*****I agree, the point I was making (and I think that HiLo48 was too) was that it '''is''' possible for apologies to be made on behalf of others. This is an example of such. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
*****I agree, the point I was making (and I think that HiLo48 was too) was that it '''is''' possible for apologies to be made on behalf of others. This is an example of such. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
******Yep [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
******Yep [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Belated oppose''' because of the arguments listed above and that we would cause controversy over whether we should use "apologize" or "apologise" on the main page. — <span name="TortoiseWrath">[[User:TortoiseWrath|<span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE</span>]][[User talk:TortoiseWrath|<span style="color:#600">WRATH</span>]]</span> 03:48, 1 May 2013 (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).
Flash floods leave 16 people dead and 3 others missing in Saudi Arabia, with authorities urging citizens to avoid low-lying wadis. At least two others were killed in neighboring Oman in some of the heaviest rainfall in more than 25 years. (Al Arabiya)
Heavy rain and a whirlwind sweeps over eights districts and towns in Lào Cai Province, northern Vietnam, destroying 52 houses and 2 schools, ripping roofs off of 1600 houses, and damaging crops of local people. (Talkvietnam)
A May Day protest in Seattle, United States, escalates into violence, causing injuries to eight police officers and damage to storefront property. (Seattle Pi)(CNN)
Police in Dhaka clash with factory workers protesting the disaster and advocating for capital punishment to be administered to the factory's owner. (BBC)
An Israeli air strike on Gaza City kills Hitham Maskhal, a well known Palestinian militant and injures another in the first such attack since the November ceasefire. Both suspected Palestinian militants were part of the militant group which fired rockets at the southern Israeli city of Eilat two weeks ago. (BBC)
Tentative support. The article is a GA, a pleasant surprise when I saw it. But the update is somehow scattered all over the article. Maybe some reorganization would be in place? --Tone15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a major development in subject of a GA and environmentalist legislation and lots of other things and this is just generally good for ITN and did I mention Support? (Ugh, caffeine.) — TORTOISEWRATH03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: 4-6 billion USD lost, biggest ponzi scam in India, 4 committed suicide, political nexus, daily street protests, blanket media coverage in Eastern India, wide coverage in India, described by one observer as 'The entire Dakshin Barasat [one of the worst affected region] today looks like it was hit by a cyclone. Every home has a bankrupt depositor or a fugitive agent. People who were friends have turned enemies. Happy households have become miserable' it perhaps echoes Alexander Popes quote on stock bubbles 'churches sink as generally as banks in Europe'. In my opinion merits a mention in ITN. LegalEagle (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: I was going to suggest it too! The article does not mention the number of affected people. If that can be included, the blurb will be more interesting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nature of a ponzi scheme is such that the amount "lost" was really transferred into other people's hands (i.e. those who got in earlier & the scam artists). As such, I really would prefer a blurb that doesn't make a claim about amount lost. Perhaps something like:
ALT: The largest ponzi scheme in the history of Indian collapses as Saradha Group founders are arrested.
Also the article suggests the scheme has collapsed entirely by 18 April and the Sudipto Sen was arrest on 23 April, so unless I am missing something this story is already stale news.
Finally, on a quick galnce the article appears to contain a lot of personal opinions and speculation, which is a form of POV pushing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the scheme had started to unravel from 18th, but as with most financial scam, the extent of the loss was not fully understood for some time, in this case on or around 26th. Therefore in my opinion it is not yet stale news. As for the POV, I am sure we can chuck out material which is not supported by reputed sources.LegalEagle (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event and strong article. One small point, if we are going to refer to suicide victims by name (which I don't think is absolutely necessary), we need a specific reference, by name, for each victim. Ascribing suicides to a particular singular cause is often problematic, so I would suggest replacing Saradha Group financial scandal#Suicides by victims of the scam with short, non-specific prose. LukeSurltc07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as to when one would actually date this story, it's somewhat arbirary unless we pick a blurb that focussess on a partuclar development. Probably April 23, the arrest of the main culprit, would be a suitable marker. LukeSurltc10:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, major financial news which is only slightly smaller than the Bernard Madoff scheme. However I agree that there's a concern over the date. It's not clear from the article what exactly has happened in the last week. Modest Geniustalk11:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction section deals with what happened in last week. Happy to update any more info if you would raise any specific concern. I think that the crisis is an ongoing one and would be difficult to peg a date for it. LegalEagle (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The oldest item on the template is currently from 24 April, and they're listed in chronological order. So if there isn't an event with a date more recent than that, this is too old. Modest Geniustalk19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a suitable blurb, especially focusing on the arrest of Sudipto Sen should be used. Further, a proper copyedit need to be done before putting it on main page. AmartyabagTALK2ME13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we can justify a date in the past week, this story would pre-date the 2013 Dhaka building collapse. Thus, even if "posted", it would be too old to go on the template, thus this discussion would be moot. It's a shame as the article is quite good. LukeSurltc16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) started its investigation in state of Assam yesterday, the WB assembly passed a law to investigate and prosecute ponzi fund promoters.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Right above this the instructions say: 'Please do not... add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.' So well done, when midnight arrives the bot will break and do something stupid. Delete this section and wait until the day when the event actually happens before nominating. Modest Geniustalk21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is ITNR (the succession of a head of state "where head of state is not an elected position") and a very noteworthy event for The Netherlands. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITN/R, with something like the alt blurb. Perhaps, if it desired to make it a bit shorter, "Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands on the abdication of his mother Beatrix." In other royal successions, we usually mention the death - and since most new monarchs succeed through death rather than abdication, if we don't mention the abdication people might think that Queen Beatrix has died. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Willem-Alexander is now King and his article has been moved. The articles are in the process of being updated. thayts t 08:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I prefer the phrasing "Willem-Alexander acccedes to the throne of the Netherlands". If your a monarch you accede you don't just become one. --Andrew12:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I'll go with the first blurb for the time being, we can modify later. Also, someone upload the photo, please. --Tone12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think too that the circumstances in which he became king are relevant too. This isn't an ordinary, "the queen is dead, long live the king!" thing its the result of an abdication, which is noteable. I know we covered it when it was announced but it's relevant again now. Strange how two people have renounced their thrones this year; hope Lizzy don't follow suit --Andrew16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: No idea if this is going to get posted, but I figured it was worth a shot. Landmark event in sports worldwide, not just in the U.S. Major milestone for gay rights, and could possibly pave the way for other athletes worldwide to follow suit, as the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL are highly influential in not only sports, but society and culture around the world. Similar to past achievements such as that of Jackie Robinson and Billie Jean King in sport. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question (and I think this sort of thing is good and should be posted, by the way), you say "active" player in the "four major NA sports leagues", that's not really clear to me as a non-North American. And who else came out from those leagues, and when? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In other words, he is the only player who is actively participating in either the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL to openly come out as gay. Others have either kept it to themselves or close family/friends while playing, or have announced it long into retirement, for fear that it would have a negative effect on their professional careers (for example, teams avoiding signing them because they are gay, out of discrimination), or their livelihood (other players discriminating against them, public discrimination and ridicule). I don't believe that there is any kind of list to my knowledge of athletes who have come out as gay post-retirement because of these same reasons, but likely we will likely see some names in news articles of athletes who have either advocated for gay rights (such as Brendon Ayanbadejo) or who have came out following their retirement. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on this subject on TSN, John Amaechi (NBA), Esera Tuaolo (NFL) and Billy Bean (MLB) have all come out post-retirement. Also, there have been a few retired MLS players who came out recently, as well as several WNBA players. --PlasmaTwa217:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the "four major sports leagues" is that this is the first time an active player in a team sport has come out, at least in North America. There's been all sorts of consternation about how players would not like having to share a locker room with a gay teammate. A handful of players have come out after retirement (Billy Bean is the first that comes to mind, also John Amaechi) but not while active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more the "four major NA sports leagues", that doesn't actually seem to include Canada in the link, I'm just a little uncertain the current blurb phrasing is spot on (nor accessible to everyone across the globe...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Muboshgu, please watch out when replying. You erased my comment when you posted) Oppose because this really is an American-centric item. That gets thrown around a lot, but Collins is not the first athlete to come out as gay while competing. There have been several notable athletes worldwide who have come out while playing - Gareth Thomas specifically comes to mind - so I don't see why weight should be given specifically to a player because he is the first in North America. --PlasmaTwa217:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct in that he is not the first to do so worldwide, the four major North American sports leagues arguably have a far more global reach and impact (in both sport and culture/society) than the Welsh Rugby Union for example. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. This article is a trainwreck, it would be better if we could find some other milestone than relate it to some arbitrary "top four leagues in North America" concept. In other words, if he was the first ever active NBA player to come out, then I'd definitely vote support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is the first ever active NBA player to come out.
Since he is the first active player in one of North America's big four leagues to come out, then he is by definition the first active NBA player to do so. As to that trainwreck of an article, it must be noted that the concept of "big four" is itself arbitrary as it limits to the top level league of NA's four most popular sports. But from a pure American perspective, NASCAR and perhaps even MLS might be ahead of the NHL. Resolute18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept of a big four in most other places. THat's why I'm hoping we can refine the blurb. I'd opt for keeping it specific to the NBA, at least that way some of the global audience here will understand it. The "big four" thing is entirely arbitrary and therefore has no place here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "big four" concept is key from a North American perspective, but I see your point. FWIW, the BBC has him posted on their main page, noting he was the first from "one of North America's major leagues", which might be sufficient. Resolute18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the page is a complete disaster for newcomers, I couldn't really determine why the "big four" were called as such, this isn't North American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia so we have billions of readers from outside North America, many more than from inside North America, so let's be accurate and "to the point" here. Stick with NBA, avoid this arbitrary "big four" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Figuring out how to word the blurb notwithstanding, Support. While a NA-centric event, it is still on the front page of the BBC, CBC, American outlets, and is currently the the top trending story on Twitter worldwide. Resolute18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But my BBC version says "the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so." so doesn't include Canada at all. We need to fix the blurb before we give it major support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It's even ridiculous to me that someone was so bold to nominate such thing for the main page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to document every scandalous and embarrassing story that originates anywhere in the world and gets importance because the readers feel it's entertaining. Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world? Specifically, what is the impact on the LGBT movement? What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it? I'm pretty sure that you cannot provide suitable answers on these questions. Even a simple LGBT parade would make more impact than this one. He's not the first one and not the last who does it in the world. More important people are LGBT and were first in their fields as such, but we didn't post each of them even if they were more important than Collins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the news is celebrating this as being a groundbreaking barrier that will allow other gay team sport athletes to come out. CNN called it "he biggest move of his career and it's off the court."[1]. Former US President Bill Clinton supported the announcement, sponsor Nike said "We are a company committed to diversity and inclusion."[2]—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world?"
Good question. I dunno the answer. I was busy researching on how Man Utd's title made an impact to people in Somalia. Is this in the ITN criteria?
"What is the impact on the LGBT movement?"
Probably more than an gay pride parade?
"What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it?"
