:::I'd be okay if it was something like the murder of Drummer Rigby or 9/11 or Fukushima or similar, this is just a legal case that will drag on for years, I think it only reasonable to allow some of the European contributors a chance to decide if they think it's newsworthy. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I'd be okay if it was something like the murder of Drummer Rigby or 9/11 or Fukushima or similar, this is just a legal case that will drag on for years, I think it only reasonable to allow some of the European contributors a chance to decide if they think it's newsworthy. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
::::For what it's worth I'm in England, and expressed my opinion at 10:50am local time. Mainland Europe is principally 1 hour ahead of the UK and places like Greece an hour ahead of that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
::::For what it's worth I'm in England, and expressed my opinion at 10:50am local time. Mainland Europe is principally 1 hour ahead of the UK and places like Greece an hour ahead of that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Well the rush to post this is odd considering how long it took to post the streetside murder of an off-duty soldier in the middle of London, etc. Especially given this is just the beginning of something that may amount to nothing. Perhaps we '''should''' have a grace period of 24 hours to allow all-comers to comment before something as mundane as this is posted within a few hours of the article being created. I did look for this in my local news, and it was mentioned around about the 11th news story on the BBC. Not all that by any means. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
*Post-posting '''oppose''' not in the news at all, and just the first step of a legal process that could last years. Plenty of people/organisations are charged with plenty of crimes, but shouldn't we be waiting until convictions take place? This is entirely unbecoming of Wikipedia to assume guilt here by virtue of posting a sensationalist story. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:04, 29 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).
At least 13 people are dead and at least 20 injured following a collision between a bus and a tanker near the Indian town of Dahanu in Maharashtra state. (IBN)
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.
Nominator's comments: A Canadian doctor who was a big pro-choice advocate. His article seems to show he was of a high enough notability to be in the recent deaths section on the main page. As of right now, there is not much information in the article about his death. Andise1 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While Morgentaler certainly had prominence, I do not believe the magnitude of said prominence warrants a place within the In the News section. DarthBottotalk•cont19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Several awards during his career, received Canada's highest civilian award, some international coverage; clearly notable in Canadian politics, if not for his actual career. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment: The article could use some information on the projects the mission will be doing. The article is entirely about the people on the mission and is basically an infobox in text, but what's more important is what the mission is about. Is it a resupply mission or are there experiments going to be completed? SpencerT♦C11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I wasn't planning on nominating this when I started the article, but the charges unveiled today are quite extensive. Authorities from 17 countries cooperated in what the US prosecutor is calling the "largest international money laundering case ever brought by the United States" --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This also involves an organization, not an individual so there aren't enormous BLP implications like saying X celebrity is charged with Y crime. SpencerT♦C12:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa!!! We have basically a blurb from ABC as the source for this nomination and a target article that hasn't even existed for two days yet. Posting this as if the entity were presumed criminal (which is the way the article is written) would be a gross violation of BLP. Lets get some better sources and some facts on the ground outside criminal allegations based on the fact that the US Feds think not being able to read your financial records without a warrant is a crime. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article did, however, exist on 5 other Wikipedias. Six previous attempts to write an article on LR were speedy deleted here, mostly as G11 (advertising) which probably discouraged the recreation. [The attempts appear to have been good faith, but used second person language, e.g. "A website where you can transfer money...", which is normally a hallmark of advertising attempts.] The "company" was already notable, and has hardly obscure as evidenced, for example, by the fact it had a million users. The suggested blurb, is a statement of fact - the website is gone and LR has been charged - although you can certainly suggest different wording. The fallout of the story is now - a conviction in a year or two (or plea bargin earlier) will be a minor story at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the ABC headline is "'Black Market Bank' Accused of Laundering $6B in Criminal Proceeds", quite a bit less NPOV than the suggested blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to argue that there appears a clear consensus to post and an adequate article, but this whole nom->posting has pretty much excluded all of mainland Europe whose editors wouldn't even have been awake while this nom panned out. There are no dissenting voices, so this is merely an observation that a significant proportion of the globe couldn't have even normally contributed during this period. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this. To me it's preferable to have quick postings where possible, we have to confer on Wikipedians on the other side of the globe a reasonable degree of trust. LukeSurltc18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay if it was something like the murder of Drummer Rigby or 9/11 or Fukushima or similar, this is just a legal case that will drag on for years, I think it only reasonable to allow some of the European contributors a chance to decide if they think it's newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I'm in England, and expressed my opinion at 10:50am local time. Mainland Europe is principally 1 hour ahead of the UK and places like Greece an hour ahead of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the rush to post this is odd considering how long it took to post the streetside murder of an off-duty soldier in the middle of London, etc. Especially given this is just the beginning of something that may amount to nothing. Perhaps we should have a grace period of 24 hours to allow all-comers to comment before something as mundane as this is posted within a few hours of the article being created. I did look for this in my local news, and it was mentioned around about the 11th news story on the BBC. Not all that by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose not in the news at all, and just the first step of a legal process that could last years. Plenty of people/organisations are charged with plenty of crimes, but shouldn't we be waiting until convictions take place? This is entirely unbecoming of Wikipedia to assume guilt here by virtue of posting a sensationalist story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union lifts its ban against arming Syrian rebels as full consensus among its 27 member states to extend the current embargo could not be reached. (CNN)(BBC)
Nominator's comments: We rarely carry business stories of any kind, and when we do it is usually related to crime. Business deals of this scale only happen a few times a year (less than 10) and this particular one also happens to be international. Thus, this is a perfect time to improve our diversity by featuring a major business story for a change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm in favour of including more business-related stories, the article here is very short and the update is one-sentence long. At least, I'd expect a longer article. --Tone10:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we do not usually post mergers or roll-outs and unless this means there will be some dramatic consequence, like a major product leaving the market, it doesn't meet muster. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided to "wait and see" since the press was saying there was a significant chance the deal would be rejected by regulators. It was later approved without fan fare and was not renominated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - article has now been significantly updated. A fair amount has also been added on the company's finances and business strategy as well. Obviously some more info on the company's past wouldn't hurt, but it should meet minimum ITN standards as is. I believe it has consensus to post and have suggested an altburb per Modest Genius' concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can sort of see the point that corporate news often gets neglected, but this doesn't seem to be getting much coverage. at the moment, we have News International splitting in two, an insider trading guilty plea from KPMG, something called Smithfield being taken over by something called Shuanghui. Why should this particular story be rescued from obscurity? Formerip (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 2nd or 3rd business story on several sites at the time it was nominated. Like most stories (including most we post), it only stayed at the top of the news for ~24 hours. If you see significance in any of the mentioned stories, feel free to nominate them. (I personally am planning on nominating Smithfield after I've had a chance to write the update) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose - the NBA player who came out a few weeks ago was posted. That was (arguably) an important milestone. Being the first to play a game after coming out is a technicality, not a sgnificant "next step". Additionally, MLS is quite a few steps below the "big 4" US sports leagues in popularity as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (1) We already had - wrongly IMHO - the first major league US sportsman to come out, so it's not clear what the significance of this story is; (2) With the best will in the world, a US men's soccer league is only 'top' in relation to itself; (3) The life and death of Justin Fashanu should be a reminder that, alas, being the first out gay man in such an area does not necessarily set any kind of progressive precedent. I like LGBT-related stories - can we go back to stories which affect more than one LGBT person at once, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 05:51, 28 May 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.
If this is written about, it should be a new article. The 5 days of attacks in the existing article are connected (in the eyes of the media). These are not. If necessary, the old article can be renamed "15-20 May 2013 Iraq attacks", but the latest attacks definitely shouldn't be added to that article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I mentioned in the last nomination that this has quite unfortunately become as routine as weather reporting and in need of a sticky. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fast & Furious 6 opens at the top of the movie sales charts in 59 countries, including the United States and Canada where it grossed an estimated $122 million. (New York Times)
Business and economy
The Governor of the Bank of Japan says that although interest-rate increases will cause some stress to Japanese financial institutions, they have "sufficient resilience against such shocks." (Reuters)
Support. While I agree that the Tour de France (an ITNR item) is more notable, this is sufficiently notable. I know there are some editors think we post to much sport as is, but at its basis ITN's purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." The "disproportionate" amount of sports stories is caused simply by many sports stories fulfilling our basic criteria. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability wise. I think raod cycling is major enough for its secondary event to be covered here at ITN. --LukeSurltc15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be on ITN/R as it is one of the three Grand Tours races.
