| article2 = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image = File:Operation Castle - Romeo 001.jpg
| blurb = [[Russia]] [[World War III|'''declares war''']] on the [[United States of America]] after U.S. intervention in the [[2014 Crimean crisis|crisis in Ukraine]].
| recent deaths = <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| altblurb = <!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
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).
The death toll rises to 58 as Navy and Coast Guard divers comb the ferry to retrieve victims from the Sewol. Five routes into the ferry have been established, and operations are expected to pick up pace. (Yonhap)
In game two of a Stanley Cup Playoff series, the San Jose Sharks defeat the Los Angeles Kings 7-2. During the game the Sharks scored a franchise record seven consecutive goals in a playoff game, also breaking the franchise record for most goals in a playoff game. The team also tied the franchise record for most goals in a period, with three, and the largest margin of victory (five goals). (Toronto Sun)
The death toll of the accident rises to 32 as two bodies are found in the sea and three in a cabin of the ferry, which became fully submerged yesterday. (Yonhap)
The South Korean government considers declaring a special disaster zone in Ansan. (Yonhap)
Nominator's comments: Well a breakthrough has been ,ade and its not just a delay. Seems notable after eyars of bickering. Probably more, when netanyahu hears about makes som e rambling statement/. --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Iran agrees to deals it plans to ignore entirely every so often just to keep the international community off its back for a little while. There's nothing to suppose this is anything more than "Iran says 'sure, we'll agree to stop doing that' while it keeps on doing it anyways". --Jayron32 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, unless you have evidence that the Iranian government has entered into this agreement in bad faith, that's really just speculation. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on our personal views of the Iranian regime. If there is an agreement, then clearly the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany think that there is a prospect that Iran will actually carry it out, or else they wouldn't agree to it. It's also worth noting that there has been a change in government since most of the previous negotiations - the new President is significantly more moderate. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Point taken. --Jayron32 01:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk say they will not leave the government buildings, defying the Kyiv authorities and threatening a new international deal on Ukraine. (BBC News)
A police officer is killed and another is wounded after a bomb detonates in a busy square in Cairo's Mohandessin district. (The Guardian)
Business and economy
Arts and crafts retailer Michaels announces that 3 million customers were affected by the 8-month long security breach that resulted in the theft of their customers' personal information. (CNN)
The death toll of the accident rises to 28. (Yonhap)
South Korean prosecutors have issued an arrest warrant for the captain, Lee Joon-seok, and are seeking the arrest of two other crew members of the Sewol in the wake of the ferry capsizing. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake affecting tourist areas like Acapulco and major hubs such as Mexico City. Not quite clear yet the magnitude of the earthquake. --70.26.175.165 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose Initial reports are stating there's no known fatalities or major damage, but that's it. Mind you, the reports from Mexico City, far from the quakes epicenter, are light, and it will likely take some time for those near the epicenter to report in, but we're also talking about more rural Mexico there, so would not expect much there as well. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of six hours ago, the BBC reported "There are no reports of casualties or significant damage". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if existing reports of no deaths and no serious damage turn out to be accurate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 7.0 is the usual lower limit for an article, not for posting to ITN. There seems to be ongoing earthquake activity on the planet right now, perhaps one will come along that kills a lot of people so it can be posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: It's not every day that NASA deliberately crashes something into the Moon. I'll start work on the article in a moment. --Modest Geniustalk 20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Sad day indeed. *cough* I mean, LADEE does seem to be a prominent enough spacecraft. Weak support I guess. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – doesn't really seem like science "news", so much as a procedural fact about a particular mission reaching a particular phase. IMO it would be more newsworthy if NASA publishes some interesting findings from the mission. It Is Me Heret / c 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - did it do or discover anything particularly novel or important? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: it was the first mission to use long-distance laser communication and made major discoveries about the thin atmosphere of the Moon. Because it was a short mission, little has been published yet and lots of analysis is still to be done, but it was clearly a success in both scientific and technological senses. Modest Geniustalk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the crash landing was not intended to kick up material for study, so it is just a routine event. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately destroying $280m space probes is not a 'routine event'. You can argue the significance if you like, but not that it's routine! Modest Geniustalk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title of this section to "LADEE space mission successfully ends as planned on the surface of the moon". Emphasise the mission, not the crash. Making it positive might elicit more positive responses. 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the spacecraft didn't intentionally crash into the moon. A suicidal spacecraft would be news. Bellemora (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Do read the source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of lead... "The mission ended on April 18, 2014, when LADEE was intentionally crashed into the far side of the Moon." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"was intentionally crashed" not "intentionally crashed". The intention was NASA's not the spacecraft's. Bellemora (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (That's why I added the altblurb.) Bellemora (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb per Modest Genius' and Bellemora's reasonings, but change the "it" to "the spacecraft". Rhodesisland (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: 58 civilian refugees shot dead within UN base. UN secretary-general calls it a war crime. (correction: 48 civilians + 10 attackers) --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More notable is the take over of the oilfields than this. This particular event has already lef to increased security there and isnot as unstable. Also there is a nother article out there that we posted in December,.
I support the posting of something to do with S. Sudan, but not the blurb proposed. The take over of the oil fields and that Aguer silly commentary/stupidity) is more indicative of instabilityLihaas (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)'[reply]
'Support This was a major attack on civilians working with the United Nations, i.e. neutral folks, not participants in the civil war. High death toll. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HiLo; attacks on UN facilities/missions are notable, along with the significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons above. The article could use a lot more bulk, but it is interesting enough for me to click on a couple of links that brings a lot more information. Mvblair (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment orange maintenance tag still exists in target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not certain that all 58 of those killed were civilians, it seems that most of them were but a few of them may have been among the attackers, which would make them sort-of not civilians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newer reports indicate 58 deaths of which 48 were civilians and 10 attackers. Further detail in the article. UN security council has issued a statement calling the attack a war crime. I'm amending the blurb to correct erroneous '58 civilians'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that cse take my [mild] objection as a support. Resolvedit all and its unanimous. Someone pleas emark ready if the requisite 2-3 sentences updateS are there.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TRM has noted the existance of problems that do not yet seem to be resolved. --Jayron32 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second article was since added...? Post with that and then bold the other when its done?Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "blurb" in headlinese? This isn't normal practice, is it? 58 people, including 48 civilians, die in an attack on the UN base in Bor, South Sudan. Bellemora (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Support adding support for when the articles are ready. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2014 (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.