I think you are underestimating the amount of idol worship that sports generates, and the impact of having someone come out - even a journeyman at the end of his career - can have on others. Agency France Presse is calling this a "landmark moment", and here would be the response from the White House and a former US president. Resolute19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril, this is neither "scandalous" nor an "embarrassing story", at least not in the modern world. Perhaps you need to reassess what is considered the norm these days before reacting in such an embarrassing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's a gay, so what? It's nothing else than his own choice. I really don't like it but it's not up to me to say what is good or bad for someone else. Why to discriminate people in this manner? Or you think that we should simply solidarise with those living in a society like the one in the United States?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable because so few (a disproportionate amount of) professional sportspeople actively come out. Particularly in butch sports in butch leagues. This is "in the news" remember, not "what Kiril or TRM or whoever else likes to see". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as groundbreaking with strong reactions "Jason Collins has forever changed the face of sports," by Human Rights Campaign, Clinton, Obama, and so forth all reacting to the news. Not your ordinary tabloid story, but like the media said, as groundbreaking as Jackie Robinson statement. Secretaccount19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the support here for the actual news, I'd just like to make sure we do this properly and post a decent blurb that English-speaking people can get the most of. The "big four" thing concerns me as I've followed a tiny bit of NFL and NBA and never heard it before, so it would be better, in my mind, to make this blurb tighter and thus more effective. Let's not try to overblow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be foolish to restrict the blurb to the NBA. There has been plenty of discussion in the North American sports press about the absence of declared gay players in the major men's professional team sports. That's restated in numerous press accounts on Collins' announcement: Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, Reuters. IMO, the terminology should be "major men's professional team sports in North America". --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to avoid this pseudo "big four" element. Suggest you revise the blurb Orlady, if you'd be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support groundbreaking announcement. Claims that it has zero impact on the world as a whole are both wrong (as demonstrated by the reaction) and irrelevant (most stories we post have very little impact outside of their immediate area). If it is more clear to just say NBA, that is fine by me, as long is it is understood we won't be posting the first NFL player, first MLBer, etc. when they occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports. In addition to BBC, news.com.au in Australia calls it "landmark for US sports".[3]—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but in the spirit of Wikipedia I'll accept every decision that will be made by the majority here. It will be really funny to see a blurb saying that a person is a gay on the main page of an encyclopedia. Some people clearly have an agenda to make Wikipedia a prominent place to promote discrimination of any sort. Lol.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a major milestone of societal change, including the "major sports" language I suggested in my comment above (which I finally posted after about 8 edit conflicts!). --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally and an NBA fan, along with the (more relevant to this nomination) fact that this is a landmark, and currently a hot topic on the BBC (Oh yes, THANK you for opening comments on this one BBC). --85.210.102.96 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Support, but I think that do the issues raised with how to characterize what he's first in, it'd be best to say ... in the "Big Four" North American sports leagues ... The linked article addresses non-Big-Four leagues as well, including several that have openly gay athletes. As to arguments about the notability of a coming-out... it's on the front page of the New York Times website right now; it's clearly a major news story, whether we like it or not. (If anyone would like me to give them my little rant about the speciousness of the "who cares who you sleep with?" notion, they can stop by my talk page... but that's a matter of my personal beliefs, independent from assessment that this is an objectively newsworthy event.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, for what it's worth, I think the "Big Four" modification would work better on the second blurb than the first.... I also generally prefer the second, as it's more succinct, and I don't like how the first one links to his article twice. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pink&, just wanted to reiterate that this "big four" thing isn't something most people outside the US will get. I'd like to hope we could find a suitable blurb that people outside North America could appreciate, especially with such prominent news? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well doesn't the wikilink solve that, TRM? I mean, saying "a major (North) American sports league" is vague and leaves people wondering how we're defining "major", and just mentioning the N.B.A. seems like an understatement... we should mention the broadest way in which it's first, not a more narrow one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest major American team sport i.e. [[Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada|major American team sport]]. "Major American team sport" is multiply sourced and not some WP:OR, and the linked article, though in need of work, is the best we have unless some sources about Collins go into more detail about "major".—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to use wikilinked articles on the mainpage but this one linking to the big four needs substantial work before it should be exposed to the general public. Why can't we just we tighten this up and state the actual facts rather than use these dubious and nebulous terms? (I reiterate, I like the way the BBC have placed it: "Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so"), it's prominent and accurate and not parochial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Times went with the itemization approach—"The announcement makes Collins a pioneer of sorts: the first player in the N.B.A., the N.F.L., the N.H.L. or Major League Baseball to come out while still pursuing his career"[4]. Actually, though, the more I think about it, I guess saying "four major North American sports leagues" makes it clear enough. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So what? Whilst the lack of openly-gay professional sportsmen is regrettable, the whole reason why this is disappointing is that their sexual preferences make no difference whatsoever to their sporting notability. 'Sportsman announces utterly irrelevant fact about their personal life' is not a story. Modest Geniustalk21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason they run the winners of reality TV programmes and celebrity gossip columns. ITN has higher standards of encyclopaedic content in its stories. Modest Geniustalk22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on higher standards, which is why sources that identify its historical context were identified and discussed. It is why the American story is listed on the front page of http://www.bbc.co.uk/ under "News", not "Sports news".—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC tailors its pages based on IP geolocation. It's not on that page at all for me. Besides, even if it was it wouldn't change my opinion. Modest Geniustalk23:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is highly significant. Openly gay male professional athletes are extremely rare in the world's popular sports leagues. I support the first blurb--this is notable precisely because its significance extends beyond the NBA, and in the media everywhere its significance is being discussed in a broad context.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the condition that this be the last sports outing item we ever post--it gets very tired and very ideology-pushing very quick.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are individual sports in which LGBT athletes are more common, again read the news sources and especially the reactions, never in a major American team sport that until recently has been very homophobic. Secretaccount22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This is recentism" is perhaps the most ironic argument ever made at ITN. By definition, everything here is recentism. Resolute14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is the viewpoint that the right now is more important than the past because we are experiencing it ourselves. The weight some are giving this lacks historical perspective. There is no way one could compare the career and importance of Collins to someone like Billie Jean King whose impact was huge, controversial, and truly groundbreaking. (It was in regards to her that as a gay child I first learned what a gay person was, even though she was not officially "out" it was an open secret.) Gay people know there are gay professional athletes. The only impact here will be in a very small minority of American sports fans who maintain the illusion that gay men are sissies who can't play sports. That might be of interest to some of us who didn't already know that's false. But it's totally lacking in historical perspective and it is not of encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is entirely fallacious. This announcement should set a precedent to encourage the other thousands of gay professional sports players to come out. Given that Bill Clinton thought it worthy of his comments, along with contemporary sports stars like Kobe Bryant, it's clear there's an issue here that is being addressed by this. It may only impact "a very small minority of sports fans" in the US (although that's "citation needed" territory) but it's a landmark moment for actual sports athletes, both in the US and globally, who need the encouragement to be themselves in the face of a hostile, third-world-country attitude to most male sportsmen who don't conform to the predictable uber-masculine norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was some earlier concern about the use of "four major North American sports leagues" in the blurb, but it is mentioned by ESPN and Associated Press, whileThe Score in Canada also calls him "only openly gay professional male athlete actively participating in a major North American team sport." Orig blurb is verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's great news, and I'd like to support, but on balance I have to oppose. Other top-level players in major team sports have come out - there's Gareth Thomas in rugby and Steven Davies in cricket, for example - so the only distinguishing feature in this case seems to be that he's the first in the US. But I don't think being the first in a particular country is enough - that could result in lots of postings as such firsts occur in different countries. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:ITN#Updated_content gives a guideline of what should be included in an update. An example of what could get here is some information about how people in and outside of the sports world reacted to this, and why/how they believe his coming out marked/marks a milestone. -- tariqabjotu04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am a vocal supporter of human rights, but I'm not sure if this type of news should be lauded as an "achievement". I think this nomination (and the media) is going about it the wrong way. The focus should not be about "look at how many homosexuals are present in this or that sports league", but rather about how accepting that group is of all people. You could liken it to using the word "feminism" instead of "gender equality"; one is highlighting the divisive nature of the subject, while the other is much more productive in its delivery. It's a subtle difference which may or may not justify opposing this particular nomination, but it's a difference that should be taken seriously. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's no way that a bench-player free agent coming out is more important than NCAA championships for equivalent sports, which were not posted. Furthermore, if we're looking to post minorities in major sports, why didn't we post Jeremy Lin, as the first Asian-American basketball player, who was similarly a "first X player" and had a much greater impact for his team? Because that really wasn't notable either; rather, the media frenzy was immense. SpencerT♦C06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this didn't turn out to be an immense media event... and Wataru Misaka is the first Asian-American in the NBA. Probably the MLB had someone earlier. –HTD06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. It seems everyone has forgotten about Martina Navratilova, who "came out of the closet", when Collins was only TWO years old. There's just nothing new here. Whatever "barrier" he seems to be breaking had only been recreated out of people's forgetfulness. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a personal matter of a single human being, that happens to be tabloid news. Yet it is totally irrelevant for the rest of the world. --bender235 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's why a former and current POTUS have commented on it, as well as people around the world in and out of sports. In the future such an issue might be "a personal matter", but this first person to do so isn't. As long as homosexuality is a death penalty offense in a few places, and second-class elsewhere, this is not "irrelevant for the rest of the world". Navratilova didn't play a team sport, which has different dynamics than an individual sport. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The day the opening piece on the CBS Evening News is legitimately "tabloid news", I'll throw away my television. "Tabloid news" would be "SCANDALOUS photos discovered of a certain NBA center long thought to be a confirmed bachelor". Collins described himself as "starting the conversation", so I think it's safe to say he knew this wouldn't be a "personal matter of a single human being".
Also, as others have pointed out here, the issue of global relevance is neither meaningful (the fuck do I care about the Icelandic parliamentary elections?) nor accurate (there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who aim to play major-league sports someday, and presumably a representative portion of them are LGBT). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ready as the number of opposes supported with pretty strong arguments has rapidly increased. We should halt the nomination and wait for additional users to comment on it. It also doesn't make sense the nominator to mark his proposed nomination as ready. Please let any other user to do it instead of you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're in a poition now where it would be good if an admin could close one way or the other. No need to unnecessarily extend the discussion. --LukeSurltc15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I closed the discussion as "no consensus" at this point but my edit has been reverted (not particularly happy that the direct reason has not been given!). Here, I point to the fact that the same-sex marriages in NZ and France (also LGBT-related stories) have not been posted due to a lack of consensus, despite receiving a significant media coverage (France probably more than this particular case, in worldwide scope). --Tone16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This wasn't a flash in the pan, and is still the lead story on CNN today. The article update is good. --IP98 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to ready Article updated with text from Christian Science Monitor about Collins and interest in major league sports likely driving the trend of gay right in the US. Coupled with aforementioned support by presidents and major multinational Nike, the impact is clear, especially in light of the usual caveat to not "complain about an event only relating to a single country". Use altblurb.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming here to mention that CSM article. There's a reason why we're still talking about this in 2013: gay rights aren't as far along as some of us would like to think. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even for those crying "agenda pushing", this is the majority view in the media. Ignoring what is prevalent in the media is pushing a personal agenda to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If we were going to go there, can we please stop with the obsession of multiple people dying in one accident/massacre.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm all for LGBT rights, but the kind of progress we should be considering "news" is the kind that happens on a national level (like the recent French, New Zealand and Irish legal changes), not the personal life of one semi-obscure sportsman. It's the kind of small gossip-column news that seems more like clutching at straws than genuine forward progress. GRAPPLEX17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gossip. He wrote an article in a national magazine and came out. Since he is a "nobody", it must be a big deal if the rest of the non-sports world actually cares. Again, American Brittney Griner, college national women's player of the year and first overall pick by the WNBA didnt get this type of coverage when she came out only a few weeks ago. Sure, it is a statement on society's obsession with the big 4 leagues, and bias over gay team sport athletes vs lesbians or non-team sports, but it is a reflection for better or worse of the press' interest, not some other agenda or WP obsession with gossip.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's gossip because we're attempting to pass off a person's personal life as news, not because it's considered speculative or unfounded. Like I already said, to consider one person's personal life as something front page-worthy, especially when we still haven't posted national news stories about gay rights legislation affecting thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people, is petty and small. GRAPPLEX18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about news stories about gay rights legislation is probably correct (though I'm not an ITN regular). However, for all that some look down on sports, something like sports and Magic Johnson announcing he had HIV or perhaps this about Collins can have just as much impact. I do agree that encyclopedias should be discerning relative to the usual celebrity gossip regarding dating, debauchery , adultery, etc, but I advise to not downplay sports' crossover impact on the "real world". It also wouldn't seem right to penalize this news item for mistakes in omitting others in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An American basketball player declares he is gay. Fail to see how either it is 'landmark' or 'significant'. ITN is not Sun.LegalEagle (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, no justification yet as to why this event is more important than all the gay sports people elsewhere in the world who have come out. The particular sport is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I think the sport is relevant. A gay snooker player isn't going to encounter homophobic chants. A gay rugby player would certainly face homophobia in the midst of the game but probably not from the crowd in general. A gay footballer or basketball player (how many of these are there? Globally?) will face all manner of prejudice. This is an example of a person who has come out in a sport which is global, in a sport where no other gay man has come out, has been recognised for his open-ness by former US presidents, has nearly 10k news reports (that's reports, not hits, reports) on Google. This is most certainly "in the news". The particular sport is one which has a global, hence the bravery of one man is justifiably being acknowledged as a landmark event. The fact that dozens of fellow NBA players have also made supporting remarks just backs this whole thing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sport may be "global". The competition referred to is not. And global news balance is distorted. Puppy rescues, and celebrity romances and their babies in America make it on to the news in other countries, especially if nice film footage is available. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sport is global, the competition is globally recognised as the premier competition. And if you don't like "global news balance", perhaps commenting at ITN at what is "in the news" isn't really your thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me to shut up? I made an observation. A perfectly valid one. If you don't like it, please discuss it rationally and keep it nice here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Modest Genius had the most compelling argument. The news is essentially that a professional sportsperson revealed a minor personal detail that has no connection to his athletic performance. It's essentially tabloid fodder, and we're an encyclopedia. ITN doesn't have to post everything the mainstream press posts if we feel it's not very relevant for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a "minor personal detail", it wouldn't have resulted in the response it's gotten. Compare this to Medeis' post below to see tabloid fodder. This is far from that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support That this story is being opposed as not news while sitting just up the page from a posted story about a spacecraft that stopped working, is funny. This is a news story. If Wikipedia has a suitably updated article about it, post it on ITN. 212.139.240.108 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Do I have to explain the difference between an openly gay athlete in a team sport versus the typical tabloid trash? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that this news story, as of about two hours ago, had over 7,000 Google News hits (not just "hits", "news hits" for those who find it difficult to distinguish between them. If this needs further explanation, please let me know or start an AN/I or whatever), unlike the examples given above. I think most of us understand what "in the news" means, i.e. not just a single article on a single website. The examples given are, frankly, beyond absurd, disruptive, an unnecessary non-sequitur and a waste of this community's time. Embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the sake of consistency. I don't think this can be described as tabloid nonsense. But we just failed to post arguably the biggest LGBT rights story for France in a couple of centuries. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you also opposed the previous story you referred to? Otherwise, two wrongs (rejecting this news item as well) don't make a right.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure both the New Zealand and France nominations had consensus to post, though a vocal minority shut them down. What is this, ITN or the United States Senate? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More on impactguardian.co.uk: "For those of us invested in both the two quite different worlds of pro sports and the LGBT rights movement, Monday was a banner day, as professional sports had long been seen as the final frontier of LGBT acceptance."
More on impact 2 Tennis player Martina Navratilova, who came out as a lesbian in an individual sport 30 years ago, calls Collins a "game-changer" for team sports with the potential for homophobic coaches affecting playing time or uncomfortable teammates in the locker room.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal The nomination should be closed as soon as possible before it reaches another useless waste of time on something that doesn't have realistic chances for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That remains to be seen; most, though not all, of the oppose comments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT from what I can see. This was the lead story in news outlets around the world(not just on the sports page) and Mr. Collins' page has had hundreds of thousands of views. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually several of the oppose votes (at a glance, Modest Genius', mine and Hydrox's, I've probably missed a few) are in no way WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, but accurately point out that this is simply overblowing a personal detail of a celebrity's life—comparable in importance and coverage to, say, Kate Middleton's pregnancy, which we would never have considered posting. I'm still not even slightly convinced that this should be posted when the France story wasn't, because skipping a story with national impact for one that's just personal, we run the risk of seeming overly focussed on sports/North America/the anglosphere/whichever one is going to be griped about first. GRAPPLEX21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the France story should've been posted and it's a minor travesty that it wasn't. While this may be receiving a similar level of coverage to Kate Middleton's pregnancy (I'm not sure, I haven't followed the Royals), I think it's clear there's much more significance here. I don't know that you really want to bring up the royal family though, since this has much more significance than that Jubilee we posted. This is a major news story based on its coverage and impact on society. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)He was hardly a "celebrity" before this; and while I look forward to the day when this issue is indeed a "personal detail" that doesn't get attention, we aren't there yet. If it was, it wouldn't be getting this attention from the worldwide press, other notable figures in sports, and even political leaders(current and former). I guess if Jackie Robinson's story was just occurring today, that wouldn't get posted either, since being a different race is just a "personal detail". 331dot (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Robinson important for being the absolute first to cross that colour line, not just the first of his gender in his sport in his country? GRAPPLEX22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There had been Black athletes and Black leagues before Robinson, as well as female athletes and some female leagues. What's notable is that this occurred in one of the top professional sports leagues, which for better or worse does not include the WNBA or most individual sports which have had gay players come out. Top-level team sports are a different dynamic- prior to this some players and others have expressed resentment and an unwillingness to play with gay players(just as some white players expressed unwillingness to play with a Black man). This will greatly change team sports. One doesn't have to be the absolute first at something to be notable for doing it. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I ask the opposers to reconsider after (re-)reading Jason_Collins#Personal_life for the impact expressed by people outside of sports and those in LGBT community. Yes, ITN is not tabloid, but "tabloid" seems to be a mischaracterization of this item when those outside tabloids, sports, and even the US are commenting on the story.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're trying to illustrate your point that the opinions of the supporters outweigh those of the opposers regardless of the fact that the majority of users don't think this should be posted. That's why I think it's useless to continue this discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to not participate in this discussion if you feel that it is useless. I also don't think that's what he was doing at all, he was simply asking people to read something and reconsider. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I question the use of the word "majority". Last I counted, there were more !support votes than !oppose votes. Though not by a huge and overwhelming margin. That's before getting into the merit, and some of the naysayers were WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though certainly not all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply asking to reconsider is a kind of sneaky agitation which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Neither we'll lose something very important nor the world will end if we don't post this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where on Wikipedia it is written that one cannot ask others to read something and reconsider their views? There was nothing sneaky or nefarious going on here. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention it's a rule and you should distinguish between a rule and something that is coined in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you regard agitation as something useful for the community, then you have drastically different views on the things here. But fair enough. Why to waste my time on something that won't be posted?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who came out in junior high during the Reagan administration, who worked for Christopher Street Magazine, and who wore a pink triangle in places where it was physically unwise for me to do so, and hence would be considered by some a "member of the LGBT community", I can assure you it really doesn't mean anything. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In my opinion"? Who else's opinion should I have? It's no less offensive being condescended to as someone who needs special treatment and recognition than it is to be discriminated against: both are forms of prejudice. I have no problem with Collins's coming out; it simply isn't important outside a certain mindset. Rather outside two certain mindsets, the identity politics crowd and the bigots. Neither POV should have weight here. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is being covered by a) major news outlets b) as a lead story and c) in a very broad and in-depth manner. Given that, and that we have a decent article to point readers to, I think all evidence points to this being a significant story. --Jayron3222:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted There's a decent update. There's substantial support. It's far from unanimous, but I don't find the reasons for opposing to be stronger than those supporting. I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story. The content of the update supports that notion. It is not our job to decide what should be in the news. Also, the argument that this shouldn't be posted because the same-sex marriage in France story wasn't doesn't hold water; that ship has sailed, and the fact that something was or was not posted is not a valid reason for supporting or opposing a story (although I should point out that the story itself received substantial support as well). -- tariqabjotu00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment in response to that... (And I'm not trying to argue further against the posting. It's done.) We DO decide "what should be in the news". All the time. Brangelina and everything surrounding them was/is a big story, as are many other similar ones. We don't post them here. I don't know whether our policies say we should be making such judgements, but we do. That means it's perfectly valid for people to argue that something is just a rubbish, tabloid story. Whether any particular one is, is yet another judgement we make. Frequently. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Whilst this was an entirely expected (and planned for) event, it does give a useful landmark which could be used to highlight the satellite. However, there's no need to adopt the promotional language of the press release ('most powerful ever'). I suggest
Nominator's comments: ONgoing protests in Iraq that we haven't covered. Took a turn for the worse today. And its more in light of the sectarian strife in next door Syria )(and Bahrain and Yemen) --Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I see a middling-length article from Al Jazeera cited in the article itself. Do you have any other links to other news sources so we can judge how significant this is? I'm not voting one way or the other until I can see how much this story is in the news... --Jayron3212:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 deaths and its updated to today not just 5 days ago. There is more going on in this sectarian quagmire (and its more linked to Syria as well with the claimed air strike)Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is big news, because the clashes are bigger and sectarian in nature. They originate from the Sunni opposition movement dissatisfaction with the government. There have been several events that makes this more significant include: closing the Iraqi-Jordanian boarders, warning against sectarian civil war from Iraqi PM, suspending 10 T.V. channels by the government and of course the 2013 Hawija clashes. Mohamed CJ(talk)13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the leadership feels the need to use censorship in an effort to quell the growing tensions speaks volumes about how bad things have become there.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this mean that the government orders the TV stations to cease only broadcasting operations in the country or to use other means to ban these channels, such as blocking the websites where they can be watched on-line or to block all the websites of the media that publish their news? I cannot measure a very big impact of this story if the people are able to circumvent the use of the media by visiting alternative channels to watch them or read their news. Frankly, the rate of Internet users in Iraq is on a very low level, but if someone is able to use it to watch the news, as many people actually do it nowadays, then it's not so significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I support some sort of blurb pertaining to the 2012–13 Iraqi protests, as they've gained quite a bit of traction in recent times. However, I'm not 100% sure if Iraq's decision to close certain media outlets is the ideal blurb in this case. Maybe a more general item, like this for example: "At least x people are killed as anti-government protests in Iraq continue to escalate." Probably not the best of blurbs, but you get the picture. Kurtis(talk)09:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a double bold, or at least more informative, blurb? Just saying a bunch of people have died doesn't really capture the nature of the situation:
Comment. I don't think the blurb for this should state a reason, since that appears to be contentious. The Iraqi government has presented it as a public safety measure, that much is true, but... Formerip (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least three people die and fourteen are injured when an apartment building in the French city of Reims collapses after a suspected gas explosion, leaving people trapped under debris. (AFP via News24)[permanent dead link]
In Valley Springs, California (a rural town of about 2,500 people) authorities are searching for an intruder who fatally stabbed an 8-year-old girl, Leila Fowler, at her home. After her 12-year-old brother discovered him, the intruder fled. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: At least three important events happened/happening in Libya and we din't post them. Seem to have all happened in the space of a week, so I thought we could post this together. Though I admit the blurb needs work.
Where is the news? Infighting and warnings of instability have been continuing ever since the deposition of Gaddafi. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban announces the start of their spring offensive, signaling plans to step up attacks as the weather warms across Afghanistan, making both travel and fighting easier. (AP via News24)
A plane crashes in Southern Afghanistan killing four military personnel. (BBC)
After release of a previous suspect without charge, an adversary of his, Everett Dutschke of Mississippi, has been arrested for mailing letters containing ricin to the President of the United States, a senator, and a federal judge. (BBC)
International relations
North Korea announces that it will place AmericanPae Jun-Ho on trial for unspecified "crimes aimed to topple the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". (al Jazeera)
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:2013 ricin letters (talk·history·tag) Blurb: After releasing a framed suspect, police arrest a Mississippi man for mailing ricin to a state judge, a US senator, and President Barack Obama. (Post) News source(s):BBC, Reuters Credits:
Nominator's comments: rare attack on US President, interesting twist in apparent framing, looks like they have physical evidence this time μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The "second arrest" section has five referenced sentences. The Rambling Man has cleaned up some formatting. The article well exceeds the three paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2001 Anthrax mailings letters did get into the congressmen's personal offices. Millions of dollars was spent upgrading postal facilities and apparently the can detect certain substances during sorting now. The attempt may be amateur, but it's the first in over a decade, and making world news. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so this had no chance of any success at all, unlike the bombing attempt on the British PM that IP98 noted below. So as such, this is "non-news". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think explosives raining down on the house of the Prime Minister (with an unexploded shell actually landing in his back garden!) is a little different from a letter which goes through several levels of security checks before reaching the President, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - person tries (in a way any normal person would know is completely futile) to spread terror through the sending of letters, and even though there was no chance in hell for them to actually reach the people involved (Captiol and WH mail addresses actually never enter DC proper before at least 2 scans if it's the same as a few years ago), and just because they've arrested someone and foiled the attempt it's important? I don't buy that for now at least. gwickwiretalkediting16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no chance that this could have actually done anything to anyone "newsworthy", and nothing actually happened to anyone "newsworthy". Not ITN-worthy at all. (However, I tip my hat to User:Medeis whom I have long berated for not getting involved in updating such nominations for nominating and working on this.) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have never failed to update my own nominations and do work on other's nominations which interest me and which I have some ability in, such as the Catalonian protests. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not offended by, and appreciated your statement. I just wanted to clarify that I do contribute more than my share. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think such threats, maybe much more serious ones, are also sent to other heads of the states, but never mentioned. Egeymi (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I see this is doomed, but remember, this wasn't a "threat". Deadly poison was sent to a major head of state. --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was "sent to him" in that it was addressed to him(and Sen. Wicker, but the focus here is on Obama), but standard procedures designed to prevent it from reaching The White House, let alone President Obama, worked and kept him from being in any danger whatsoever. It would be like posting on ITN attempts to scale the fence around the White House or even just trespassing on the property. Now, if someone crashes a plane onto the WH grounds or shoots at someone resembling the President, that's a different ball game. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the President had been in more direct danger then I would of supported inclusion for ITN. Thankfully he was not, as were the Italians today...--85.210.102.96 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Election result may also influence the Icelandic EU membership negotiations.