Comment though I can't possibly understand why we would need three European cycling events (only the Tour de France is universally known), I guess I just don't get it. Regardless, the bold article is not updated for 2013 Giro d'Italia. --IP98 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
European in geography, global in competitors and coverage. In the same way the US Opens (golf or tennis) are American, but at the same time global. Valid point about the update though. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while first place this time went an Italian, 2nd and 3rd placings went to a Colombian and an Australian. Can't cover the globe much better than that! HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second part should be irrelevant, in my opinion. Why should the posting of motorsport, cricket and football affect a cycling item? 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: The article is pretty detailed so I would say it is updated in my opinion. Also, this event is ITN/R so as long as it is updated it should be ready for posting. Andise1 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Per Medeis, this article is (sort of) "ready" but wow, what a disgrace of an article we're technically agreeing to posting. Grotesque colour schemes throughout, MOS violations throughout, easter egg links all over the shop, several unreferenced sections (which I would usually tag as {{ref improve section}} but daren't here any longer, three dab links.... the list goes on.... Do we really want to post this kind of under-referenced amateur writing? (I'm guessing the answer will be yes). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added lots of references and the links you tagged were disambiguated. I'm going to check the rest of the links to see if anything else needs to be disambiguated as well. SpencerT♦C03:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update the colors are the team colors, so they actually make sense. I think it's ok to have exceptions to guidelines. Refimproves were needed, thanks TRM, hopefully they get fixed. Oppose merge with Monaco, 300 laps around an oval at 200+ MPH, just feet away from the car in front of you is much more interesting to us Americans than the gas - break - gas around the hotel routine that we call commuting. (besides, both races are important and should stand alone) --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the sport or care whether this article is posted or not, although I am a little surprised to see TRM objecting to the color scheme as a reason not to post. I looked at the update and the lack of tags when saying this was ready in good faith. I do, in all sincerity, suggest that TRM (or whoever likes) tag the article to their heart's content, I am sure it can use the attention. And, frankly, I oppose ITNR as such, so delaying this won't bother me personally in the least. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted the colour scheme because I tend to take into account WP:ACCESS when looking at articles as well, so to take into consideration people who may have difficulty reading text which has particular background/font colour combinations. Of course that's not part of ITN criteria, it was just something I thought that could be improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say support for that, disregard the contempt if we have to and who cares if they have little in common, at the end of the day, its auto racing, you take it or leave it. Donnie Park (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are 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.
Support the reception section of Blue Is the Warmest Colour is fine. The article lacks a plot summary. Does it need one? Considering the film hasn't been released, I don't see how one can be written. 2013 Cannes Film Festival is also ok. There is a wall of lists that's hard to avoid, but the awards section has a prose update. Cannes is probably the biggest of the big four of film festivals. No mention of the jewl heists. Meh on that. --IP98 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely ITN/R, so all the "top prize, important festival" stuff above is irrelevant really. We're just here to examine the update, which is limited, but ok. I'd imagine a movie featuring " explicit [lesbian] sex scenes" would elicit some kind of reaction, so it'd be useful to see some commentary on that in the article before we post just a bunch of lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose Insufficient update. There is no prose update on the race. ITNR is no defense against premature nomination. Please do not nominate items if there is no update. Also, it's the middle of the night in Australia. --hydrox (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, UEFA went up with a single sourced update in the middle of the night here in America... *shrugs* always in the middle of the night somewhere. --IP98 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I agree with you. I'd like there to be a prose update, and I'd like there to be two or more sources. But it's not the end of the world if not, if the source that is used is sufficiently solid. And yes, it's the middle of the night somewhere. So what? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 IIHF World Championship Final went up in the middle of the night here in the middle of Europe. *shrugs*. As IP98 and Alex say, (and I paraphrase) what does that have to do with anything? Are we supposed to now wait 24 hours before posting something so all those sleeping Wikipedians get a chance to say stuff? Mind you, with the mis-postings and erroneous blurbs, that may not be such a bad idea (although nominating things a day or two in advance puts pay to that too...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how your standards seem to shift from one weekend to other. Last weekend it was deemed an instance of karma whoring to nominate the IIHF final shortly before the game had started, but now you are suggesting that nominating items "a day or two in advance" would be a good practice so that all parties have time to comment. Though, considering that one of your arguments against the IIHF final being posted last weekend was that it was the middle of night for you, I can kind of understand. Then again, we can surely agree that there's little point in opposing news items before they have actually happened, right? --hydrox (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is there's nothing in the instructions that prevented the IIHF article being listed while we all slept. As I was writing that, I considered that it might have been a useful discussion to add an arbitrary delay to posting any news candidates (so all your sleepyheads can get a word in), but then that's a discussion for another venue. Also, I'm not sure I ever used the term "karma whoring". If I did then I'd be very pleased with myself as that's a splendid turn of phrase. As for opposing news items before they have happened, there's little point nominating them before they have happened, surely we can agree on that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is definitely a prose update but it is a wall of text which needs to be considered for MOS and wikilinks etc. An additional ref or two wouldn't be so bad (and reactions), but it's in half-decent shape, I'd support if these minor issues are put to bed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending corrections per The Rambling Man, but also suggest waiting to combine with an update for the Indy 500, another leg of the Triple Crown completed today that is also an ITNR event. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree combining them would be a good idea. I mentioned it in the Indy 500 nom above, and just noticed that you had already suggested it down here as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is only enough room for one Triple Crown race, plus in term of prestige, IMO, this race I'd say is no bigger than the Indy 500 and never will be for the reason I feel that nowadays, this race is treated no differently to any others in the calendar such as Bahrain, Korea, Abu Dhabi and Singapore and so what if it is an ITN/R event, so I cant see what is prestigious about it anymore. Donnie Park (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. You can technically only oppose this on update grounds (which is fair enough). It's ITN/R, (as you've noted), so the only way to oppose it on super-notability grounds is to seek it's removal from the ITN/R list. Which is here, not here. Ouch. [For what it's worth, the Monaco GP around the harbour, below the hotel, around the swimming pool, past the casino, is far more interesting to Europeans than the "do 300 laps of a oval" Indy 500. But that's clearly just my opinion.] The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to combine both racing events in one blurb, as was suggested above. However, please first get rid of the orange tag in the race summary section in Monaco GP article. --Tone11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combined blurb posted. I've removed second-to-last item because the last has the image attached. But we can add a new image now. --Tone14:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose nice update, but the article needs substantial sourcing, e.g. the final is completely unreferenced. I'd be happy to support if some refs could be added (and there's a copyedit of the prose which is a little ..... weak). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but suggest that the corruption scandal that has overshadowed the final should also be mentioned - see [5] Perhaps we could add at the end of the blurb: "as a corruption scandal results in several players and officials from the League being arrested" - or something like that. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (three nice paragraphs) hence Ready per "policy". I see no problem with sources--if TRM disagrees per his above comment he should tag what he wants better supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you will, there's nothing at all referencing the final, which, after all, is the gist of this ITN. So I've tagged the section per your request Medeis. I've also removed the [ready] tag as I feel that a four paras of prose without a single in-line reference is not quite what we had in mind when the community asked for a suitable update pre-posting news articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Spring Ford High School (Royersford, PA) senior, Julianne Siller, 17, is allegedly stabbed to death by her boyfriend, 16-year-old Tristan Stahley after a fight during a breakup. (NBC)
Article needs updating 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.
Nominator's comments: From his article and the news sources, he seemed to be a very well known play back singer. His singing was mainly used in the Tamil film industry, which is why a lot of the sources are news sources from India. His career had spanned over sixty years. Andise1 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if "Awards and honours" section can be verified (it's unreferenced), he should qualify for RD. However, to me, it sound like many/most of these things aren't meaningful awards but are cruft to make him sound really important. The article in general suffers form the same problem (i.e. lots of puffery). Also, the orange tag requesting more citations needs addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Reading the article, he seems to have had an extensive and recognized career, and not just in India- but I agree with Thaddeus that some verification is needed. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to cleaning up Big attack on a political rally; victims include several politicians. Perhaps it would be worth noting that it was an attack on an Indian National Congress rally? Also I'm not sure about saying "suspected Maoist rebels". If they haven't claimed responsibility and there aren't reliable sources saying they are responsible, then we probably shouldn't mention them in the blurb. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is in a good shape. According to the sources, the group responsible were Naxalite insurgents, while the link to the Maoist rebels actually points to the article about the group in Nepal. Willing to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone06:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is in better shape now. There is too much info to pack it all into one blurb, but I have added an altblurb that I slightly prefer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article could use a slightly expanded lead, and there are many sentences such as "Leaders of Indian National Congress had been carrying out Parivartan Yatra (Change Rally) in the state" which are not written in good idiomatic style. But the references seem sufficient and there's no opposition here, so getting this posted should get more eyes on the article. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something broke in the attack section. adjacent Andhra Pradesh. .[5] Almost all the senior state party leaders former Union Minister Vidya Charan Shukla, former state minister Mahendra Karma, Nand Kumar Patel, MLA from Rajnandgaon Uday Mudaliyar and prominent woman tribal leader Phulo Devi Netam from Bastar. Two periods before ref 5 and a half sentence. Not really sure whats up with that --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a verb and removed the xtra period, as well as making other changes toward idiomatic English. 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Posted. I've used Medeis' shorter blurb suggestion because there were two notable politicians killed in the attack - I didn't want to prioritize one over the other, and I thought mentioning both would make it overly long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have said occurring on a single day. Many political causes have had rallies in many countries over time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be able to support I need an honest-to-God article, not just two sentences (as of this posting) in the Monsanto article. If it's worth doing, it is worth doing well! 01:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Jusdafax
Maybe wait ...or find some better sources. Only one of those sources gives numbers, and that's an "Organizers say..." figure. We probably need better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In USA Today, it says "Organizers say two million people joined the protests", but police reports seem to mention merely thousands. I didn't found any numbers in the The Guardian article. It's relatively easy to get "joins" of members from a huge amount of countries and cities on a Facebook page, so I think we need more independent sources here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it merits inclusion in the Monsanto article, it's too inconsequential compared to other opposition to the company. Narayanese (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless we have a well sourced article with a reliable source for these millions of protesters in all these countries, not a claim in a press release. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this item is to be considered, it needs a separate article. At the moment, the section in the Monsanto article has been removed. There has been considerable media attention, thus it should not be too hard to find some sources. --Tone06:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm normally pretty happy with a variety of different items on ITN, and a high turnover of posts. But not at all sure this is notable, and we certainly shouldn't be posting unless there is independent sources regarding the size of the protests "after" they've occurred. Also not sure about the blurb – "protest against genetically modified seeds produced by Monsanto" – protesting against the seeds? Are they protesting against the company or against the idea of GMO food? I'm open to changing my mind on this, but as it is, I'm not at all convinced it should be posted. - Shuddetalk09:01, 26 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.
