that a head of state had an international trial that came to verdict (Milosevic dint) THe blurb CHANGED over the course of nomination, so get the facts straight before accusing others.
Incidentally if you READ the sources from al jazeera and the SCSL you will clearly see he was convicted of all 11 counts, not the original research closing made earlierLihaas (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never alleged malicious intent, I don't believe that for a minute. Instead I have asserted that by being premature to nominate and introducing factual errors you've create a right mess from a procedural viewpoint. Returning to the matter of substance read the judgement[2], in particular the Summary of Legal Findings starting at paragraph 133. Earlier in the judgement all counts are considered matters of fact, but not in relation to Taylor. For example, paragraph 141: "The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused is individually criminally responsible under Article 6(3) for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute as alleged in the Indictment." Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well its not AGF to say i intoduced factually incorrect information. As said both the al jazeera link on the page and [3] say he was "convicted on all count". And yes i have read it. Paragraph 181 "unanimously finds you guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of the following crimes pursuant" followed by a list and reasons of all 11 counts.
I am not debating this any further. The first edit made in acknowledgement to that was from one of the resident admins here (Tone). He/she didn't have a problem with that and the content was still there for anyone to read, I merely sectioned it off for reasons I explained in detail - namely to avoid those editors being misrepresented. I have attempted to remain civil throughout and point out issues of substance - potential problems of factual accuracy and procedure. Instead of engaging constructively you allege misconduct on my part. I stand by my actions and am withdrawing from this discussion now, I have no wish for yet more allegations when I have acted in good faith throughout. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If you dont want to discuss that fine. Tone's response was to your comment , he didnt say anything about "acknowledgement" of facts. Im being perfectly civil and pointed out your allegations of my misconduct (got ahead and read what you said as closing off the sections and saying i misrepresented in contrast to the sources). At any rate, ive very civilly provided sources to prove what as added.
The said passage was a misreading because taken in light with the final verdict it shows theat Taylor was NOT individually responsbile for the criminal misconduct but that he aided and abetted each of the counts as is what the blurb says that you quoted verbatim. Hope that clears the issues out. Resolved? Itll probably lessen his punishment, id imagine to 10-15 years and remove a few for time served?Lihaas (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but first the cleanup templates in the target article need to be resolved. This verdict is important news as it represents a conclusion to a very long and difficult story that has received international attention over a period of several years. Presumably there will be a decision later regarding his punishment, but the guilty verdict is the main event deserving to be highlighted. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with most other editors - it doesn't happen so often that a former head of state is found guilty of crimes by an international tribunal. Khuft (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crossed out vote given to previous, incorrect and misleading nomination. This new, correct nomination is for a very important, very crucial event and one which I believe has no barrier between it and the front page. doktorbwordsdeeds22:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article needs serious updating, but a Supreme Court finding a Prime Minister to be in contempt is fairly significant because he may have to step down as a result. --PlasmaTwa207:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is notable news, and as reported in various mainstream sources, the court decision can prompt him to step down. Mar4d (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Legislators had already drafted and passed the bill, but there was some speculation if governor Malloy would sign the law, or refer it to a referendum. But he signed the law today, making it official. --hydrox (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current state of world affairs on this subject, I think the most notable occurrence will be when all of the states in the U.S. repeal their death penalty laws.--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Not hugely massive news, but significant enough for me given the current state of the timer. If something else gets posted before this then consider this a weak support. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Better than the Dutch train accident. Also, relevant as it exemplifies a general trend in the US away from support for the death penalty. Khuft (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support About bloody time! In most of the world it's not controversial. That's because they stopped even thinking about state endorsed killing decades ago. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are of the view that it is the "right" decision, does not in itself make it notable. I say this only because you have offered no other reason for your support. That "most of the world" has even stopped thinking about capital punishment is also factually incorrect when 8 out of the 10 most populous countries in the world still practice it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral First, if this goes up, please update and bold Capital_punishment_in_Connecticut. Second, Connecticut is the 29th most populous state (3.5 million), has sentenced a grand total of 11 people to death since 1973, and executed one since 1960. Texas, California, and Florida abolishing capital punishment would be much more substantial. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not believe being the 20-30th state to abolish the death penalty is notable, especially given the size of Connecticut and the frequency of its use in that state (per 98.203). This is a very-regional story with little to no coverage outside of the US, and given several of the users above seem to base their support on the fact that the timer is red I direct them to the item on the Dutch PM, which is ready and certainly more notable than this. --PlasmaTwa220:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually one of the major French newspapers, Le Monde, is featuring the news: [4] But if I had to choose between this and the Dutch PM resignation, I'd choose the resignation. Khuft (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least currently not front page news on any major outlet, but most seem to have published a scoop in the US or Politics section. --hydrox (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment half the section is unsourced...at any rate, de jure extension of de fact o is not noteworthy. When was the ast CT abolition?Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But when was it last used...as mentioned above once sicne 1960. India still has it, but has about 1 execution a decade or so. big news when the last executioner retired ;)Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last used in 2005. I would agree that it was de facto abolished if there was no executions since several decades, but an execution only 6 years ago and 11 people on the death row means it had not been actually abolished. And there might still come executions; those on the death row are not subject to pardon despite the repeal --hydrox (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just another state doing so is not "internationally" noteworthy. So many of the obit notices have to fight to overcome the international criteria (re: Dick Clark and Don Cornelius) that other blurbs should be held to the same standard. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I agree with above positions that this is not noteworthy. No international significance of note, and no major effect on Connecticut itself as 98.203.99.251 mentioned. —Bzweebl—talk02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, this is only one state but the US as a whole is an outlier across the Western world in the continued use of the death penalty which is regarded by many as a human rights abuse, something we typically regard with the utmost gravity. Standards differ, of course, but that does lend international notability. ITN has been very slow of late - only one topic currently on this page is in the template - and this seems the strongest story currently under consideration. As for the target, one line in the Connecticut article seems the appropriate level of coverage and we shouldn't distort the balance of the wider article with this, the more specific articles are obviously better options. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I think it would be more noteworthy when there are no states left that enforce the death penalty, if/when that ever happens (or if any nation as a whole abolishes it). Looking at a worldwide scale, having just one U.S. state abolish the death penalty isn't significant enough, seeing as how it is still practiced in the majority of US states, and in at least 23 other countries in the world. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the context of California's news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17821550), I think it is interesting that another state has made a move on this. Given the nature of the death penalty argument in the US, and its use there compared to other developed Western countries, all developments have a notability of sorts. I think it's worth running with this on the front page because it's relevant, interesting and, for the USA, a notable development along the very long capital punishment debate doktorbwordsdeeds05:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The significance of this is not that the death penalty was abolished in one U.S. state -- it's that it is now abolished in one-third of the 50 U.S. states. In past cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether a particular form of punishment is "cruel and unusual" (and thus barred by the U.S. Constitution), an important factor in the decision was the fraction of U.S. jurisdictions that had abolished the particular form of punishment. Some U.S. states will never independently decide to eliminate capital punishment, but the one-third-of-the-states threshold may prove to be significant in inducing the Supreme Court to do it for them. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is note-worthy and significant any time any state (sovereign or part of a federation) adds or removes the death penalty. --RA (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed comments about the international attention? The non-American Supports aren't really about the law in just one little state. It's about the fact that the US is slowly moving towards the position of the rest of the western world on this major moral issue. To that audience, this is about the whole United States (we hope). HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming this is newsworthy because it is an example of the US's move away from the death penalty could be seen as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I would argue that the abolsihment of the death penalty in California or Texas would be news simply given the prevalance of the death penalty in those states, but saying that a tiny state's decision to get rid of it is notable because it is symbolic of the entire country's movement away from it is absurd, especially when states 8-10 times the population still have the penalty. --PlasmaTwa221:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning to oppose. Why is this globally relevant? If the USA abolished the insane death penalty (or China etc) then yes, run it, but one state of fifty (and I know not all fifty have the death penalty before you all go berserk) has chosen to stop murdering prisoners, is this really of significance to our readers? And, by the way, where is Connecticut? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to ask why it's globally relevant, but to simply note that it is. There have been enough posts demonstrating that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd note that it was globally relevant if I saw evidence of it in my country, and I don't. And I see plenty of other evidence that the ongoing murder of prisoners is prevalent in the US, China, North Korea etc. Once one of those countries abolishes this approach to "justice", that'd be ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the support above seems to be due to approval of a policy that we want to continue, not actual newsworthiness, let alone worldwide impact. ITN is not about, for example, "[exemplifying general trends]". μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Re-nom...after Heglig fighting and HKhartoum declaring SPLM an enemy, now aircraft bombing in South Sudan and salva kir saying Sudan has declared war. Last nom also hasd support nand more than the unilateral decision tariqabjotu made on the recent posting. lurb b could be better Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks notable enough. Besides, if ITN updates get any slower we run the risk of breaking the space-time continuum and end up travelling backwards in time. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable topic generally but I'm not seeing any actual events here above and beyond the skimishes that have now been going on for some time. That it was not posted last time around is no reason to post now in the absence of any event of note. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Losing and takign Heglig? Aircraft ombings? Declarations of war/enemy. Halt to talks in Ethiopia? Its not like there are skyscrapers in Juba to bomb outLihaas (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heglig was the previous nomination which demonstrates the point. Where is the new element for this nomination? All we have as far as I can see is one side claiming that the actions of the other amount to a declaration of war. Let's let them speak for themselves, shall we? Crispmuncher (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sudanese air force were actually reported to have bombed South Sudan inside the recogniesed borders (and by Sudan too)Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Palestine/Israel is an on-going conflict and we rarely nominate that. I can't see this being a front page nomination unless there's a single incident which justifies it. At the moment, it's just simmering and that doesn't make the grade doktorbwordsdeeds17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks definitely more notable than the train accident in the Netherlands, which happened a few days ago and was not so dramatic after all. Khuft (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Continuation of conflict isn't really a news item. IF Sudan actually declares war then there is no question that will go up, but until then it's essentially the same-old, same-old. --PlasmaTwa220:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- I would like something from this conflict to go up at some point, but the thought that an official war might break out may be worth waiting for. —Bzweebl—talk22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian uprising: Three people are injured in a car bombing in central Damascus, blamed by the regime-backed state television on an "armed terrorist group". The opposition say around sixty people were killed nationwide yesterday. (Al Jazeera)
Imprisoned U.S. serviceman Bradley Manning's defence insist his case was mishandled by American prosecutors and must now be thrown out. (Al Jazeera)
Ireland's police watchdog rules that there are no grounds for any criminal case against any of five officers involved in the 31 March 2011 incident known as the “rape tape” controversy, resulting from the inadvertent video recording of a sergeant in a patrol car joking about the rape of two women. (Irish Examiner)(The Journal)
British police arrest five people in the English town of Luton on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. (BBC)
A spokesman for Newt Gingrich announces he will remain in the primary until the convention, despite having been placed behind in opinion polling. (ABC News)
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