The article is in a very good state, has been considerably expanded and updated. I think it is ready to be posted. Now, that we know that the Independence Party is slightly ahead of the Progressive Party, we should name it as the winner. --RJFF (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready - the result section consists only of a table. Prose is capable of capturing the information in a way a mere tabel cannot and thus is a requirement for an update to be sufficient. (Mentioning the results in the lead only is insufficient.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. The Independence Party did win a plurality of votes, but not a plurality of seats - since the Progressive Party won the same number of seats. It seems to me that seats is the more relevant metric here - that is what determines who forms the governments and who can pass laws. We wouldn't have put up a blurb saying that the Democrats won a plurality in the US House of Representatives election last year, even though they did win a plurality of votes. Similarly it would have been silly to say that the Labour Party won a plurality in the 1978 and 1981 New Zealand elections, when they did get the most votes but the National Party won a majority of seats and formed the government on both occasions. I would suggest changing the blurb to something like: "The Independence Party and the Progressive Party win the most seats in the Icelandic parliamentary election." Neljack (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Doesn't anyone actually read the results or even the infobox? Two parties emerged with the highest number of seats. The blurb is wrong. –HTD03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The central bank of Mexico announces that it is holding its benchmark interest rate at 4%, where it has been since a half-point cut announced in March, despite recent reports of inflating consumer prices. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: This rebel group had its roots in Sudan's long and bitter civil war. Since South Sudan's independence the government of Sudan had been accused of supporting it and letting it operate across the border. In return for an amnesty all 3,000 SSLA members have apparently agreed to surrender their arms and be integrated into the South Sudanese army. - Dumelow (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The BBC story says that they actually have started to turn them in, so this is a notable development in the conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PKK had merely made an announcement, without actually doing anything yet; this group has actually taken action on their pledge, according to the BBC: "Some 3,000 fighters from one of South Sudan's biggest rebels groups, the SSLA, have handed in their weapons". 331dot (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is one of the main news in the region which receives decent media coverage worldwide. Nikolić is the first President of Serbia to send apology for Srebrenica massacre and this could lead to improvement of the relations between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and make an impact on stabilising the relations among the other countries in the Balkans as well. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, whether or not covered by media outlets, since it is significant historically, therefore, just for encyclopedic news.Egeymi (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - What exactly is the weight behind an apology? If no reparations or tangible attempts at reconciliation are made, it can't be that much.--WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The apology is the news for now. It's impossible at this stage to measure or predict what will be the relations among the countries in the future and we have never been working on it in the past. The massacre by itself is considered the largest one since the World War II and any news of apology relating to it is significant in principle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I too would like to see something more tangible than an apology; also the President declined to call it a genocide which might reduce the impact of the apology. It is still a significant admission, which is why I won't outright oppose this, however. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant historically. It doesn't really matter if there is any tangible outcome. Our focus is as an encyclopaedia, ITN items are merely hook items into our content. This is a good story for that. --RA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposealthough the act has been accepted as a genocide by his predecessor Boris Tadić.. Political ass-covering, not historic. Last guy acknowledged genocide and handed over perpetrators to the Hague. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you cannot simply compare one apology with another, especially when the one is related to an event in which more than 8,000 people were massively killed and is thus considered the worst such case after the World War II.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the point I was making (and I think that HiLo48 was too) was that it is possible for apologies to be made on behalf of others. This is an example of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belated oppose because of the arguments listed above and that we would cause controversy over whether we should use "apologize" or "apologise" on the main page. — TORTOISEWRATH03:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - this is the man that generations of country singers have measured themselves against, "legend" is an understatement. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we usually (?) wait until after the event has taken place. Will it be in the news again then or is this the main item? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is ITN worthy if it actually happens, but I don't think it's done yet. Turkey wants them to walk away without weapons and threatens to take action if they do, on the other hand they want to take their weapons with them. This might just break all the talks. Source: BBC Radio. Mohamed CJ(talk)21:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until they actually do, as they could still change their mind, but this is notable enough for ITN once they do. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a re-read of WP:ITN would be helpful for some editors: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective..." i.e. there is no "five-sentence three-source" requirement. So stop pretending there is. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government wins an early round in its litigation against The Bank of New York Mellon over the latter's allegedly fraudulent practices in the trading of currencies. (Reuters)
Support when updated. Major damage to an important building on a world heritage site. Editors beaware: there is a mosque of the same name in Damascus, regarded as one of the most holiest places in Islam and one of the most important buildings in all of Middle East. This mosque in Damascus has not been damaged. --hydrox (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who actually call that the Great Mosque of Damascus? Interesting. Either way, I'd be surprised if someone got the two mixed up. -- tariqabjotu02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Some people, like the author of the BBC article, refer to the mosque in Aleppo as the Umayyad Mosque (of Aleppo). Yeah, that's confusing, and also a bit strange. -- tariqabjotu14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, which article are we nominating? The news is clearly significant and supported (per above) but the Great Mosque article has no update, what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. Well let's get this posted as soon as possible, marking as ready to go (despite the myths of "sentence/citation" requirements, this is all we have, not reason not to post it)...The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment: thank you so much, LukeSurl, for your help here. The minaret is e.g. pictured here: [10], [11]. There was only one large minaret at the Great Mosque of Aleppo, so all pictures of the minaret seen here [12] is it. (Yes, I saw it before it was destroyed; in 2001). We have, of course, no image post-destruction. This is the worst destruction of a cultural heritage so far in the Syrian war, IMO, and, IMO, on level with the Bamian statues destruction (Afghanistan) and the Mostar bridge (Bosnia.). Sad greetings, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support