Nominator's comments: Not only a widely respected Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for his work on 1960's civil rights battles in Selma, Alabama, Johnson also was a prolific author and a regular television news commentator. Article could use more updating but is at the acceptable minimum. (Note: I have now added additional material to the 'Death' section.) Jusdafax23:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's notable, that's why he has an article. "Influential" (as in influenced the way journalism was done, or his peers) or top of his field is extreme exaggeration. Let's see, for example, a quote from a major figure now saying Haynes Johnson was the reason he got in the business. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless further evidence is provided establishing that he was "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of journalism. He certainly seems to have had a distinguished career, but that is different to actually establishing how influential he was. Those rather vague tribute quotes cited by Jusdafax don't really qualify, in my judgment. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Influential" means influence. Not "respected". We have not a single reference saying his style influenced anyone. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you are picking on one word HiLo used and driving it into the ground. The David Axelrod quote above does not use your arbitrarily required word, but it is in the spirit of your request. If you intend to hound each Support on those grounds, your comments carry little weight. Jusdafax22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Axelrod is a political hack. Taking his comment as notable here would be no different from taking Karl Rove's, which I would also strongly object to. Please don't blame me for saying he is not influential when indeed he is not influential and claiming he is influential meets an ITN requirement. Instead, just provide a notable journalist saying he was indeed influential. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sufficiently notable for posting (IMO) and the update is solid. The lead could be expanded, but that is not sufficient reason to oppose on article quality grounds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Question What's the UCL in the title of this proposal? It doesn't crack a mention anywhere else. Is it an abbreviation of an abbreviation? A little consistency and clarity here would help non-aficionados understand. This is a global encyclopaedia, not the sports pages of a parochial newspaper. We must write for all readers, including people who aren't already fans. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UCL will be UEFA Champions League. It doesn't appear anywhere in the blurb so it is irrelevant for determining whether to post this or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but somebody else thought differently (see below - thanks Alex), and you ignored most of my post anyway. (I often find that if I make more than one point in a post, much of my post is ignored. Sad.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The highest level of all (though not the only significant one) for club-level football in Europe. Per HiLo, I've fixed the title. UCL means something quite different around here. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now This seems to be related to the drama with Montt, and looks a lot more political than anything else. (The article has tons of unsourced allegations.) μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A country surrendering one of its former heads of state to another country for criminal charges is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A former president being extradited may be unusal, but so is a former president being convicted, for which see our mistake in posting Efraín Ríos Montt's conviction a few weeks back. I suggest that in addition to the obvious political manoeuvering going on here, we also look at the state of the article, which is horrendous. This is a case where a little bit of extra attention beyond the headline is very necessary. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready - Like Medeis says, the article is in fairly poor shape. As a BLP of a person accused of crimes, it is especially inappropriate to post without the article being well cited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Certainly a worthy enough story for ITN, but the article and lack of an update need to be addressed.--Giants27(T|C)19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous closure was reverted due to an allegation of a conflict of interest. Well, I'm a British football fan and delighted about this news. There is still no consensus to post. —WFC— FL wishlist12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: This decision basically means that Gibraltar's international teams will now be playing competitive football against these teams, having previously only knocked around with the likes of these. It also means club teams from the Gibraltar Football League will now be able to enter the UEFA Champions League and Europa League. In 2007, Spain (the current international European and World champions and home of club teams Barcelona and Real Madrid), threatened to boycott international football completely (both national and club level) if this happened, which managed to comprehensively defeat a UEFA vote back then (only 3 votes in support out of 53). The CAS ruling seems to have put that on its head, with only Spain and Belarus voting against this time. This is obviously a huge moment in the ongoing saga that is the disputed status of Gibraltar, and a major step change in the profile of Gibraltarian football on the European stage. --Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In regards to geopolitics, the recognition or otherwise of this particular Gibraltar sporting association at the European level is quite minor. In regards to football, the minnows of Gibraltar is going to be of negligible importance to European international competitions. The Champions League final occurs tomorrow, that should be adequate association football for the current time. --LukeSurltc19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I borrow your copy of the geopolitics recognition scale to check this claim for factual accuracy, I seem to have lost mine. Will coverage in the New York Tims do as a substitute for now? If you think Spain threatening to withdraw all its teams is minor, then frankly you have no idea about what is and is not important to European football. The timing of the Champions League final is clearly irrelevant, unless you're claiming you'd support this if the news came out in the off season. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spain blustering at anyone who will listen is minor. I am not entirely certain I would count it as ITN worthy if Spain actually followed through (which it wont). Certainly the fact that the sporting association of a small nation gaining admittance into sporting organization - one that is not even the highest level in the world - is not ITN worthy. The simple truth is, the only reason I can think of to support this is the fact that it would royally piss off those foaming at the mouth over Gibraltarpedia. Resolute20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spain boycotting international and european club football would be posted in a heartbeat, simply due to the coverage it would generate. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fantasist, or simply knows nothing about football. And on that score, can you explain what advantages being a member of FIFA offers to a European association that being a member of UEFA doesn't? And more importantly, why anyone would really take notice of one change but not the other? Being out of UEFA means you play the likes of Orkney. Being in UEFA means you play the likes of Germany. Being in UEFA and FIFA means you play the likes of ...... Germany. And seeing as Gibraltar will never beat Germany, that's where the significance of that ends. And last time I checked, Spain and the UK were in Europe, not on other sides of the Atlantic, so why would joining FIFA make a blind bit of difference to the geopolitical ramifications of this news? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport as the culmination of a decade of controversy. If UEFA and Spain hadn't opposed it it would not be noteworthy enough. Coverage in Norway, France and presumably in Spain. In Britain it was covered both before and after the fact. The controversy has been reported on internationally throughout e.g. this piece from December. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly an interesting story, especially for us European sports fans, but not enough for ITn, I think. Could it be squeezed into DYK? Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict) A national organisation joins/ leaves an international association, happens all the time and I somehow don't see Gibraltar winning the European Championship any-time soon. What however may be ITN notable is any resulting bun fight (with Gibraltar or the UK) with Spain over it. However having just searched for sources this leapt out at me; "Gibraltar became the smallest European football nation" [6], if we were debating that as the story for inclusion here I may well change my mind and support such an nomination. --wintoniantalk20:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before the canard continues and anyone else tries to claim that this is development scores as minor on some made up geopolitical scale, please note that not only can you read about this issue in all the various European language media sites (as you would expect), you can also read about it in media outlets based in the Americas (north, northerer [7], and south [8]), and also in the Middle East [9]. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A page 24 story. For comparison, we wouldn't post a story about an NFL team changing their name or being newly commissioned to the franchise. A story like this would be major if it were for a truly international sports league.--WaltCip (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we would if it was denied without basis in the rules for more than a decade. UEFA is international, though they are not a league if that is particularly important. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's because it's far more important on an exponential scale than either of those because of the political aspect. I still don't believe it quite passes the ITN bar though, although I wouldn't object if it was posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make comparisons, please provide an actual comparison. Comparing this news to an NFL franchise changing its name is, well, civility rules prevent me from describing what that really is. And last time I checked, the European Championships and the Champions League were both international. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the people claiming that this is somehow unimportant because Gibraltar will never win any matches. Well, Palestine, Kosovo, Quebec, etc etc, will certainly never be the world's greatest nations either, but would you accept people using that as an excuse to ignore it if one of those became for example a UN member state? Of course you wouldn't, because it's totally irrelevant to the significance or impact of the actual change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between a football association being accepted into UEFA and a state being accepted into the UN. --LukeSurltc20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no difference between how relevant the points would be. Kosovo would be a very unimportant country on the world stage. Gibraltar would be a very poor national team on the UEFA stage. Both arguments are totally irrelevant to the significance of the change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The comparible scenario would be Quebec gaining entry into CONCACAF. I think we all know the likelihood of that being posted at ITN. Resolute20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the English speaking part of Canada fought the membership for a decade I imagine it would have a non-negligible chance of passing ITNC. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would stop trying to compare things that are not comparable. If Quebec was an independent Canadian territory rather than still being an integral part of Canada, and if the status of that territory had been the subject of a long running dispute between France and Canada rather than simply being an entirely Canadian dispute, and then it was allowed to join CONCACAF, only then would you even begin to have a comparable case to Gibraltar/Spain/UK/UEFA. And that still ignores the fact that France is not even in CONCACAF, whereas Spain is part of UEFA. A closer comparison would the first time Israel Football Association joined the AFC in the 50s, and even then it's not really a comparison. I doubt you would be so naive to claim that would be somthing ITN would have ignored if Wikipedia was around then. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you tried to compare a nation joining a regional football association to a territory gaining UN membership. And then you invent imaginary scenarios where France is in conflict with Canada over Quebec, and you have the gall to chastise others for "trying to compare things that are not comparable"? Seriously dude. Pot. Kettle. You. Resolute22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL? What a great point! I quite clearly never compared joining UEFA to joining the UN, I only compared the irrelevant things people like you would apparently say in both situtations. And I only had to invent that imaginary scenario to show everyone just how ridiculous you comparing Gibraltar to Quebec is, on multiple levels. I'm sorry if you didn't get what I was saying, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that the Quebec and Gibraltar sovereignty disputes are as different as night and day, but trying to claim that makes me look bad? Seriously dude. Lame. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the extent of international coverage both now and especially before the vote I have removed "weak" from my support. I truly think this should be posted, though I doubt it will be. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to support it when it becomes a full member of FIFA as a regulatory body of football in the world. Approving membership in UEFA, the European regulatory body, is not that significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Significant? Prove it. With sources. Going from non-entities to UEFA members is a huge step in both football and political terms. In comparison, becoming FIFA members after that (because UEFA membership is mandatory step), is infact pretty insignificant. Especially in this case, because all the political controversy that surrounds this is European based. It's not like Gibraltar is ever going to get to the later stage of any FIFA tournament and thus face a team from outside UEFA in a competitive match, which is the only sporting difference between being in UEFA and FIFA. That's why nobody really cares if Israel is in FIFA, not half as much as to whether they are in AFC/UEFA, or indeed recongised as a nation at all, which is what AFC/UEFA membership bascically is in football terms. The likes of Costa Rica really don't give a damn if Gibraltar adds FIFA membership to their UEFA membership, it doesn't impact anyone outside UEFA at all (unless perhaps they have a similar territorial dispute and fear a precedent). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar was eligible to play friendly matches even before approving its membership in UEFA. The only differences are that the national team will have the chance to play official qualification matches for UEFA Euro, which is only one in the palette of many other international football competitions; and that its football league will get official ranking and the clubs coming from it will be eligible to compete in any of the football competitions governed by UEFA. It doesn't solve the problem if the team want to play official matches against any other teams outside the UEFA-zone. In addition, the designation we use to make a distinction between something which is not internationally official in football is "non-FIFA football" and not "non-UEFA football". Gibraltar becomes UEFA member but still remains part of something which is called "non-FIFA football" and will thereby not be listed in the ranking list of national football teams published by FIFA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly matches don't mean anything in international football, not compared to competitive football of any kind. Nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them. The FA is celebrating their 150th anniversary with a friendly between England and Brazil in 2 weeks, and a high profile friendly like that will still get less attention paid to it than the second division play-off final for the English club league next week. And for men's senior 11 v 11 football, the most popular international variant by far, the Euros and the World Cup are it as far as competitive football goes. That is the sum total of the pallete. For all practical purposes, non-FIFA football for Gibraltar is the same as non-UEFA football. You are really really over-playing the distinction here - for a place as small as Gibraltar, it's not really relevant. They will never qualify for a World Cup, so in competitive football as opposed to pointless friendlies, playing UEFA teams is as good as it gets for Gibraltar, whether that's in the UEFA Euro qualifiers or the FIFA World Cup qualifiers. That's because qualifiers are organised on a regional basis, and Gibraltar will never get out of a qualifying group. That is why it doesn't matter that they still won't get a FIFA ranking, assigning them one would clearly be an exercise in abstraction, it will never be used to decide anything. But they will be getting UEFA ranking points now, and that does mean something both in status and in practice. And Spain certainly aren't going to feel any less pissed off because Gibraltar are still not in the FIFA rankings. Do you think they would be fine with Gibraltar becoming a full EU member in its own right, but would then be outraged if they became a UN member? Of course not. UEFA recognition was the deal breaker here, FIFA membership is simply an add on, a tiny bit of extra prestige, with no practical impact (although the number of competitive matches played would double over a 4 year cycle of course). Not sure why you bring up the domestic leagues, I said that already, and I don't see how that supports your point. Being eligible for UEFA competition is the best it gets for the domestic clubs, it's not like they will ever get to play in any FIFA intercontinental club competitions is it? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to simplify this to a level where non-football people might appreciate the political significance of this change in status, the last international fixture that Gibraltar played was against Jersey. That's an island with a population of 97,000 with close ties to the UK, just like Gibraltar. Until Gibraltar joined today, San Marino was the smallest UEFA team. Their last international fixture? Poland. That's a country of 38 million. With absolutely no ties to San Marino except their common status as UEFA members. These are the doors that have now opened to Gibraltar in their quest for recognition on both a sporting and political level. That's why Spain (as in the government, not the football association) were still claiming they would take every legal step to block this, even as late as last month, not least because they fear Catalonia getting ideas now (never mind the political aspect, it's not hard to see what the ramifications of Barcelona falling out with La Liga would be just for European football). Not being in FIFA is utterly irrelevant in comparison to this change, it's like saying Kosovo becoming a UN member isn't significant until they join the WTO also, it's a distinction that totally and utterly misses the point of what has happened today. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your closure. I wouldn't call what you did over-stepping the mark, I'd call it one giant leap for self-interest. You were the first opposer, and you made 3 points, only one of which was remotely relevant, and which you refuse to defend in any way. So it is no surprise you think there's no chance of this being posted. It should remain open to allow people who posess a clue about the actual differences between non-UEFA, UEFA and FIFA membership, and who can actually construct an argument about geopolitical significance or the lack thereof, to contribute. At the very least, if ITN really must reject items based on total ignorance of the topic or a willfull refusal to examine evidence, then procedural incompetence like that is really something that an admin should be officially ratifying, so it can be rectified later. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's been reclosed again. Unbelievable. I will not revert a second time, but let the record show that this was done by a non-admin, who claimed that because he is British football fan he is qualified to judge the consensus here. I think it's self-evident that this is not what makes admins qualified to close ITN discussions, so how is this even a remotely appropriate closure by a non-admin? Subject knowledge can inform their thought process, yes, but it does not qualify someone to rule on who has used facts and evidence to back up their view, and who is simply making stuff up and then using 'LOL' to hide their embarassment at being found out. That is why only admins are allowed to do it except in unambigous cases, which this is clearly not. If this was assessed by an admin with a working knowledge of football and politics, there is no way in hell that they would call this no consensus at this stage, because they would see just how many of the opposing arguments above do not meet the basic ITN requirement of posessing a WP:CLUE. One oppose is so off the wall it's even criticised by another opposer for crying out loud! Another one thinks that a trivial factoid like being the smallest team in UEFA would make this ITN, but the resolution of a 16 year old legal dispute between major European countries does not. That's got to be the very definition of cluelessness. And the supreme irony is of course that the only vote to come in after the first attempted closure, is simply invalid, period. Admins also tend to be qualified to spot and discount that sort of crap, too. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. I was just noting here for the record what has actually happened. I wouldn't want anyone who looked this up in the archive to be fooled into thinking it was closed by an admin for example. As it stands, it's been closed with arguments like 'this is a page 24 story' supposedly having won the day, even though it only happened yesterday, before any actual print newspapar would have even published it! That's the sort of crap that happened here that needs to be spelled out in black and white, for the record. Challenging why people simply just don't give a toss that this is how ITN works day to day, is indeed a matter for another venue. I disagree with you putting this inside the archive box though, as that is not acurate. These comments came after it was closed, so they belong outside the box. Othwerwise stuff like my comment on the last vote makes no sense at all. The blue box is there to preserve the precise point at which all the various individual debates were deemed to have run their course according to the the person who closed it. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I'm perfectly happy to do so. But I still strongly object to you moving this post-closure commentary back into the archive box yet again - doing so is basically deceptive. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:12, 25 May 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.
Two suicide bombers strike in the northern Niger towns of Agadez and Arlit with twenty-one dead and ten more people killed in a gun battle between soldiers and Islamist fighters. (Euronews)
A cluster of mysterious and serious respiratory illnesses that affected Southeast Alabama and killed 2 people was nothing more than the ordinary common cold, mostly rhinovirus, and seasonal influenza A. (NBC)
Abdul-Baki Todashev, the father of Ibragim Todashev (the man who had confessed to the FBI the day before in Orlando, Florida, to working with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased older brother in the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, in a previously unsolved 2011 triple homicide, and subsequently while being questioned attacked an agent with a knife and was killed) claims that his son is innocent and that federal investigators are biased against Chechens and made up their case against him. (NBC)
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.