It would be better to link the more directly relevant President of Algeria if we are going down that road. See altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A terrible loss of the workhorses who get rich Westerners to the summit, and the worst loss-of-life in a single event on the world's highest mountain. Stub article needs work. Not sure we've posted a mountaineering ITN ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per TRMs reasoning. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis that using the last major Everest climbing loss (1996?) article as an example, this short article will likely grow as investigators determine what went wrong in time. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lean oppose, but weakly article needs improvement. And the loss of life on its own is not notable, per precedent, but if its a famous first then i would support it as a minority topicLihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "famous first" isn't an ITN requirement. Probably 90% of what we post is not a first. That said this is "famous" (being widely reported around the world) and a "first" (most deaths ever on Everest). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very sad event. I like mountaineering, but there are many similar sad events around the world almost every week where 10 - 20 people lose their lives. I don't see this story as being particularly widely reported or prominent compared to other items currently in the news. On the plus side, this is the worst mountaineering disaster on Everest, but there have been worse accidents on other mountains, such as 43 dead on Mt. Lenin.[1]JehochmanTalk 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about the victims really, and for diversity here at ITN that we're always looking for. We posted a plane crash in which three people died... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are looking at, but the sources in the article alone show this is being covered in depth by some of the best newspapers in the world. See NY Times for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support People lose their lives accidentally in traffic collisions, airplane crashes or bomb blasts fairly frequent, but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest. The death toll is also high for one such accident, albeit not if compared to accidents of different kind, and the news receives attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest" I'd say one in ten attempts resulting in death is quite common. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difference being these guys were preparing the mountain for tourists, earning next-to-nothing for doing so. And this is the worst death toll in a single day, would you suggest that we wouldn't have posted the 1996 Mount Everest disaster if ITN had been around? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, deaths on Everest are commonplace. More people are climbing nowadays, meaning that the number of dead is consistent with the risk. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the multiple deaths associated with a single natural "disaster" (the avalache), while they were in the middle of a job they were doing. Yes, people die attempting to climb Everett on their own violation, one could argue that's Darwin's law in play, but this is far different from that. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my oppose. I heard an in-depth story on NPR about how these guys don't have sufficient life insurance for the task. That costs as interesting secondary analysis for me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems clearly notable as the largest number of people to ever die in one event on Mount Everest. While people die every year on Everest, more than 2 or 3 people dying in a single event is very unusual. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was any other mountain, would we even think about posting it? People die on Everest all the time (sadly). So many in one incident is unusual, but twelve is still a small number in the grand scheme of things. We can't post every avalanche that kills a dozen people, and I don't see why being on Everest makes this any more significant. Modest Geniustalk 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's precisely because it's on Everest, and that it involves the locals, that makes this significant. They were only there to pave the way for rich bastards from first world countries, who I hope will now find a way to support their families forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons given; Everest is more notable than other mountains being the tallest in the world, so disasters there are more notable than if they occurred elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is borderline, and of interest in a record book sort of way. But the article, even though it has been stretched into three "paragraphs" is really only one, and it seems doubtful anything more than an entry in a list is really warranted here notabilitiwise. Prior events on Everest have involved the deliberate abandonment of climbers. Here there was simply a natural event, no evidence of human malfeasance. 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
The article has already been expanded and no doubt there will be much more on this over the coming days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deadliest accident ever on the world's highest mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - some of the arguments above are quite strange. Of course it is more notable because it happened on Everest (and 12-16 dead in any avalanche is already significant). Additionally, this is drawing attention to the plight of the Sherpa people, something few tourist climbers ever consider, and even fewer regular people are even aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am not sure "Sherpas" is technically correct. It is correct in the sense that the term is often used as a synonym for climbing guide, but not all guides are ethnically Sherpa (most Everest guides are, but some are members of other ethnic groups). Its unclear to me if all of the 12+ killed here were Sherpa. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready, consensus is clear and update sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because although the immediate cause was a natural disaster, the indirect cause was exploitative tourism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attention Needed as an oppose, I feel safe in saying that with an 11-4 support, this should be posted ven by the nominator or updater at this point, unless there's some technical problem I missed with the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. The word avalanche should be bolded and linked instead of killed. It just seems more consistent with the other news stories. Thoughts? 66.249.84.233 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Half thought about that when I posted it but thought that someone may have considered suggesting something different during the voluminous nomination process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment## Im not saying this was under dispute to post as there was a majority in support, but theres at least a COI in the nominator posting it. Theres plenty of admins who can psot.Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, consensus was pretty strong (against me), and one opposer had already said they wouldn't object to the nominator posting it themsevles. I think we've fallen into a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap here - many of the arguments above were essentially 'they're poor an exploited, so of course we should post it'. I disagree with that reasoning, but not with the mechanics of judging consensus and actually posting it. Modest Geniustalk 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak only for myself, but my support had nothing to do with the plight of the Sherpas, but actually the fact that the avalanche was drawing attention to that plight. That is, having a secondary effect beyond the body count. Ideally that is what we look for in any disaster. (I would have also supported it if 12 western climbers died in a single event on Everest, and I'm sure others would have too.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose as well had nothing to do with the victims being Sherpas. Given the overwhelming consensus and the fact that even opposes like myself could se it, and the dearth of active admins here, there was no reason an involved party should act after this rather decent interval. Had the poster reverted his own vote, or whatever its called, just for the sake of appearances, there'd still have been overeffingwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd have posted it if I wasn't on a phone at the weekend. That The Rambling Man got to it first therefore makes no difference to the end result, and no harm was done. Stephen 02:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, I waited 11 hours from when this was marked Ready to posting it. "Theres plenty of admins who can psot" doesn't seem to be true in this instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia and Ukraine together with the United States and the European Union sit down for emergency talks in Geneva. All four agree that "illegal military formations in Ukraine" must be dissolved, and that everyone occupying buildings must be disarmed and leave them. There would be an amnesty for all anti-government protesters under the agreement. (The Guardian)(Sky News Australia)
A skirmish on the Ukrainian military base in Mariupol by pro-Russian militants results in the deaths of 3 of the militants, the wounding of another 13, and the capture of 63 others. (BBC News)
The Ukrainian Army unit whose armoured vehicles were seized by pro-Russian forces is disbanded and its members charged with crimes. (Ukrainian News Agency)
Jews in Donetsk are ordered to register with the government of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic via leaflets dropped by an unknown party. The Jewish community in Donetsk dismissed it as a "provocation". (USA Today)(CNN)
Law and crime
Two former Anglo Irish Bank chiefs, Pat Whelan and William McAteer, are found guilty of making loans designed to illegally prop up the bank's share price. (BBC News)
Bankruptcy judge Steven W. Rhodes says that the court may maintain supervision over the finances of the city of Detroit, Michigan, even after the city emerges from bankruptcy protection. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Either a great or terrible breakthrough depending on one's POV, but clearly highly significant either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "human clone", readers will think there is a baby. They created some stem cells. Given the embarrassing incident with posting the last stem cell thing, and the South Korean fraud incident, would it not be preferable to Wait for confirmation by another lab? Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "human embryonic clone" - please suggest better wording if you can. As to timing, the story is in the news now, and is being covered by the cream of the crop news sources. There will barely be a blip when it is confirmed (which due to the legal situation of cloning might not be anytime soon either). I feel now is the best time to post; using language like "announce" implies it hasn't been confirmed yet. (Incidentally, I am not sure what you are referencing when you say South Korean fraud.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note given this is a scientific item, this is a story that comes from publication of the research in a peer-reversed journal (per the Telegraph's article), as opposed to a lab making the jump before scrutiny has been applied. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Peer review implies a certain (but not perfect) level of review has taken place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like the blurb to be more precise. These guys didn't simply create an embryo from adult cells. They used a normal human egg as the basis of their work. The Telegraph article says: "The technique works by removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a skin cell. An electric shock causes the cells to begin dividing until they form a ‘blastocyst’ – a small ball of a few hundred cells." It's important to say that that this process still involves a normal human egg. How about the blurb saying: "Scientists announce a human embryonic clone from adult tissue by replacing the nucleus of a normal unfertilised egg with the nucleus of an adult skin cell."? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - I shortened/tweaked it a bit and put it as the alt blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed even more. Also, I made it clear that there is no baby. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with altblurb) major technical achievement, and links are a gateway to many nice articles. I will point out that "cloning" has both a rather dry technical meaning, and a very sensational popular meaning, and could confuse readers. I have changed the altblurb to more precisely reflect what's going on here, and to be more succinct. BR128.214.214.31 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised blurbs. As said above, cloning has a different meaning in popular usage than in scientific (that is, when I see "cloning," I automatically think scientists created a t-rex or something). The revised blurbs do not reflect that popular connotation and are good in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talk • contribs)
Support - cloning,, hmm interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will work on the article in a few hours - it is not ready for posting at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 - because it's the clearest explanation of what this particular breakthrough is, to my mind. Agree with User:Mvblair that we want to avoid implying the 'boba fett' kind of cloning. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 after the article is updated. Mohamed CJ(talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and marked ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2014 (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: I think this should get a full blurb Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per death criterion 2, 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field'. Nobel Prize for Literature, world figure in his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for full blurb — One of the Spanish literature giants. I think his death should be posted as a full blurb. He is widely regarded as the most popular writer in Spanish since Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th century. [3]ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting to RD for now, probably a full blurb is in place when there's a bit more update. --Tone 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone: Thanks for the speedy posting. Good call on your part. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb was a key member of the Latin American Boom and won a Nobel Prize; one of the most important authors in the past century. SpencerT♦C 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb I have updated the article to a 5-lines paragraph. It is already tagged as a good article. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb common sense, one of the great figures of Spanish literature. Secretaccount 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb per Computer JA.
Not Updated a shoe-in for a full blurb, but the article is still in the present tense. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb Márquez was definitely one of the most sound names in both Spanish-language and modern literature and definitely one of the greatest and most popular writers of our generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article now appears to stand in a good shape and the death section is sufficiently updated to go on the main page. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I have very high standards for a blurb, but I think Marquez meets them. Undoubtedly one of the most important writers of the last half-century. Many people would say he was the most important Spanish-language writer since Cervantes. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Seeing the news coverage and reading about him, I do think a blurb is warranted. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, the passing of a literary giant. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The overwhelming consensus here for a full blurb is pretty convincing. Let's get it up asap. Redverton (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per overwhelming consensus here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—significant scientific discovery pertaining to space exploration and finding life outside of Earth. 184.146.116.16 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dammit, I was about to nominate this! Oh well... Anyway, this is clearly a significant discovery (like Enceladus' ocean). Jinkinsontalk to me 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb is incorrect - there is no way to know if a planet is habitable or not. Being in the habitable zone just means it might be habitable. Please don't equate the two on the home page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, it should say habitable zone. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "near" its habitable zone. Does that mean it lies just outside the zone? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before that point in the article, the article says it is in the HZ. Where is it in the HZ? Near the outer edge. Astredita (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This detail definitely needs cleared up (in the article) before the story is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "near" has been replaced with "so although it is within the habitable zone it is near the outer edge of the zone Astredita (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Issues seem to be resolved in the article, posting. --Tone 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yonhap news agency reports that the Republic of Korea Coast Guard has been dispatched to rescue a ferry with 476 passengers sinking off the southeastern coast of South Korea with claims that at least four passengers have died and scores are injured. Approximately 280 people remain unaccounted for. (AP)(AFP via Nine MSN)(BBC News)
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.