But neither of the two articles targeted by the nominator has both a five-sentence and a three-source update. (Although, frankly, only one article should need to meet a full-update requirement.) μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to support this, but there is a POV statement that needs a cleanup and I'm not sure how to do it. Contrary to claims by the state media of Jabhat al-Nusra's involvement, activists asserted that it was rebels from the Tawhid Brigades who were fighting government forces around the mosque. "Contrary to claims" has to go, but I don't know, does Jabhat al-Nusra == activist? What? It's also unsourced... --IP98 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know we dual posted the installation of Chinese dictator after the sham parliamentary "election", but when did we dual post Canada, Australia and the UK? --IP98 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we posted the UK twice. First the election, then either Brown resigning and/or Cameron being appointed. All in a span of a week; this one's different though as this took much longer (not as long as the Dutch though). –HTD16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only made my comment to point out that the head of state changing is an ITNR item and not the head of government, not to express concerns about double posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember how previous discussions on this matter have gone, but I highly doubt when the relavent section of ITNR was spelled out the intention was to exclude the commonly recognized leader of Italy. If the Italian PM isn't ITNR it certainly should be. I think the problem is we can't come up with a straightforward wording regarding PMs but really I think common sense should apply.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It is special in this case, because the appointment of the PM did not follow the parliamentary election directly. Actually, the PM was not chosen by the parliament, but nominated by the president. Therefore, it is independent from the election, and should be posted separately. I think the global media attention is obvious. --RJFF (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The deal hasn't happened yet. He's been invited to form a coalition, and the other parties have been making the right noises. But nothing has been finalised, and it could still fall through (this being Italian politics, it's quite a real possibility). All the news reports I've seen are careful to say he isn't PM yet e.g. The Guardian says 'nominated' and 'appeared to be on the verge'.Modest Geniustalk17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The negotiations might still collapse, as MG already pointed out above, and as they have collapsed already multiple times. BBC too is just hopeful he might become the next PM, but I would hold my breath up until official inauguration. --hydrox (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cabinet has now been appointed. Because there was such unusually long delay between the election and appointing the cabinet, and because Italy is one of the EU's "core" countries, this should be posted. --hydrox (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: More ethnic violence in the world and in this powder keg. Seems to have a high-enough toll for a day's violence in a region that doesn't have it with this frequency (same as 3 in Boston). Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs update. ethnic clashes occurred between social workers and police between social workers and police? wtf? --IP98 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now just on the length of the article. It needs expansion to be worthwhile to put on the main page. Once it reaches a reasonable length, this is clearly a significant story that many news outlets are following and as such, demonstrates the significance required for ITN. --Jayron3213:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like to meet the five-sentence minimum as a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced. Moreover, all the information available are already in the article and it seems impossible at this stage to improve the article when nothing else has been released.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced" Excuse me, I thought this criterion has been at the ITN for the longest timesince 2008? –HTD14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the article should be updated, but why a five-sentence metric? I didn't know about it until recently. Isn't it arbitrary? What if there is much more said in less than a five-sentence long prose?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you, and probably the hardliners who are insisting on the full 5 sentences, still don't know about this "guideline". Read it again. –HTD14:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't set it as a minimum criterion. There may be a five-sentence update that duplicates the information, while some two-sentence updates may be longer and contain much more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I guess it means that if the update and the blurb tell exactly the same thing (or, the update doesn't expand what the hook says), it's not enough; if the update tells us something more than the blurb tells us, it should be OK. Whatever happens, we'd still some sort of update to the article that expands upon the blurb. –HTD14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32, what's actually relevant here is the current ITN guidelines: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs." Does this article not meet that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always learned that a complete, well-formed paragraph should be ~5 sentences. That would make the article about 2 paragraphs, one of which is the lead, so there's really only 7 sentences of non-lead material. RyanVesey15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where all these numbers come from (our own article says a paragraph is one or more sentence!). And why isn't the lead counted? The instructions don't rule out lead prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. It makes no sense to count it twice. That being said, the lead isn't currently doing that. RyanVesey16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "instructions" should be updated to reflect that lead paras don't count. In most cases, if an article has only three paras, it doesn't even have a lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're going to throw numbers into the ring each and every time someone makes an effort here, we should define the numbers, so if you're saying a "well-formed paragraph" must have approximately five sentences, I suggest that is reflected in the instructions, otherwise it's unfair to other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Similar disasters with high number of deaths and injures are pretty rare and this one really shadows the news in the world as one of the most tragic disasters of its sort in recent times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but apart of these two I don't remember any other similar disaster that happened. That's why I refer to it as "one of the most tragic disasters" and not absolutely "the most tragic" even if the latter can be assumed as true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[13] attempts to list them. Not sure how complete it is, but suggests there were no "major" collapes in 2011 and only one in 2012, yet we've had four already this year with at least 25 deaths. Hard to know what the minimum severity benchmark would be for ITN given such a varied statistic... — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support After full update. Information on relief efforts exists and that should easily get the article up to snuff. On another note, where do we have our death figures from? Everything I'm seeing, like this says at least 87 and 600, not 700, injured. RyanVesey15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I give up. I've updated the article as best I can, if it's not up to "snuff" for you given the limited information (it's now night-time there) then I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm using the BBC's figures. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - kudos to The Rambling Man for getting together a reasonable short article with limited information. I think it's a major enough incident. — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aleppo-Great-mosque-Alp.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_mosque_minaret_Aleppo.jpg){kind=link}