Neutral The difference between this and gay marriage is the way it's done. This wasn't a publicly elected deliberative body (ie a Legislature) that enacted a law, but it's a private organization with a century long out right ban on homosexual members. Some people might not understand how tightly woven the boy scouts is in the fabric of American culture. We have a please do not above about items which apply to only one country. This is also making headlines, and the ITN purpose is to help readers find information they would be looking for. On the other hand, neutral because although pervasive, the boy scouts is a private organization, and there is no social stigma in America (that I'm aware of) with not being a scout. --IP98 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a serious comment? From above: "Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where am I complaining? I was asking a simple question. Instead of going on a tantrum raid just answer the question.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question was irrelevant. But to answer it, the Boy Scouts of America are nationwide in America, as implied by the name. They are a member of the worldwide scouting movement, with 2.7 million youth members and 1 million adult volunteers, according to the lede of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please pause for a moment, and imagine me making a comment that compares this with several other gay-rights nominations lately. Thank you. Now - I oppose this because, frankly, the bigoted internal rules of a glorified youth club are not that newsworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this interesting. I don't expect this nom to fly, but you should not underestimate the "newsworthiness" of this announcement in the USA. --IP98 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, they only lifted the ban on gay youths. If they had gone the hole hog I might of supported, but as it stands it would seem incredibly shallow to support this given that several countries (and one US state) have allowed the legalization of gay marriage.--85.210.99.191 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with this position, but isn't it actually kind of more interesting that they didn't get rid of the ban on adults? What are the secondary sources saying about this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the level of attention it's getting; but it's still essentially a private organisation, apparently free in law to make whatever bigoted rules it chooses. Accordingly, I'm not sure why we should care. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a major part of American culture, and they've been a big part of the gay rights debate with their long standing practice to prohibit gay members and scout leaders. There was even a South Park episode about it FWIW. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I understand the importance of scouting in American culture (which is hardly unique; it's also big in Britain and other English-speaking countries), I don't think that the partial elimination of discrimination by a private organisation meets the importance threshold. Neljack (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification, and not a comment on the nomination, Scouting is actually "biggest" (by sheer numbers) in Indonesia, not an English speaking country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and under those grounds such a rule change is not important enough for ITN, especially when organizations are legally permitted to include/exclude who they wish. If there are massive protests, I might reconsider. SpencerT♦C01:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL. There are thousands more important private organisations in the world, operating internationally and making a more global impact in the world. Why to choose one that does not satisfy the aforementioned criteria and has zero-impact worldwide? Please don't be ridiculous.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another comment on the "facts" being thrown around here. There are around 42 million members of Scouting organisations around the world. Can't think of many that would be bigger. Not sure what defines important. Admittedly, this is only about the American Boy Scouts, a subset, but it's a big step forward for one of Scouting's more conservative member organisations. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, my comment is based on facts; it's not complaining because it relates to a single country. I didn't mention a single country at all, but was speaking of the zero-impact the issue has globally. There are many stories that have a limited importance but yield impact globally. Can you tell me how someone living anywhere else in the world is affected with this? Or even to explain what is the significance of this one outside the organisation? I don't see that this one will make some bugger influence in the United States. Finally, please don't accuse me and the others if you don't like or cannot accept the arguments that support this not to be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I generally oppose "first gay X" postings, but as a queer who can pass and someone who came out to my family and friends at 14 I can assure you this will have a huge impact on a large and largely silent and voiceless population. If I were a gay scout I'd want to be able to come here and easily find this information. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shame Wikipedia isn't a forum as I think there could be a very interesting discussion around this. That said however I am tempted to support this but in reality the story was/ would have been about the introduction of this (quite strange IMO) ban, I am however open to being persuaded to change my mind which given the opinions above doesn't look very likely. --wintoniantalk04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Boy Scouts of America doesn't have much of a global reach so I doubt this news will have any global impact. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1]05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's s strange comment Brightgairs. You obviously hadn't read my earlier comment. Scouting is a world wide movement. There is a World Organization of the Scout Movement, with member bodies representing Scouting in most countries of the world. Boy Scouts of America represent the USA, and is generally seen as trailing the pack in these areas. For it to change will be seen globally within Scouting as a massive step forward. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else here ever felt they've just completely wasted a post? Why didn't you read what I had just written? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose half-way gesture by one branch of a global business; more interesting is the Pope's assertion that atheists can go to heaven (alas, the Boy Scouts - unlike heaven - won't accept atheists). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without bothering to look it up, I have seen people say that atheists going to heaven was the positions of previous popes too. So not news. Thue (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just because a story isn't international doesn't make it noteworthy. This is a significant milestone in the history of youth organizations and groups promoting a "traditional" ideal, and as such has impact to readers across the globe whether or not it impacts them directly. This has been a major topic in the American media for years now, and is probably more notable than the slew of "<liberal/center-left U.S. state or European country> legalizes gay marriage" nominations we've had lately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The world doesn't care about policies of a private organization whose membership is rapidly declining. With each passing day, they are becoming more and more insignificant.--В и к и T 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal It looks like it's time to close this nomination as it's already clear that this is way far from reaching any sort of consensus for posting. It'd be also helpful to prevent some of the users to permanently attack the votes of the others (some have already started doing it), which could easily provoke useless and not appreciated discussion again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 24 May 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.
Nominator's comments: Unprecedented several nights of rioting in a European capital city, seem similar to the 2011 riots in England. Coverage in UK largely overshaddowed by Woolwich incident, but there is still substantial coverage. This is my first nomination, so sorry if I've not done this correctly. My internet access may be iffy or non-existent over the next few days so appolgies if I miss any questions. --Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support-I agree that riots such as this are seldom seen in Europe. However, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and so we must consider the rest of the world. (Al Jazeera) has covered the incident, as does the (Sydney Morning Herald), however Xinhua doesn't even mention it. Even still, with this shallow perspective delineated, I will offer my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems like it's not something special and the consequences are not voluminous as if it would have happened in some other parts of the world, but the fact it occurs in Sweden is remarkable enough to support it for inclusion. I also find that there is a decent media coverage on this one, which is another plus to its significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - being from Sweden, I can tell you that this is something very special for Sweden with this kind of riots so this should definitly be added to ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Swedish wiki have an article for this? I'm hoping maybe there is a free picture we can add to the en article. --IP98 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working backwards, I used the 2011 england riots interwiki links to find the Swedish article. The Kategorier is Kravaller, but nothing in there started with 2013 so I'm stumped. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know why swedish Wiki is basically censoring this event. A discussion has been held and the article has been deleted "for now". That is why it is good that English Wiki does not censor this. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not censored, but wikipedia isn't wikinews. There's a consensus on svwp that news articles doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with this news item. GameOn (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The blurb says the riots are a result of the fatal shooting of an armed man by police, but it's currently not mentioned in the article at all. The article has only one line of prose in the lead, which does not give a good overview of the circumstances. thayts t 14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed from the article because the article's only academic source found it very dubious. So the bit about the shooting shouldn't be on the main page either.Narayanese (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the result, or perhaps regardless of the result, this election is also noteworthy in that the former premier (2001-2005, 2009-2012) and longest serving member of the legislature who is seeking to regain the premiership is facing 9 corruption charges. This is resulting in international media coverage, here is the AP story: [12] - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a formal RfC, just a nomination that failed for a small nation, hence my saying precedent, and not policy. I tried looking last night through the 2012 archives,but had no luck. If nobody else recalls it feel free to assume my memory is off--but this nom fails as not sovereign in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't looking for an RfC, I was looking for the precedent you mentioned. In light of the ITN/R discussions ongoing, it would be useful to see where this type of nom last failed. Thanks for looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter of the story did not even bother to go there for reporting, but did it from Kingston, Jamaica. This is quite telling of how much importance they ascribe it. --RJFF (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Caymans, much like Bermuda, functions largely independently. It is not dissimilar in status to Canada from 1867-1982, when Canada continued to be subject to British approval on some matters. - Nbpolitico (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak conditional support similar to IP98, if someone is inclined to create a decent article here (and can find enough good sources to do so) I can't see why not. There aren't any elections in the template at the moment (unfortunately, I doubt the upcoming Equatorial Guinean legislative election, 2013 will manage achieve posting quality). --LukeSurltc12:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. to subnational entities election, not state of Vermont, not Scotland until we talk about a "Sececion-independency election".--Feroang (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Even though the Caymans are not entirely sovereign, they are largely self-governing. Also, most readers know more about the Cayman Islands than they they do a good number of sovereign states, due to their status as a global tax haven. With these two points in mind, I will offer my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 1980's jingle campaign in the US went "Cayman Islands, Just a few know of us', But those who know us love us, The Cayman Islands". μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a sovereign nation + only 50,000 inhabitants + no appreciable international interest/coverage. Usually we counter opposition to posting elections in very small countries ("My home town has more inhabitants, so why don't we post mayoral elections?" and the like) with "Yes, but it's a sovereign nation". The Cayman Islands are not. --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per IP98 and LukeSurl, the article has been updated with the final results. I have also updated the proposed blurbs above accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I am surprised that this item is still open as it is getting a bit dated. However, the government is being sworn-in today making it newsy once again. I have updated the blurb accordingly incase it is still being considered. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One fourth-grade child is fatally injured, one is missing, and two others (from a St. Louis Park, Minnesota elementary school) were rescued by firefighters, after a gravel slide at St. Paul, Minnesota's Lilydale Regional Park, near the Mississippi River. The rescue effort was suspended for the night, after conditions got worse. (NBC)
In Orlando, Florida, Ibragim Todashev, a suspect under FBI questioning with ties to the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings suspects, after initially being cooperative, goes on to attack an agent (in the course of the questioning) and is shot dead as a result. (NBC)
A decorated combat veteran of the Iraq War and United States Military Academy (West Point) U.S. Army staff member, Sgt. 1st Class Michael McClendon, is relieved of his duties for allegedly planting cameras to spy on female cadets. (NBC)
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: He was a well known English wrestler who was well known to a lot of people. Judging by the sources I have lined, he was a pretty big Wrestler in his day. The article should probably be expanded though, with more information on his life and death. Andise1 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no interest in wrestling and was not familiar with him, but he seems to clearly meet the importance criterion. Neljack (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life section needs referencing, especially as it consists mostly of a single quote regarding his death. Wrestling career section also needs referencing, and it needs to be clear which events represent "actual" achievements, and which represent the scripted fiction of professional wrestling (pro wrestling articles are a nightmare for this).