Comment. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet? Note; If this is an RD nomination, a proposed blurb is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As 331dot asks, which of the RD criteria does this gentleman meet? In any case, the article needs to be updated to reflect the fact he has died, tense changes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Karpal Singh gained some fame in Australia and New Zealand for defending citizens of those countries accused of frug trafficking. It's mentioned in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Say no to frugs. Stephen 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we saying he is very important to the legal field, then? He was also twice charged with sedition which seems (from reading the article) to be a unique situation. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Seems to have been a significant figure in Malaysian politics, as well as being known internationally for his criminal law work. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No rationale, neither the death itself or the career itself meets ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I too do not see a satisfactory rationale at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per those concerned over how this nomination meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto The Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting and important discovery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have some concerns: the researchers say that the gene is named Folr4 and propose renaming it Juno. I am unsure if they have the authority to do such a rename. Quite unusually, there is no Wikipedia article for Folr4. The stub at Juno (protein) is missing the Template:Infobox protein that would go a long way towards rounding out the article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, perhaps move the article to Folr4 for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking. When whatever committee gets around to renaming it Juno the article can always be moved back. Abductive (reasoning) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - this looks interesting, but I wouldn't say it looks important; the discovery is important for our understanding of the mechanics of mammalian reproduction but it's not really going to change anything, is it? If it is going to change something, I'd like to see some indication of what in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to findings, female mice without that protein (and, most likely, humans as well) become infertile, so I'd say it's a milestone discovery. Brandmeistertalk 08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much of a milestone surely depends on what proportion of infetility cases are caused by the lack of the protien. If it's only the cause of infertility for a tiny fraction of those affected, then this isn't that practically important. MChesterMC (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that female mice without the protein become infertile is not the same thing as saying it is a cause of infertility unless you also show that there are naturally-occurring individuals who lack that protein. If the headline is actually 'Scientists discover major cause of infertility' then my vote changes to support - but that's not what I'm seeing here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting, and this paper has certainly gone towards the top of my to-read list, but until it's been shown to be strongly involved in human infertility etc I don't see what the wider appeal is. Regarding the above comment of "and, most likely, humans as well", that is for the moment completely and utterly unfounded, until shown otherwise. Fgf10 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Discovery is interesting if not world-shattering, article is good if a bit technical for the lay reader. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support historically a much more important development than the Everest fall, may explain many case of infertility. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Korean ferry sinking
Article:2014 South Korean ferry capsizing (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A ferry carrying more than 470 people, including 350 students, capsizes off South Korea. (Post) Alternative blurb: A ferry with more than 450 people aboard capsizes off South Korea, leaving at least 4 dead and 284 missing. Alternative blurb II: A ferry with more than 450 people aboard capsizes near Jindo Island off South Korea, leaving at least 4 dead and 284 missing. News source(s):BBC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Developing story as it apparently just occurred with sunrise there now. Its reported as severly listing (saw a video of it at 90 degrees or thereabouts). Im off to sleep, but someone can keep an eye on it --Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that there's more than just students on the ferry. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose From the reports, there is an orderly rescue process going on in place, no deaths reported as of yet. Sounds like there was time for them to warn passangers and alert coast guard units for rescue. If this turns more tragic, that might mean something.Changing to Tentative support due to lack of information incoming Full Support --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the students and teachers have now been rescued. [4]. So yeah, still looking like this isn't going to be a significant ITN story. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting reports. It looks like the Reuters story has been revised since you read it. "But it later described those figures as a miscalculation, turning what had at first appeared to be a largely successful rescue operation into potentially a major disaster." Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely some initial sloppy reporting and/or attempts to downplay the incident. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[5] One confirmed death, and initial reports are saying the ship ran aground. I'll keep to tentative oppose but there's a possibility here. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now two confirmed dead, [6], in addition to confusion in the reports of whom rescued. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, considering support if it turns out to be a deadly (+10) incident. Küñall (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as of a few minutes ago, confirmation that at least 290 people were unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the missing people part. If it does turn out that they all magically turn up unharmed, then consider this an oppose vote. Either way, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded a lot before it can go live. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were the bulk of the known passangers on the ship (it was a school trip to a nearby island), and this is being highlighted by most press sources. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Children in danger often considered more serious than adults in danger. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until article can give a reasonable summary of the incident and casualty numbers are approximately known. --LukeSurltc 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 300+ missing children is a lot IMO. Suggest wikilink South Korea as that's a pretty good article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally link country names and other common terms. See WP:OVERLINK --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post now. Fun fact: If this was an Irish ship, someone would've cried "US biaz" 2 hours ago, leading to its imnmediate posting. –HTD 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As was this..Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I don't mind mentioning the students, but I think we should avoid for the time being saying how many died, since it's a developing story. But it should be posted forthwith due to the large number on board. Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding a second alt that gives a better geographic link for reference. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you include the headline with "students" why not make it "high-school students" or "schoolchildren" which will be more informative than the blanket term. Bellemora (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support use of specific location, "children" rather than "students" (also more specific). Avoid bodycount because data may change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending a little more cleanup on the article / sectional breakdown -- Tawker (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Confirmed casualties are low at the moment, but likely to rise. The 2014 Oso mudslide was posted when the confirmed number of dead was relatively low, this situation is no different imo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's true about the Oso mudslide, this should go up soon, especially now eight hours have passed and there are hundreds still "missing". This is an ITN story regardless of the number of deaths now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update? — Blurb says nine dead, 280 missing. Per Reuters, now 14 dead, 282 missing.[7] (As of 1400 UTC, BBC, NYT, Guardian still say nine dead). Sca (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It it probably better to wait until a full account of passangers (alive or dead) has been established, otherwise we will be updating each time the tally changes. We have the "at least" line to imply that the story is developing. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, these numbers are in a high state of flux, let's just go with "at least" and be a little conservative, early reports were 100% wrong, so nothing to suggest that these won't be equally dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested yesterday that we leave the number of dead out for the time being. However, the blurb as posted is, predictably, now outdated. Of course, we could lapse into an extended series of fatality updates, but I still think a blurb without fatalities would be better until this episode comes to fruition. Sca (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At least 4" is not wrong nor outdated. This is SOP for how to handle developing news stories at ITN, as to use lower-bounds so that we don't have to stay up to the minute. A user looking for information on the ferry incident will likely be aware to click through to the article to learn more and find the more updated numbers here. And when there are known fatalities, injuries, or missing persons with a accident, not providing the number that are known looks very weird. "with a number dead and missing" reads wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be SOP at ITN, but that doesn't make it optimal for readers. (True, "at least" is widely used; nevertheless, it's a sort of weasel word phrase.) And BTW, at 1600 UTC the AP said 20 dead. [8]Sca (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, ITN is not a news ticker, it is to highlight articles with stories that are in the news. As long as we're not presenting factually wrong info (and 20 is "at least 4" here, so we're good), we're fine. I do believe that we have had issues in the past when a story blurb was edited "on the spot" with some disastrous effects, hence why we wait and check on updates, and particularly in this story where the initial reports were "oh, the boat tipped but people were able to get out" and now have become much more disastrous, it's better to get all assured information. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. "20" is "at least 4". I would be agreeing if we were off by a huge magnitude (if that was 200 dead, not just 20), but the difference between 20 and 4 is still small to not be a big issue. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not missing the pt. — "at least four" was technically true. I'm just saying that, from the pt. of view of readers, I don't think it was accurate info.