Ultimately though, I weakly oppose - the main obituaries in the UK media today have been for been actor Richard Thorp - the obits for McManus seems to have had little prominence. --LukeSurltc23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious his career section starts out, not with simple facts, but with florid praise written in a dramatic style "such was his fury" and largely without documentation for the claims and language used. It seems like an essay written by a fan with literary aspirations. This makes judging the subject himself in comparison to others with matter-of-fact-ly written article rather difficult. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently oppose He is wrongly classified. He was not a wrestler. He was an actor. At the absolute minimum he should described by the euphemistic but more meaningful name professional wrestler. The article has some of the nonsense typical of this industry where it describes how he "chose" to fight in a particular way. Rubbish. He was TOLD how to fight by the scriptwriters! The article seems to be written as if pro wrestling is real. I find it difficult to support any nonsense from this industry. And we should not be drawing the attention of our readers to that article. It's garbage. Maybe if the article is completely rewritten honestly, I could support the nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you should vehemently challenge the name of that article? He's not just "wrongly classified", he's "wrongly titled"? But I think you're missing the point. It's like saying The Sun isn't notable because it's not really a newspaper. Or that Shakespeare's histories aren't notable because they're not really true. "Saturday afternoon wrestling in the UK attracted a regular audience of 12 million viewers... Reportedly among wrestling's biggest fans were Margaret Thatcher and the Queen." It was just entertainment. A sporting pantomime? Certainly. But it was still what the entire UK public called "the wrestling." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found your description accurate,(though some cannot or will not do so) but that doesn't mean the man's article couldn't be rewritten to reflect that; even if it was, I would still oppose this. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending cleanup per ITN/DC #2. Seems to be an early and influential pro wrestler. The career section has several unsourced paragraphs though, and there is a fact tag in the death section. --IP98 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "one of the biggest names of wrestling during the 1960s and 70s." according to a very reliable source [13], at a time when the country only had 3 TV channels. Oh, and British people of the time were perfectly aware that it was stage managed and nothing like sport wrestling, so let's have none of that, please. It would probably still be around on terrestrial TV now if it wasn't for satellite/cable making it one of their early cash cows along with football. Speaking of which, any of the biggest names of the WWF/WWE/WCW era will obviously breeze through ITN when they die of old age, so not posting this would clearly be showing bias to people who were only notable in the internet age. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a comparison with the insanity of WWF/WWE is inappropriate. McManus was one of the original professional wrestlers who plied his trade on Saturday lunchtimes in the 1960s and 1970s to small audiences in venues across the UK but who was watched by millions on television. Millions. In the 60s/70s. He was a precursor to Randy Savage, he was, as some have said, a "wrestling legend". He was also inducted into Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, (like Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, John Cena etc) so anyone claiming he wasn't important (or award-winning) in his field is wrong. Finally, anyone claiming that he wasn't a "wrestler" is plainly wrong. Personal opinions on the legitimacy of the trade are utterly irrelevant here, it's whether this person is in the news, notable enough for a nod at recent deaths (which we've proved) and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I've read through it again and removed several over-the-top phrases and tagged one of the clauses. I imagine it'll be the death knell for this nom unless any of the UK-based editors who are seemingly passionate about the nom can step up and help? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the article. Start with the claim that he "chose to bend the rules as far as they could go without being disqualified". Absolute rubbish. The character created by his scriptwriters did that, not the subject of this proposal. The alternative is to rewrite Christopher Reeve's article to say he could fly and like wearing his underpants on the outside. The article is fiction. We cannot use it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all editors have a duty to correct any obvious "fictions" that they see in an article, quite regardless of "DYK" nominations. Perhaps we can have a WP:RS for the scriptwriters? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per HiLo, who, though I would not phrase his objections in the same way, raises a number of valid points. Jusdafax22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you express them in your own words then, because I personally don't have a clue what he's trying to say other than the article is poorly written and he hates pro wrestling, only one of which is even relevant to the matter at hand. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't matter if I loved Professional wrestling. Much of the article is talking about the role he played as if it was real, not the now deceased performer himself. I'm disappointed that you have been fooled by the industry. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said: the "industry" in many observers judgement is essentially professional acting, not honest sporting contests. Unpostable as stands. Jusdafax23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dissapointed that you like to make stuff up about other editors all the time. You're the one who was taken in by the article it seems, not me. I knew he was a pro-wrestler beforehand, but even if I didn't I think I would have handled the shock better than you seem to have. I don't much care if it is poorly written, as I think most people are not like you - they can handle it if they see an article about a pro-wrestler that refers to him as if he was playing a role as a real wrestler (which, actually, it barely does, given all the pro-wrestling specific detail/terms in there too - Olympic wrestlers are not generally known for being heels or for having catch-phrases or for their trunk colours), because everybody in the world has surely realised that pro-wrestling is acting by the time they're out of short trousers. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed at how many people here are treating this as if it were some kind of 'revelation', and am now wondering if there might be a few people here who have only recently made the transition.... It would explain a few other things about Wikipedia for me too, that's for sure. Would a perfect article be written that way? No. Does it need to be perfect to go onto RD? No. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:22, 24 May 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.
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.
Nominator's comments: I have never nominated an article before, so please forgive any mistakes. Henri Dutilleux is a rather eminent composer, and I have added a nomination since I am surprised a nomination has not already been made. --131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating this; I hadn't seen the news of his death. He was undoubtedly one of the most important living composers, and I think he clearly meets the importance criterion for Recent Deaths. I'll see if I can expand the update on his death to five sentences or so, which is what is generally required before posting - there's sure to be some tributes and reactions to his death. Neljack (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the great prestige of classical music over time necessarily lends itself to those in the genre today. The prizes Dutilleux's won are esoteric and industry-internal. Compared to Ray Manzarek or Dave Brubeck his impact on music and the public is minimal. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support His career and works did not make any substantial impact on any music genre, but the performance and the importance of his works did on many circles of the social life. It's worth mentioning that he's cooperated with many famous musicians and other artists, which coined his name among the greatest. The style he used when composing was unique for the time and greatly influenced by many other artistic fields, making it one of the very first examples in the 20th century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are 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.
This is pretty much ready now. It would be nice to get some words from Davis herself regarding the prize, but it doesn't look like she's said anything about it on the record yet. LukeSurltc10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
oppose no where near the 7/7, that's a ludicrous comparison. One person (or 3) were killed. Meanwhile a lot more were killed in Nigeria and Syria (nominated below). This shouldn't even be an article. With that logic we'd be having hordes of pages entitled 201X Syrian beheading. But congrats on your first BOLD nomination at ITNC. Hope to see more even if the first doesn't make it.Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By tabloids and far right wing conservatives perhaps? There's no denying that this is a serious incident but comparing it to 7/7 is pretty ridiculous. YuMaNuMaContrib05:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's making headlines, that's for sure. The PM doesn't chime in on street level crime, so I think that's worth considering. I would like to see a short bio of the victim before posting. --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The British PM cut short a foreign trip straight away - something he took a few days to do with the 2011 England riots - and yes, it's all over the news. Not sure about the victim bio, all we 'know' (i.e. strongly suspect) is that he was probably an off-duty soldier. GiantSnowman20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The victims details will come out soon enough. Also need a better description of the attack. As far as I know, people don't just stand around waiting to be beheaded. --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting short his trip to France is an overreaction in my opinion, if he does so for this murder then he should drop everything every time there is a murder on British soil, without wanting to get WP:POV or WP:NOTOPINION here I suspect there may be domestic political considerations at play here. --wintoniantalk21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Lihaas; It would seem absurd to me to post this and not post the Syria and Nigeria nominations below. Thue (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Events in Nigeria/Syria are part of larger conflicts and such atrocities happen every day, unfortunately. A man getting his head cut off in broad daylight in London is very different. GiantSnowman20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the nominations below are of event which are extraordinary even in context of the countries they occur in. Thue (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We've understandably set the "bar" a little higher for conflict zones. --IP98 (talk)
Declaring dcurefew in thre provinces and using airpower against your own citizens are not everyday events in Nigeria. Taking back through a battle with new regional repecussions a crucial links road is not every day in Syria.Lihaas (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a pair of fundamentalists have murdered a (probable soldier) man in London. It is genuinely shocking, and really not an every day (or even once-in-a-lifetime) event in the UK, but it's not quite on the level of the Boston bombings or the mass murders in the Middle East we see every day. Besides that, there's too much speculation at the moment for an encyclopedic approach to this topic. Look at the Tornado in Oklahoma, we flagrantly stated nearly 100 deaths, that was way wrong because we didn't hold off for a bit. The flipside is the the openness of the whole affair, the willingness for the murderers to be videoed with bloodied hands and cleaver/knife etc on show, quite unusual, a symptom of modern "social aware" living I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is similar to Boston actually. In both cases a pair of fundamentalists, probably a bit mentally unstable, carried out a horrific act. I doubt that either case was part of a deliberate and organized terrorist attack from abroad. The Boston attack was a powerful home made bomb so the destruction was higher, that's all. --IP98 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference between this and Boston is that this seems to have been specifically targeted at an individual (whether a specific individual or not we don't yet know) who was probably in the military, but Boston was targetted at a crowd of civilians. It is almost certainly coincidental that the location of this attack is on the London Marathon route (just before the 3 mile point) and is a busy road away from that so the potential for a Boston-style attack was certainly there but they did not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Terrible? - yes, has it been all over the news here in Blighty? - yes. However it seems to me that it is no more significant than the majority of IRA bombings from the past, indeed we have a whole page dedicated to terrorist incidents in London and another one for Great Britain as a whole. In other words this is something not terribly unusual in London or Great Britain sadly. Also I am not fond of the media or governments use of "suspected terrorist attack" which seems be purely based upon 1, the skin colour of the suspects, 2, the victim may have been a solder, and 3, a possible witness thought they herd one of the suspects say "God is great" in Arabic, so I don't think we know enough to even call it 'suspected terrorism'. --wintoniantalk21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment made less sensationalist blurb. + The CIRA killed 2 police officers a day after the RIRA killed a soldier in the first such killings in years in 2007. Im sure that wasn't nearly covered. (on ITN). Would we post a ETA killing of a soldier in spain? I doubt itLihaas (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are too many terrorist attacks to post ones that don't kill many people (the Boston bombings were an exception because they occurred at a high-profile event and injured a lot of people). I doubt we would even consider posting this if it wasn't in a Western country. Neljack (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, but there's quite a lot of things we wouldn't consider posting if they weren't in western countries, and I doubt we'll see that argument in the discussion about this month's shooting rampage in a US educational establishment. Let's not get too selective about it. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly make the same argument regarding a US school shooting that only killed one (or a few) people. In fact, I opposed the LAPD gunman a few months ago on the same reasoning. Neljack (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is in no way comparable to 7/7. This is a single tragic killing, and some distasteful opportunistic political spin. I live in SE London. We are not under attack. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Neutral. It's difficult for me to be objective (hence the "neutral") as I live within walking distance of this location, but despite this being the biggest story in the area since at least the 2011 riots, my gut feeling is that there is a major overreaction from politicians and the media. There is a lot of (imho inappropriate) hero worship of soldiers in Britain currently, and this is likely the cause of much of the reaction. However that same reaction is of encyclopaedic interest. I had a look earlier and it was the top story on Al Jazeera English and the Sydney Morning Herald, but it wasn't the saturation coverage it has been getting in the UK. As for the "under attack" comment, I quite agree - the EDL mob was far more worrying for me than the initial event. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not workplace violence. It is a shockingly barbaric act of war aimed at the British state. In the US this would effectively be capital treason--although like our friends on the wrong side of the pond it prbably wouldn't be prosecuted as such nowadays. It's at the top of the news in the US, and everyday British murders are not. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that murdering an off-duty soldier does not qualify as treason, either in Britain or in America. Neljack (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an act of war, either in law or in practical fact, Medeis. Nor is it treason. Please take just a little time to familiarise yourself with the situation before wading in. We Londoners have lived through a long terrorist campaign and a recent major attack. This resembles neither. The only thing that distinguishes this from any other murder case is the sensationalism surrounding it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The particulars of the case as interpreted by individuals are not really germane to the discussion at hand. This is clearly the dominant news story in many news sources. BBC is running this as the top item on their website, with half a dozen related stories from all different angles, and news ones coming out it seems like every few minutes. It had been the #1 story on CNN.com, recently bumped to #2, and is very prominent on many news sites around the world. Insofar as the world's news organizations are treating this as a story worthy of a significant percentage of their effort, visual space, and workload, it is likely that many Wikipedia readers would not find it unusual to see a short note about the story at ITN. --Jayron3205:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dramatic circumstances, hence news coverage (as perpetrators probably intended) but no evidence that this is anything other than a rogue incident involving the two attackers and one victim. Employment of victim, subsequent actions of attackers, and extraordinary deviation from usual standards of decency and discretion on part of media make it more shocking, but not more important. If it turns out that there was a larger plot, we can revisit it at the time of trial, but at the moment, it appears no more than a hate-crime murder, not the launch of a terrorist campaign. Kevin McE (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the dominant news story across the globe so should meet the criteria of being "In The News". Terrorist incidents by their definition are notable. The body count shouldn't be the deciding factor, the newsworthyness seems clear to me. CaptRik (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, sorry but no, let's not join the hype. There are murders in London all the time, nothing special about this one except that the media have chosen to hype it, for whatever reason. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was a public beheading in broad daylight, where the perpetrators waited around, and the Prime Minister cancelled a trip abroad to address? If I had to guess, I'd say that's why the media is covering it... --IP98 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought of it this way:The Prime Minster cancelled his trip abroad because the overzealous media demanded to know what his response to an novel incident, which happened to involve Jihadism, would be. YuMaNuMaContrib 9:45 pm, Today (UTC+10)
Support. Jesus Christ. Two men used a car in broad daylight to knock down a passer by on one of the busiest roads in one of the biggest cities in the world, then proceeded to hack his head off in front of onlookers and yards from a school, and then chose not to run away but stay and try and publicise islamic jihad until being gunned down by armed police. All this in a country where armed police are the exception not the norm, terrorist attacks are extremely rare, and the actual murder rate was just 99 in 2012 - in a city of 8 million! The idea that people here can get away with calling this "not terribly unusual" or "nothing special" or downgrading it to simply yet another "tragic killing" defies belief. And what on Earth does this incident have to do with anything that the IRA did before Wikipedia was even created? Or one of a hundred ETA shootings over the years? Or what other horrific things are going on almost as a matter of routine now in war torn places like Syria? The reasons the media are all over this are beyond obvious, therefore the reasons for ignoring it should be compelling and backed up by solid logic/evidence. If this 'debate' ends up being drawn out for days while admins ponder on the pros and cons as if somehow they were all equally valid, then what more evidence is needed that this process page is simply not fit for purpose at all and needs to be replaced with something entirely different. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do you feel that I 'get away' with my characterisation of this attack? What am I 'getting away' from? And what is a page like this for, if not weighing the pros and cons of proposed postings? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I no longer feel able to respond to you in any meaningful way,given what happened last time, and the threats I am now getting because of it [14]. Better safe than sorry. I don't want to risk angering you with all my confrontational sky is blue talk. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but leaning to support. While I agree with many who posted here that this is no more than a murder or a minor terrorist attack, I'm finding it all-over the news. The blurb is a bit worrying for me, do we know for sure by now if the victim was beheaded or not? The article doesn't reflect either. Mohamed CJ(talk)13:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re; the updated blurb; I think were starting to get into the realms of sensationalism now which is not the job of Wikipeada and one which the British media have no trouble doing all by themselves as does the current government it seems. I suggest using something more neutral like "A man was murdered by by two others in Woolworth, London", which is just about all that happened. --wintoniantalk13:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A man getting run over then decapitated by two guys who shouted Islamist propaganda and encouraged others to film them, then waited around for the police, then tried to attack the police who shot them both? An emergency COBRA meeting getting called? The PM cutting short a foreign visit? That is not your everyday murder. GiantSnowman14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; but the reaction appears far more unusual than the action. People do get stabbed in the street now and then in this country. If we post this because of the reaction, which is substantially the product of the press itself, we risk reporting on the reporting, rather than on the facts. As with the Ohio kidnapping case, the newsworthiness here is largely in the gruesomeness and sensationalism, not in the wider impact. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is still no official confirmation that he was decapitated. If there is anything that makes this more notable than average it's the reaction to it rather than the event itself. I must say though that wile I'm still neutral, the blanket coverage is lasting longer than I expected and I've been hearing helicopters most of the day. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is evidently a sick terrorist attack, but it's not as big as 7/7 or even the recent Boston bombing, yet with all the media coverage and wide reactions I'm leaning more towards supporting posting. Mohamed CJ(talk)14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true because the MOD hae not confirmed that. Having edited most of the page I;m aware of the readings that the MOD were peeved at the MP for suggesting it was right off the bat. Oof course then the media are just parroting it. Snsationalism/Yellow pressLihaas (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC are now reporting that the police and "senior Whitehall sources" are saying that he was a serving solider, the Prime Minister confirmed it earlier too. No reason now not to say he was a soldier [15] (that's the latest news page so not a long-term url but I can't find a better one atm). Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the MoD are now also confirming it: "The Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of Defence can confirm that the man who died in Woolwich yesterday was a serving soldier." [16]Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Had I seen this yesterday, I would have opposed on the grounds that however shocking the motivation and cause of death, and however surprising the location, this was the murder of one unknown person by two other unknown people. But when I see the wall-to-wall coverage this is still getting, not only in the Western media, but by the likes of RT and Al Jazeera, coupled with the attention top politicians outside of the UK are paying to it, I think there are sufficient grounds to post. —WFC— FL wishlist15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26 hours on, still no posting. Despite 2 opposers still claiming that this was just a routine murder and one arguing that him speaking on behalf of all Londoners here should carry more weight than sourced reactions. Discount them and there is clearly a consensus to post when looking at the strength of the rest of the opposition. Can this process get any more discredited? This should either be up already, or there should be a list of concrete reasons here why not from one of the people charged with supposedly reviewing everybody's "reasonable arguments" in support and opposition and come to a consensus. Failure to do either is simply negligence. This is not a paper encyclopedia, yet even the print media is out-performing Wikipedia here. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The print media are generating more coverage, and more hot air, than we are, but that's not necessarily our objective. We're not directly competing with them, and I don't believe we should try. But no-one is paid to work on this site; the admins who might review and post this story make precisely £0.00 from doing so, and it's still working hours in the UK. Please be patient, at least. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discount all those opposing your point of view so that there will be a consensus that you favour, If that's how you see this process than I'm afraid it is your contribution that should be discounted. --wintoniantalk18:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only said discount those who were making unreasonable arguments, which is what the ITN guidance says admins should do. And it's no surprise that it's only those two people who seem to have a problem with that statement. Once you weigh up what's left, then the consensus is clear. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you again set yourself up as the arbiter of the reasonableness of other people's opinions. Please understand: I am genuinely interested in your view of the case, and of its suitability for ITN. I am not interested in your views of whether my own opinion is 'reasonable' - especially in light of your unwillingness to back your argument up with evidence or even explanation when I challenged it above. Which is, needless to say, what happened last time. I am not upset or angry; I'm actually quite keen to engage. But if you characterise my views in a particular way, and then don't say why, I may feel that your objection lacks substance. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might not be interested, but without it, there is no debate to be had. Like it or not, this is supposed to be a debate to determine whose opinion is more reasonable. Check the guideance if you're not aware of that. I can defend any part of my view of the incident with evidence, but you've not challenged any of that. The only thing I am unwilling to do now is answer the sort of question that got me blocked last time. I'm sorry if that means you feel unable to question me in the way you want to do now, but you reap what you sow. You were not interested in facts or evidence the last time, you were only interested in whether I said any rude words once it became obvious to me that some people here were not interested in facts and evidence if they thought they had provided a single paragraph on the topic that they thought was not only reasonable but also not open to challenge (sound familiar?). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I'm going to boldly mark this as ready. The article is large and well referenced, support is there, and the neutrals are leaning support. --IP98 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the current blurb mentions a beheading, there's not one single mention of that in the article. Before we post, please revise the blurb appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as far as I can see it's good to go, but I won't post it in case of COI issues. It's been interesting seeing that most UK-based or British editors have said this isn't ITN but a number of non-UK-based or non-British editors consider it important enough to post. Something of a contradiction I didn't expect, but (in my case) it's possibly about Blitz spirit and stiff upper lip and trying to "ignore" this revolting act so as not to encourage others. Who knows. Hopefully another admin can come along soon enough to post this or otherwise please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh I hadn't noticed that, how interesting, well if even I am being rather stiff upper lip (which I'm not consciously) it's not a consideration for whether we decide to post or not :).--wintoniantalk20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to accuse TRM of any intentional bad faith. But this 'stiff upper lip' argument seems to appeal to national stereotypes in order to suggest that those of us who actually live in the area affected, and consume a high volume of domestic news media, know less about the seriousness and newsworthiness of the case than those separated from it by oceans. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready on consensus )very tight)_ but only on update.
BTW- the confirmation came from the MOD after my last post. Still had MOD said he wasoffduty or is that media sitself?Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything official saying he was on or off duty, but as he wasn't in uniform it's not really speculation to say he wasn't on duty. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dramatic circumstances of this killing are being trumped up in tabloid style in the Western media. Yes this is in the news but it is not one of the five or so most ITN-worthy blurbs we could post. Supporters do not make a compelling case for their claims of consensus by discounting opposing reasoning, in my view, and this should not be marked as ready. Jusdafax21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - you're claiming the entire western media has suddenly developed tabloid tendencies for this one dramatic incident? And we're not allowed to discount this sort of opinion as unreasonable why exactly? You could at least give an example of what you're claiming is tabloid treatment in otherwise non-tabloid media. Because I personally have no idea what some other random person on the internet thinks is 'tabloid'. The tone of the coverage I've seen has been no different than any other recent similar incident, the Boston bombing being the one that immediately comes to mind. And it harldy matters if multiple stories get posted simultaneously, does it? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, the arrests earlier this evening aside, none of the pertient facts have changed in all that time. It was an horrific, unusual, widely covered terrorist attack 32 hours ago, and it still is now. The only thing that's really been happening for the last 32 hours here is not so much decision making, as decision delaying. Even if we're waiting to see evidence of longevity in the news, that doesn't take anywhere near 32 hours, not in the internet age. Around 8 hours is arguably the new 'news cycle'. I'm more interested in hearing from you what the harm would be in posting the more obvious headline news items like this as soon as the article is half-way decent, which it normally is an hour or two after creation. It can always be removed, after all, if you manage to make that case. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've got majority support, larger with the "favorable" neutrals, an historically unique event, and a well-updated article. This is indeed ready for an admin to make a judgment. BTW further arrests today show this is not just a flash in the pan. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Umm this is not a vote, however as the more attentive editors here may have noticed I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that there most likely is now consensus to post - (I still don't agree with such consensus however). --wintoniantalk22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big international news. The news here in the States have covered just two things in the past few days; the tornado in Oklahoma and this story. Absolutely ITN worthy.--Giants27(T|C)22:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed two other people were arrested hours ago for conspiracy to murder (making this a 4 person cell at least), so that's another big chunk of the opposition that should be discounted. Meanwhile the coverage/analysis continues unabated as far as I can tell. So, should be being posted any minute now.... Any minute now.... Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of courtesy, stop trying to tell us what 'should be discounted'. That is not your decision to make. You, and I, and everyone here, are peers in this discussion, and not in judgement upon one another. When an uninvolved admin comes by, they'll weigh up the arguments and make a decision. Please be patient. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making any decision, quite clearly. But I am perfectly entitled to point out when someone's argument is discountable through its unreasonableness. Just like you are entitled to try and show how it isn't, rather than simply claiming that doing so is not allowed. It's called a debate. What you're referring to is not a debate, it's a list of unchallenged position statements. Otherwise known as a vote. And as HiLo is fond of screaming, ITN doesn't do that. On the subject of basic courtesy though, you should erase all the comments where you try to portray yourself as the voice of all Londoners, lest you offend any that might be reading here. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I think that whole argument should be discounted as we do not know what the arrests were for and besides people are innocent until proven guilty as per WP:CRIMINAL. --wintoniantalk22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say "conpsiracy to murder". Please read them before claiming what is and isn't known here. And who said they were guilty? Not me. But WP:CRIMINAL has no relevance here, clearly. And ITN can and does post pre-trial stories, if that's what you meant. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise its not up to you to determine if its a 4-person cell. An arrest is not a conviction (other than the 2 that were caught on camera)
It is odd that though you weren't going to continue to comment above for fear of a block you are now commenting in the same thread..Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey I concede that I wasn't aware that the grounds for arrest had been made public at that point. As for assumed guilt/ innocence, you did say "making this a 4 person cell at least", rather than something along the lines of "meaning this could be a 4 person cell at least". But you should be pleased it's up now and as a result I'm going to bed as this debating is now fairly pointless. --wintoniantalk02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, why can't I say cell? 4 people arrested for the same terrorist offence. What other word is commonly used for that situation, other than cell? And more importantly, what relevance does it have to the matter at hand? I was hardly suggesting it be used in a blurb. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. Until and unless we learn from official sources that those arrested genuinely had worked together in the way you're implying, this can't credibly be regarded as a cell. No reliable source could be found to say otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN, it's entire purpose is apparently to argue over whether what random people say about stuff is true or not. Here's what is definitely true and verified by offical sources: terrorism, 4 people arrested, 2 for murder, 2 for conspiracy to murder, all for the same victim. What more do you need? A dictionary maybe? To look up what conspiracy actually means, and compare it to what cell normally means in the context of terrorism? Bearing in mind all that was was a comment on the latest developmnent, not a proposed blurb, not my suggestion for an addition to the article, then your various reactions are nothing short of bizarre. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:42, 24 May 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)