I see we're now updated to "at least 14." I suspect such incremental increases could go on for days. Sca (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bump? Should we bump this up the page? It's fallen off the bottom of our list but it's still very much a current news story in the media - e.g. the rescue/salvage (and 8 sub-articles and videos) is top story on the BBC News website this evening. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say all the items on the template currently are very much still in the news, so I'm not sure what you would bump as "less fresh" --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shots are fired at Kramatorsk air base as Ukrainian Ground Forces are dispatched to take on separatists. Unconfirmed reports state that four pro-Russian militants have been killed and two people have been injured. Some reports claim up to ten deaths. (Sky News)
A group of terrorists, suspected to be Boko Haram, attack a Nigerian school, resulting in the deaths of two security force members and the abduction of 200 schoolgirls. (BBC News)
Disasters and accidents
At least 48 people die and 15 are severely injured after a bus crashes into a truck 150 kilometres north of Lomé, capital of the West African nation of Togo. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Sir Owen Woodhouse was a highly distinguished New Zealand judge who became President of the Court of Appeal (which was then the highest court in the country). But he was best known as the "father of ACC", having been the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Accident Compensation and the author of its "Woodhouse Report" that recommended the system. The scheme was a world-first and quite revolutionary - it abolished the right to sue in personal injury cases and instituted a statutory no-fault accident compensation system administered by an independent government agency. It has had a major impact on New Zealand society, politics and law. He was awarded the Order of New Zealand, the country's highest honour (and one with only 20-odd members at a time). After the news of his death was announced Parliament took the highly unusual step of interrupting its proceedings to pay tribute to Sir Owen - a testament to the impact he had and the respect in which he was held. There are few people in the country who would dispute Sir Owen's significant contribution and impact on New Zealand, as Death Criterion #2 puts it. --Neljack (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really seeing anything here beyond importance in New Zealand, and the second criteria mentions them being widely-known, which I am not seeing for the late Sir Woodhouse beyond the island of New Zealand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Support Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the top of the page - "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." GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)#[reply]
My fault, as I knew that already but forgot about it. Also, I have struck my vote after reading the non-attack support votes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did you forget? That New Zealand has more than one island, or that nominations referring to only a single country are fine? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop crying special treatment. It doesn't exist and you know it: You have editors acting out of bad faith all the time here because of so-called "country specific systemic biases". It's all complete crap and needs to stop. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom - seems a very significant figure in NZ society. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading the article, he does seem to meet DC2, given his honors and recognition he has gotten after his death. This seems similar to the Harradine nom we just posted. Article seems to me to be cited if a tad short, but I don't think it's too short for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If parliament interrupting its proceedings is indeed unusual then that seems to establish him as being of national importance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support To balance the idiotic post from Kevin Rutherford above. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In response to an oppose above, DC#2 says widely regarded not widely known.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the paragraph on the Commission on Accident Compensation is unreferenced. Since that is a big part of his legacy (per nom), it definitely needs referenced. A few other items also need referenced. Support on merits ocne article is improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, but note that the biography section is currently a copyvio of [11]. Isa (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I'd posted this seconds before this and reverted. Stephen 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, hopefully. Isa (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Posted. Do I need to reset the time for an RD? Meh, it's only semi-protected, so I'm sure someone else can see to it if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins reset the timer for RDs, some don't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who helped! Neljack (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A relatively low-profile news story on the world stage, but of great importance to the people concerned, and of broader world importance in that the whole region seems to be moving towards having 3 genders in law (India follows Nepal and Bangladesh in this). Also interesting in the context of India's recent court ruling which made homosexual sex illegal (see the BBC article). We have decent articles on Transgender (B-class), the Supreme Court of India (C-class), and India itself (FA-class) - this is a chance to show them off.
Support A highly significant decision indeed. Given the population of India, it should affected quite a lot of people. Neljack (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm correct in thinking this is a global first? Also, would it be better to link to hijra? Fgf10 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the first nation to do it but they're among the first. A additional link to hijra would indeed be an excellent idea. It's B-class but has warning banners so might need a bit of work. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support With India's population and cultural history, this is a groundbreaking and monumental decision. AgneCheese/Wine 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. its not a famous firstLihaas (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a country of India's size and global significance with 1 billion+ people, nearly everything they do is a famous first. And I say this as an American. AgneCheese/Wine 15:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the largest countries on Earth legally recognizes transgenders as a third gender? A country which has recently banned homosexuality? Significant. Important. Post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a country like India with its long and complex history with gender politics, of course it's notable... doktorbwordsdeeds 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quetsion - where is the update? I am having trouble finidng it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important decision that has global implications. However I share the question above as to exactly what article has been updated to reflect this for a link on the main page? I do see a 1 sentence update at Transgender#Asia. Do we have a legal-type article summarising the supreme court case (similar to some other countries court cases?) CaptRik (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to acknowledge, more updating is necessary. An article on the case would be ideal, but Hijra is also a reasonable target. The main transgender article is probably not ideal for a significant update. As it needs to cover the entire world, there should be minimal detail about any one situation (althoguh more than 1 sentence would be OK). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because there is just a one-line update ("In April 2014, the Supreme Court of India declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law.") in the transgender article and no updates in the other articles. Definitely important, but that's not reflected on Wikipedia. Mvblair (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - important decision that needs recognition on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely of great significance given India's population size and culture. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite what reliable sources in the West say, hijra are not transgender. I propose this alternative - "Hijra (often called transgender) recognised as 'third gender' by Supreme Court, India" Yes this is good news but third gender is not transgender. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judge's ruling specifically says "transgender", Hindustan Times says "transgender",[12] Times of India says "transgender"[13]. Would "Transgender (including some Hijra)" be accurate? Or should we omit Hijra, after all? 'Third gender' in new Indian law may not mean have exactly the same definition as our article Third gender, in which case perhaps we should not wikilink it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the actual ruling itself, it specifically says "Hirajas" as well as transgender. Wording is "Tripathy says that non-recognition of the identity of Hijras, a TG [transgender] community, as a third gender, denies them the right of equality before the law ..." I don't have a secondary source on this yet, primary source is [14]. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that the reliable sources are incorrect. It is difficult to explain, but to say transgender is to assume that there are two genders and that they can be mixed. The concept of hijra is third gender. Western countries do not even have a concept of third gender, so they just say transgender. I know the Indian papers also say transgender because of Western influence. The rights are going to hijra or third gender people. I advocate for use of the term hijra, which is correct. Third gender is also correct. Practically all transgender people in the Western world wish to pass as one gender or the other; hijra are not as deeply interested in this and have different cultural desires. It would be most respectful to use the local term, "hijra", which cannot be translated to English. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are people in India who are great supporters of rights for hijras and in opposition to rights for transgender or gay people, and see nothing odd about this. That would be one way to explain the distinction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How do you think we should phrase our blurb? (You've already made a perfectly good suggestion above, my question is redundant). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are growing numbers of people in the West who identify outside of the gender binary; genderqueer, agender, etc. Some of these people identify as transgender, some don't. Regardless, the fact is that the India Supreme Court decision itself specifically includes the term transgender, even if that is due to Western influence as you claim. For that reason I believe the Transgender article is indeed relevant to this ruling, as are the articles on Third gender and Hijra (South Asia). Funcrunch (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling goes into a lot of detail on this issue - more than we can possibly capture in a blurb. The key ruling is para 129, which gives a section (129.1) for "Hijras, Eunuchs" and a section (129.2) for "Transgender persons". So the judge seems to treat them as separate categories of person which are both affected by this ruling. [15]Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think everyone here understands my position. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now Reading the BBC article this seems to have nothing to do with recognizing or legalizing Hijra (unsure of plural term), but with declaring them a protected class with set asides. How is the like legalizing or criminalizing homosexuality? It seems to be more like saying you can't discriminate against old people, or the fact that US federal job contracts give preference to bids by black owned businesses. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally right, it's just like saying you can't discriminate on grounds of age or race. Previously in India you could legally discriminate on 'third sex' grounds - the court has now declared such discrimination illegal - that's the 'legal recognition'. I.e. people of third gender have been 'recognised' as a legally protected group. It's not that they were illegal before, it's that they're now defined as a protected minority, and that they no longer have to declare themselves to be either male or female on official paperwork (e.g. passport). That's my understanding at least. You're also right that it's not the same as legalising or criminalising homosexuality - that's just a related topic. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted an active voice version of the Alt blurb as μηδείς was commenting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article hijra and transgender are interchangeable for the broad stroke of the ruling. If hijra are singled out in the headline then eunuchs should be too as they are mentioned side by side in the specific clause. Regardless, if hijra is left in it should be lowercased as it is a common noun describing a class of people rather than a proper noun. Bellemora (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made hijra lower case. The "hijra and transgender" phrasing was chosen based on this disscussion, so I am hesitant to change it without more input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request. Could we maybe change "individuals" ---> "people"? Formerip (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Request We are indeed talking about individuals, not a people. One can't interchange, for example, the French people and French individuals and mean the same thing. Individuals is the proper word here. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, you're just plain wrong here, because there is no definite article in the phrase. "French people" means the same thing as "French individuals", it's just that it is more usual. Formerip (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And nooo..., but you are all sorts of wrong, Former, lol. The American people elected Obama. The American individuals didn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's worth changing. Any formulation is going to sound awkward. The basic problem is that the third gender doesn't have a collective noun in English - we have 'men', 'women' and 'transgender individuals' or 'transgender people' or 'transgender persons.' None of them flow well. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: It's weird nominating something that hasn't happened yet. Nevertheless this seems to be an unusual eclipse, and there are supposed to be only 85 in the entire 21st century.[16] --Jinkinsontalk to me 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Near-global interest, but we'd better be quick about this. Sca (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and as sca says we should post this asap as you want Wikipedia readers to see this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should really be a 3 day header though. The day before, the day and the day after...Seems inappropriate to have it up too long. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To those advocating a quick post: what d you suggets as a blurb? The current suggestion certainly shuldn't be used before the eclipse starts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article, relevant. CaptRik (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent article, globally relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb (proposed) more informative and prose. 70.26.172.189 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timing comment - I assume we are waiting until the eclipse starts to post since most have not advocated for an earlier posting. I agree with that decision since it would be unprecendented (asaik) to post somethign ahead of time on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless anyone vehemently disagrees, I'm all for breaking precedent, and posting a blurb with 'will occur' today, changing to 'occurred' this evening. Stephen 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting after the fact would be silly in this case. A few hours or so before it starts will not hurt ITN's reputation for an event that people can prepare to see for themselves. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I check a bunch of the previous eclipses. It doesn't look like any of them were posted ahead of time. I would say post as it starts in present tense. That said, if anyone feels strongly about posting sooner, go for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I wrote the article so someone else should make the call. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it another "timing" issue is that we are discussing this under the April 14 heading, but it will be April 15 (UTC) when it occurs? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it will be April 15 (UTC) in eight minutes time, and our system should automatically generate the new date header. Maybe I'll just move the whole conversation then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please post this now, so readers will see this before they wake up tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Posted There seems to be no great objection to posting early. Stephen 01:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belated early posting support - It's nice to see that something that is ITN is posted without the unreasonable objections of timing. This eclipse was in the news leading up to its occurrence, and eclipses are predicted to the day and time of day for the next century and beyond. These events are best informed ahead of time, as proactive reporting as opposed to reactive reporting that is required of unexpected events that generally constitute ITN. I'll note that we are now in one of the eight lunar eclipse tetrads of this century: This will occur three more times, each six months apart, over the next 18 months. Perhaps this should be ITN/R, and if so, the question is whether or not to set a new precedent of posting them 24-48 hours before the event. - Floydianτ¢ 15:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A United States court overturns the conviction of Andrew Auernheimer (known as weev), who was sentenced to 41-months in prison in 2010 for hacking the AT&T website, stealing millions of iPad user e-mails. (PC World)
Nominator's comments: Personal comment - Global news event, about a global news event. Seems like a solid ITN. Please debate as always though. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Providing an alt blurb - there are many Pulitizers named but clearly the WaPost/Guardian for the NSA matters are the headlines here. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just added those. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the framework of the article. I have sources of all awards and will also add to nom now. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the alt blurb masem, obviously use which ever is most apt. The headlines are about the NSA thing, but the exhaustive list is also important. I have switched the NYTimes source for Pulitzer as its the direct page, on a primary source, and the BBC one references the NSA thing as the headline. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed so long as Snowden is pictured, support otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the image of Snowden is not a critical element here. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate a more appropriate image and explain why. The headline is the NSA story, which came from Snowden IIRC. Open to argument. Chicago tribune is already using this image in its google header. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... And we have free images of Pultzer himself (which I support) and the Prize. If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gen pulitzer.jpg - Theres this of course. I have no idea what your personal issue is μηδείς, but you are deeming me belligerent, while clearly instigating s--- without provocation. If you enjoy conflict resolution by all means continue. Im here to work on this, not to play word games with librarians. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I've learned anything from my experience at ITN, it's this. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using Snowden's photo is a coatrack - this is meant to celebrate the various Pulitzer winners, and not the substance of the stories they covered. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You dont really have rationale for that. Everyone is using the picture, even people that are against him. Besides, the article is not leaning on him other to say the stories based on his revelations won the main award. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. And just because "everyone" is using the picture doesn't mean we get to too, we are more neutral than that again because we are not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. There is a second level of this story developing, in that some are stating that the fact that these reports got the Pulitzer means that Snowden's actions should be considered far from traitorious , but's that a point of opinion and not an ITN story. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that a picture of Snowden is a coatrack or biased. It is related to the story. The relevant questions are whether it is sufficiently closely related to the story and whether there is a more appropriate image to use. Neljack (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden has zero to do with the ITN/C story : that the Pulitzer committee awarded the WATimes and Guarding for their reporting excellence. The story that they reported on, the NSA survillence stuff based on Snowden's leaks, is a separate topic and giving that any more weight than just the topic of the news reporting (such as by using the picture of Snowden) is coatracking. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snowden picture; he is not the story. Support listing the Pulitzer winners in principle(wondering if it should be ITNR) as a notable and widely covered award in journalism. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. The headline leads back to Snowden. The article itself will have no picture of snowden and will only have mention of the NSA series of stories in the description. The article is up now in frame work form, and has no great references to snowden. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal views on Snowden are irrelevant; I oppose using his image because he is not the story; the winners of the Prize are. If the article has no picture of him, neither should an ITN entry. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would prefer to concentrate on the guardian and the washington post? Snowden is synonymous with the series of stories that won the prize. Thats why everyone is using his image. Seems like irrational consensus. The headline concerns snowden, whilst obviously the exhaustive article concerns the prize winners in total. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my position; explaining it again isn't going to help anyone. I would submit the same goes for you. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Article is essentially ready to go. Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to [[17]] in admin for adjudication. If you guys are right, then fair enough, my bad. If not, then I guess well find out the hard way. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask anyone you wish to weigh in, but no admin or any user has the final authority to "adjudicate" anything here; decisions are made by consensus. You not liking the consensus doesn't mean it is irrational. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Every online news story has some picture attached to it no matter how vaguely related. That is hardly a reason for us to do likewise - we are not a newspaper and are not trying to draw reads to boost our ad rates. Its pretty clear no one wants the Snowden pic, but by all means keep arguing the point so no one can debate what is really important - the merits of the story. Also we don't work on being "right" we work on consensus.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theyve mostly chosen to lead with his picture, because the series featuring his revelations won the main prize. And an irrational consensus is an irrational consensus. There are many reason why these occur, but its not my issue. A nomination has been made, and if the picture thing is an irrational consensus for whatever reason, then it is. If its a legit one under the rules of ITN, then it is. You arent about to push me into changing the picture everyone is using, because of an unproven, unjustified revulsion against snowden for irrational reasons by 3 men and a dog, on a sub section of a NFP site. The media consensus is to use that picture as it logically follows the winner of the main prize. Im not bothered either way. I have no investment here. You guys are acting on your names. Im just reflecting the coverage is see on this from all major american and world media outlets. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No real reason to single out the awards for the NSA leaks (aside from an anti-NSA sentiment, which is problematic for POV reasons). Calidum 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Pulitzer Prize committee is the one that singled them out for the main prize, not us. "This is the first time the main prize has been shared by two news organisations since 1990, when the medal was awarded to both the Washington Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer." Randomcommentor (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also haven't posted these awards in past years. That's part of why I'm concerned people only want this on the front page because of their feelings on the NSA. Calidum 01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The prizes are significant and were widely covered in Latin American media outlets (from what I saw in the afternoon). ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support modified Alt blurb mentioning WaPo, Guardian and the NSA leak but there is little need to mention Snowden and even far less of a need to picture. If we need a picture, the prize itself will do nicely. I would also support including the Pulitzers on ITN/R. AgneCheese/Wine 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support main blurb. The Pulitzer is a top-level award with a storied history, and the articles for both the Prize itself and for the winners are encyclopedic. People interested in who won can click on the article. There's no reason to make the blurb as long as it is in the alt blurb. I am agnostic on the picture. Have ITN candidates gotten a lot more chatty or am I imagining this?84.250.106.213 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Supportthumb framelessthumb framelessthumb frameless Global significance of underlying NSA news story, Pulitzer is world's leading journalism prize, award of Pulitzer to these journalists gives moral legitimacy to Snowden's leak and their reporting of it. Likely widespread far-reaching implications for future policy and law worldwide. IMO the most important Pulitzer since the Pentagon Papers. Snowden photo is fine with me, an alternative would be likewise fine. As the underlying story is about the NSA, how about using the NSA logo (fair use) or (for something a bit more fun) the NROL-39 'Giant Squid' mission patch ? Or the Pulitzer Prize itself. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no change in the underlying Snowden story as a result of the reporters getting the Pulitzer. It is coatracking to say that that story is much more important as the ITN item. As I mentioned above, there is a second thread from the Pulitzer win that begs the question if Snowden being tagged a traitor is invalidated by the story, but that's more a talking-heads discussion and not any strong action that is really a news story. It's clear that the Snowden story is the most important Pultizer given this year and thus the reason to highlight it compared to any other Pultizer awarded. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - industry prize of high repute, story of great importance. Snowden helped create the story, so his picture isn't somehow an obscure lap doktorbwordsdeeds 11:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Short version of the blurb please. Formerip (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the blurb needs to say "Pulitzer Prize for Public Service". There are multiple Pulitzer Prizes, and I was left mystified as to what the "main prize" is. It's not explained in the article. Frankly the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction is the Pulitzer that I think of first. Neljack (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — In some ways this highly controversial episode was the top story of 2013.
Illustration: The proffered pic. of Snowden has been seen so many times that it's a bromide. (The Guardian uses a different but similar pic. of Snowden, while WX Post uses a newsroom shot of its reporters.) Of the three logos suggested above, only the Pulitzer medal is really apropos, though it's not visually intriguing. Suggest we go with either the medal or no illustration. Sca (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote:Guardian quotes Snowden comments on award, including: "This decision reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can." [18] Shades of Watergate... Sca (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Statue of Joseph Pulitzer (Fort Jay, New York).jpg Alternative Image I've just uploaded to wikimedia a possible alternative image, it's a statue of Joseph Pulitzer, license cc-by-sa, photo credit Pete Toscano. If we use it then we probably want to crop it a bit, and we will need to credit it which will take up a bit of space. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Balaenoptera musculus is to be complimented on resourcefulness, but I'm afraid no image or likeness of Joseph Pulitzer would be recognizable without a cutline (caption), which ITN doesn't really afford. Sca (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a problem with that image. US does not have freedom of panorama so a photograph of a statue located in a public place and still under copyright is a non-free derivative work. I cannot find when that statue was installed or made, but given that 1) it was likely made after Pulitzer's death (in the 1910s) and 2) the creator (who I don't know) likely lived past 1924 (which 90+life would made it expire), this image is more likely non-free and can't be used. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons affirms the statue is still under copyright, so this can't be free. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Pulizer article is very much not ready for mainpage posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and marked ready. I have added some text to the Pulitzer article and Isanae fixed the formatting to match previous years. There is no need to use any picture as a newer item already has one.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, someone needs to make a few templates for that, it wasn't much fun :) Isanae (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment — Decidedly odd that the posted blurb doesn't say, "by Edward Snowden." Is there a personal antipathy to Snowden at play here? To be sure, he's a controversial figure, and as mentioned above I agree with not running his mug, but this whole story never would have happened without him — he played the central role. What's up? Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a notable attack. Is this related to the other Nigeria incident nominated below? 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smfh. Its like yesterday all over again...Is it safe to say the story blew up in nigeria?77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with your language. GoldenRing (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says it might be the same group but they don't have a strong affirmation yet. However, this is outside their current region of activity so if it was them, this is an unusual incident. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The president of nigeria just said it was boko haram. As you guys have repeatedly told me my nominee was about an ongoing conflict, may I direct you to my "Boko Haram Attacks" Nominee, also from today, 2 below. Thank you.
Strong support. Obviously. Check out the story 2 nominees below RM. This is in a different part of the country, but one may assume a connection is not improbable. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a general blurb about this group conducting a series of attacks like the one I propose above(though I'm not set on the wording or linking) if there are sufficient updates. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stop straying from this nomination and filling the place up with text. IP now blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Frankly I dont care who does this story. Combine nominees or close one of them down. This group has killed "135 people" and gone on to kill "74" more, hours later. Lets get an article up about this months attacks, before the world finds a different free format to get their information from. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an immediate posting, Wikinews is thataway-- if you want a decent article to highlight and a proper blurb to match, this will get done in time. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want someone to get their tie out of the shredder and lets go to work. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of demanding that others do work that you want done, why not just do it? Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are confusing the issue, minimising the issue and obfuscating the relevance of the issue.
Boko Haram have killed 135 people - hours ago.
Now they have killed 71 more.
And you want to nominate as relevant because CNN are now covering it and they used a bomb this time.
Whats notable is not that CNN are covering it and they used a bomb. Whats notable is this terrorist group is escalating attacks and launching an assault on the state of nigeria, and they have been in the process of doing so for some time now, while you marvel over a bomb.
Again BBC, AJZ, and Reuters have had this story already for hours. I have been telling you ad infinitum to consider your position, and instead, once again, you have waited for the american networks and a shinny bomb to marvel at. They already done killed 135 people hours ago, as you will see in the nominee right below this one. Who cares if its by bomb or by bullet.
The story is the group are intensifying attacks on the state of nigeria, and you shouldnt need an IP editor to tell you that. Once again, many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I actually have s--- to do today. I will leave this one with you guys and see what you come up with. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated a story no one was interested in, about this group killing 135 people hours ago, and then on the same day, you are nominating a the same basic chain of events because a bomb went off and the alphabets are all over it. Its a little cheap, all due respect RM.
Im repeatedly getting told killing 135 people isnt notable because theres a lack of media interest and its an ongoing conflict. Even though the government is making statements and BBC, AJZ and Reauters are all over it. Now a bomb goes off and American media is on it, and its a separate nom, even though its just another attack by this group that already killed 135 people hours ago. Nevertheless I will happily contribute to the story, while you claim the nomination, of the same group, in the same spate of attack, that I highlighted 2 nominees down. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would reasonably support a story about the spat of violence over the last few days (I think there's three separate incidents now? ) with Boko Haram highlighted as the story, but this needs to be updated to add these. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Any way this story goes, we are walking down a path that leads to the larger context of recent attacks. Thats where this story goes. The only way it doesnt go there, is if Boko Haram didnt do it, and as we are dealing with terrorists, confirmation through claimed or proven responsibility is an extremely difficult thing. We either get a confession from BH or we await some kind of trial? We need to establish precedence and link the recent attacks and bomb, which is inexorably part of them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, I suggest that we rephrase the blurb to the text that I've put in quotes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The salient point is that the president, like everyone else in nigeria is placing this attack, not as some kind of anomaly, but into the wider context of the Boko Haram attacks, that as Masem rightly states, have been going on for days now. The presidents quotes are on the article, because i put them there, and he is quite clear in his rhetoric.
In fact he categorically places the attacks into the greater narrative of boko harams spate of violence "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.". But who ever is dealing with the article has cut short the presidents quote, unjustifiably for what reason?? Have re edited it in, as the full presidents quote is obviously more important than trying to alter the story to fit the nomination or the obsession that this bomb is some kind of special event, divorced from the 135 people they just killed hours ago.
77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose opinion based blurb. State facts only. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We shouldn't ascribe it to BH unless/until we have confirmation from a reliable source that it was them. In the meantime we can either
say BH are 'suspected' (or 'accused', 'blamed', etc), or
we can report that the president says it was BH, or
we can not mention BH at all.
Personally I prefer option 2, because it allows us to put this attack in the context of the wider/ongoing BH attacks without yet ascribing (in Wikipedia's voice) responsibility for this latest attack. Also option 1 is a bit weasel-wordy (IMO) - if they're accused then we should say who accuses them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^ Ok I added -
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan visited the scene of the blast, where he appeared to blame Boko Haram for the explosion, saying "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.".[7]
The attack comes a day after Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna claimed the group had killed 135 civilians in north east Nigeria in the week preceding the blast. [8]
Hows that? You draw them into it, through sourced quotes from BBC and two government leaders. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the alternative blurb. In any other conflict, we are updating information on attacks in this situation. The fact we slept on this groups activities, doesnt justify treating the bomb as an anomaly now that we have woken up to them. The president and the people of nigeria are experiencing this as the latest in a very recent escalation of attacks. This is reflected in their quotes and there is no point attempting to massage this basic fact out of article coverage. Yes the conflict is protracted, but the intensification and escalation in attacks is a few days/hours old. Thats my case. The alternative is we keep running into the bigger picture, while attempting to make this all about the bomb. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP77, please, please, please stop obfuscating the nominations with walls of text and personal commentary. That's not what this is about. I don't care for your opinion or accusations of being "cheap", I just want to get on with suitable nominations and sensible discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop addressing me in disparaging tone and then censoring the reply. You essentially stole my nomination from 2 down, posted on the same day, and then hid behind consensus to fashion your own article. Did you not think it worth reading that there was a nomination only 2 spaces below the one you posted?
Dont address me and censor me. You have shown no moral position to chasten anyone.
As for being productive, Ive researched this story extensively and have contributed half the article. I was advocating for its inclusion hours before you posted your nomination. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Different events, conflated by you. Please stop it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same spate of attacks as corroborated by the president of nigeria, and reported in BBC, AJZ, Reuters, and now the american networks.Please stop appealing to moderation, when you dont have the common courtesy to give credit to contributors or check other peoples entries before posting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well congratulations to you for wrecking a process that, while a little wonky, used to work. You have the floor. I have no energy to deal with editors like you. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all dude respect. I found a story no one here wanted, because there was little interest from the American networks. There was ample evidence of interest from BBC, AJZ, and Reuters. Then as part of this spate of attacks, that no one was interested in, a bomb goes of 1 The American networks report 2 You jump in with a duplicate nomination focused on the bomb and ignoring the fact they just killed 135 people, and any interpretation or article about the bomb, inexorably goes back to the larger context of the boko haram terrorist attacks, that my nomination focused on. And now you have consensus for your nomination, because a bomb went off! I wont be your scapegoat. You did this. You want to appeal to moderation and act like ive done ill, but I contributed half your article and was the only person here advocating a nomination about this group, hours ago, when no one else was interested. You want me out of your nomination. fine. Go ahead with it, and kindly blame someone else as the president of nigeria names the group and draws the bombings into the exact same spate of attacks my own nomination was focused on. Go ahead and take the nomination. It is far easier to attack an unknown than it is to clean your own name. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out several times that WP's "In the News" is not to simply replicate stories that are headlines in the newspaper. We have a way to highlight news stories that are subjects of notable articles, and your postings have been trying to subvert that process after you've been told that there's a way we do things here. As WPians, the last thing we're here to do is correct political injustice in the world, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not in a position to tell anyone anything masem. The format is the guide, not you. Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with it, before making spurious remarks and accusations...The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major terrorist attack. Article needs more work though. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the article, I believe it meets the minimum standard required for inclusion on ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support on scale, article meets mimimum requirements too.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Random mass murder. Sca (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (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: As well as being Australia's longest-serving independent senator, for long periods Harradine held the balance of power in the federal parliament, which he used to influence policy in areas such as abortion (where his strong Catholic faith led to him taking a firm anti-abortion stance) and Aboriginal land rights. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The article seems kind of slim(though I don't feel inappropriately so) for someone with the influence HiLo describes, but I do think "longest serving Independent politician" meets DC2. No tags in article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD A very significant figure in Australian politics over several decades. I'm surprised that the article is so slim, but then his independence immediately precluded him from high office and I don't think he's had any major scandal attached to him. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) well it is in th einterest of globalizing to put this tchap on here and I support, we also need more such people from the non-English worlsd like east timor or sometingLihaas (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD seems notable and prominent enough in the field of Australian politics. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - referencing is so-so. I would either expect a longer article or a better referenced one. (I.E. I can sometimes overlook a few misisng citations, but when there is only 3 paragraphs total it is not too much to ask for everything to be referenced.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what? A senator, not the top of his field. His article is slim suggesting lack of impact and lack of interest. His article gets only 16 page views a day. When long-serving US Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. died last year he was not nominated. There have been presidents of some nations who didn't make it on RD. Abductive (reasoning) 15:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't any ordinary senator; the longest serving independent senator in Australian history. That isn't easy to do in a parliamentary system where those not in political parties can normally do little. If the field is Australian politics, this would seem to meet DC2. While I think the nominator often takes the issue too far, there is also a legitimate systemic bias issue here. We did post Daniel Inouye in December of 2012. Page views are not the be-all-end-all. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not the longest serving. Just because he was an Independent (which is somewhat of a thing in Australian politics) doesn't mean anything. And the very notion that ITN doesn't post Australian material is silly. If Olivia Newton-John were to die tomorrow, there would be no systemic bias against posting. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means everything, but I guess we will just have to disagree there. I don't think the idea of systemic bias is "silly"; can you point out the last Australian story posted? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD as 331dot suggests, an unusual notability from being an independent senator for such a period. As for the hyperbole from Abductive, I too would be interested in the last (non-cricket) Australian story posted! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole? I state simple facts: 16 page views a day, vs 600 a day for Daniel Inouye (who I would not and did not vote for ITN). Assertions of BIAS against Australia need to be backed up by failed nominations, not the length of time since something happened there. Here are some recent successful Australia-related noms election results, government split, Aboriginal artist and one failed: Governor-General which failed because just a figurehead and longstanding consensus against such posting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with entertainers? Are they not serious enough? Look, you think a lady who sang songs and appeared in movies is bad? Talk about BIAS! Politicians are magically better subjects for In The News? People who matter should be posted. An obscure journalist? Please. A long out of office politician? Please. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bias? LOL. I think Olivia Newton-John is terrific. But why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? And Keith Dunstan was definitely NOT an obscure journalist. For several decades he was the best known writer at Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper. But I'll admit he never made it big in Hollywood, which seems to be an essential criterion for Abductive to approve a posting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Real strawman, dude, real strawman. First you call her appalling, then terrific. Then you say my criterion is Hollywood, when it is, in fact, that the person needs to meet the criteria for RD, which is "top of their field", not effing longevity. Abductive (reasoning) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page views shouldn't be the top most consideration here. Part of the purpose of ITN is to highlight articles to get people to read them. Also, we do not know how many worthy articles could get nominated that don't because users fear the systemic bias. I'm not sure I would consider September "recent" but I do appreciate you checking. I agree 100% that not posting this is a systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just demonstrated that there is no bias. Do you seriously think that people here have it in for Aussies? Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not people. Only you. And it's not all Australians you have it in for. It's only those who haven't made it big in Hollywood. Would you have supported posting Don Bradman's death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that "page views" suddenly became part of the ITN/C criteria. Fantastic new update, news to me, sounds like hype, but we should never believe that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to "have it in for Aussies" to still be engaging in systemic bias. That's why it's called systemic. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support While ordinarily I would agree that the death of a senator from old age is not really ITN-worthy (especially since there are often heads of state who are not featured), but being the longest serving independent senator is noteworthy just as Robert Byrd being the longest serving US Senator was noted. Byrd was not only featured when he passed in June 2010, but he also got a picture slot. AgneCheese/Wine 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To my shame its seems I supported posting Byrd. The arguments then against posting him sound like mine now, which means I have grown to a more hardline view of non-executive politicians. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the article could still do with a few more citations and a bit more material on his political impact/achievements. I'll have a look at what I can do. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing duplicate nomination. SpencerT♦C 17:04, 15 April 2014 (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: Number and regional significance. Blind spot on the map. Note to moderator of title, used the towns name and lowest current estimate. Lets not turn africa into one homogenised killing field. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per BBC, 1500 have been killed in Boko Haram since the start of the year, so this is nothing new (akin to the continued violence in Syria + Ukraine) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize Boko Haram is the name of the islamist terrorists, not of a place? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are attacking Amchaka in Borno Masem77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference BBC source claiming 1500 killed. Has this been covered here, like the Ukraine and Syria conflicts were undoubtedly? I was not aware Nigeria was at war, and there doesnt seem to be much mention of it in articles either. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right in your source : "At least 1,500 people, half of them civilian, have been killed in the restive north-eastern region this year, according to Amnesty International.". --MASEM (t) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So source is Amnesty International. Feels like Boko Haram have a license to kill with no wikipedia article and very little media interest. Africa...SMFH77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WP article on Boko Haram (you've linked it) and there is documented all the known major attacks they've done - this should be added to it, but you can't expect WP to correct media-bias (or lack of coverage) nor world problems. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect it to reflect internationally significant stories. Nigeria is one of africas fastest growing nations and has one of the largest populations on the planet. Africa is a populous region. Killing 100s of africans is an internationally significant thing. I dont expect wikipedia to save the world. Nor do I expect wikipedia to ignore internationally significant stories that affect a great many people, because its easier to reflect western media narratives and interests. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are 3 of the most popular and credible news networks on the planet. Thats more than enough evidence to justify inclusion on merit of sourcing and news reporting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no, we are not always going to reflect international headlines. If you want to do that, go to Wikinews. We're trying to focus on encyclopedic articles here, some which will be about certain events, but in this case, this individual event (the attacks today) is not notable but the ongoing conflict is. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are meant to be directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. You are meant to be supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Ive demonstrated wide interest by the fact its a massive population, an internationally significant story and its covered by three of the most credible and popular news networks on planet earth. ITN is not InTheNeigbourhood masem. And you are not supporting making wikipedia a great encyclopedia by making it localised and ignorant to the rest of the planet. You dont get the casting vote on if attacks are interesting or not. Thats your opinion. Fair dues. Lets others make their arguments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - 13 of those incidents on the Boko Haram article have their own adjoined articles and non of the ones I saw have a body count of 135 civilians. Your argument of "meh africa, wikipedia dont care", doesnt hold water. I just demonstrated precendence for exceptional treatment of individual incidents, and this has the highest ostensible body count on that whole page of incidents. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not all of them. And again, we need the article before it can be ITN, this small an update to the Boko Harem article would not be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'OK WHO IS Messing WITH MY TITLE?' Plz explain why. Too tired to debate this but originally reads "Boko Harem kill scores in Amchaka, Nigeria."
If you are going to change title, plz explain why? Thank you kindly. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain in the edit summary: these should be short and neutral; "kill scores" is not neutral even if they are a terrorist group. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem you thought Boko harem was a place. Kindly desist from editing my title, and get someone else to do it, if it infringes. I am using BBC, Al Jareera headlines. The lowest estimate is approaching 70 which is scores. Will seek third party if you continue to vandalise my title. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Masem that title is lifted direct from BBC. Do not change without third party admin. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
'Thank you masem' - if the titles out of line, by all means seek recourse. I will understand. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone may change the title at any time; Masem is quite correct that it should be short and neutral. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. Part of an ongoing conflict, so we don't need to post every battle with a death toll(just like Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) Not yet seeing wide coverage of this, either(BBC, A-J and Reuters are not the whole universe). As Masem suggested, we are not responsible for what the media reports nor are we a news ticker. It is also difficult to support with no article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a battle or a terrorist attack? Notable incidents do indeed have their pages in wikipedia in this conflict at least anecdotally the body count here is the highest at a glance on that page. BBC/AJZ/Reuters are indeed not the centre of the universe, it seems the are more like captain kirk mapping that universe while USMI are all about WIMBYism on vulcan (!). :D BBC, Reuters and AJZ demonstrate the story has widespread interest imho. It shoudnt depend on one countries media to legitimise the stories. As fast as you are to tell us we are not a news ticker, or zealous missionary's of "truth", ITN is categorically defined by the directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest...and indeed supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. All of these things support reflecting stories of worldwide significance, and not just "things that have an american commercial media interest". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN; posting here does depend on the media legitimizing a story. I don't look at just one country's media. I stand by my views and I will have no further comment on this matter.331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I quote you on that? The Worlds Media =/= americas provincial media bubble. Theres a whole world out there, and there is no need to clear a story with 5% of it, in order for it to be widespread, or wide interest or relevant to ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would support posting an article on the conflict as a whole, with this as the specific news item, if we had a good example of such an article. Our lack of a suitable article on this important topic clearly does reflect our regional bias - although that is not the fault of contributors to this page. An article on the wider conflict is here: Islamist insurgency in Nigeria but it needs to be fleshed out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I see a slightly different picture, if this massacre was risiding in a different location, wikipedia has actually tracked the conflict quite well, on second glance. New articles can and have been made for specific incidents and the BBC/AJZ/Reuters trio have covered conflict quite well. The story is perhaps lacking western direct "interests", so it follows a lack of WMI. It still has demonstrable widespread interest to wikipedia users world wide. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would stop saying "the entire city burned down" because that is patently false. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would stop misquoting someone right next to the actual quote.' #BasicF---Stuff
Indeed the entire city did not burn down. 1000 homes did, 20 people died and the entire city was labelled a disaster zone.
When do entire cities burn down? The Great Fire of London didnt burn down the 'entire' city.
77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quoting you so much as paraphrasing you; "city burns down" suggests "entire" and not part of a city. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were you paraphrasing me incorrectly in quotation marks, with more words than I originally said? Reuters Heres a helpful handbook, to go with your wikipedia belt. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favourite part - Please recite a million times - Quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant word or clause, and then only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in any way. Selective use of quotes can be unbalanced. Be sure that quotes you use are representative of what the speaker is saying and that you describe body language (a smile or a wink) that may affect the sense of what is being reported. When quoting an individual always give the context or circumstances of the quote.- Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing an essay, publishing a paper, or being graded. This is a casual conversation where we have a different interpretation of something, which I will continue to do as I see fit, just as you would. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im pretty sure that latitude falls shy of falsely quoting someone right next to the original quote, by adding in a word you deem appropriate ammunition to attack their position. Just a moment ago you were protesting your right to your position. Kindly stop misrepresenting mine in fabricated quotes right next to the original excerpt you are misrepresenting. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This just in 71 people are killed and 124 injured in twin bomb blasts in Abuja, Nigeria. I see a great career in journalism for you Lugnuts, when you get done being an amateur librarian that just slept on a city getting burned into a disaster zone and a spate of terrorist attacks CNN that killed 100s of people. :D Good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is going out of his way to be obnoxious and has been wrong now on two big stories, one of which some other dude is essentially taking credit for nominating. Stop sending me wiki directives and learn some manners. Site is quite clear about being polite to people, rather than instigating s---, and then hiding behind a greater knowledge of customs when people respond. Go ask Balaenoptera musculus. This guy is going out of his way to be rude, and to initiate rudeness, without provocation. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems the denizens of WP:ANI took a different view. We are actually trying to help you get on here, and I hoped you'd take my comment in that spirit; antagonizing other editors, however much they might be in the wrong, isn't going to help in a consensus-based project. I hope you take your block in that spirit, too; it is meant to help educate you in the standards of the community. Go easy. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Outrageous! Sca (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (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.
Ukraine launches a "full-scale anti-terrorist operation" against pro-Russian protesters who have captured police and security forces buildings in the town of Sloviansk. (Reuters)
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.
Comment - I would expect to see at least two paragraphs of text in the final round section (covering the overall result) such as was done in the 2013 Masters article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hate golf. Would rather see boxing. Elitist, under watched, over rated, culturally obnoxious, featuring a wonderful over representation of privileged monoculturality vs working class, popular across the world, contested across the world, olympic sport, featuring a diverse array of cultures and peoples. I know its obligatory, but would rather see the boxing, as more people probably gave a s---. Google TrendsGoogle Trends77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose nominations that are ITN/R. If you have an issue with an event which is ITN/R, then you must propose its removal on the ITN/R page. Andise1 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether 77.101.41.108 likes golf or not is irrelevant; this is ITNR. If you don't want golf there, propose its removal at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we know not to talk about golf in front of them in the future. Always good to know more about your fellow wikipedians! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously I dont like it, but Im not going to snipe on the article, because I dont like golf. All the best with it editors. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please... ...put the name of the country in the blurb. Other countries have Masters Tournaments too. Yes, I know the blurb just reflects the name of the article, but that doesn't make it right. Just proves our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In golf" ought to make the confusion minimal, unless there are other golf masters that I am unaware of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The European Tour has 4 or 5 events every year with "Masters" in the title, including tournaments in Portugal and Qatar, and the Omega European Masters, though "The Masters" is fairly well understood to mean Augusta, some European sources call it the US Masters to distinguish it from the European tournament in Switzerland. Courcelles 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same in Australia, which also has its own Masters tournament. The US one, not surprisingly, is called the, yes, you guessed it, the US Masters! Come on, it would do nobody any harm at all to include the name of the country. Fighting this is endorsing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right but you don't need to link to systemic bias every time you type it, especially within a few lines of each other. Instead of beating the systemic bias drum to death you could just point out that "The Masters" could be confused with other tournaments with the name first. I also don't think politely pointing out their reasoning is "fighting this". Not everything is a systemic bias issue, as not everyone is aware of everything in the world. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. An awful lot are only aware of American things, and NOT aware of our [[systemic bias}}, and that's part of our systemic bias. Linking it helps them learn about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that before beating that drum you have just started by pointing out the possibility of confusion, which is there regardless of systemic bias. You don't need to start the battle with the biggest guns; assume good faith that people aren't out, intentionally or otherwise, to be biased. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the Masters article is beefed up a little bit. Also agree that it would do no harm to call it the "US Masters" in the blurb, after all our article on the tournament itself says "The Masters Tournament, also known as The Masters or The US Masters..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with putting "US Masters", but just FYI we simply posted "The Masters" last year and in 2012 and 2011. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, state country We can improve on previous years by no longer assuming that if no country is mentioned then the country is the USA. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake must we capitulate to every possible demand that HiLo makes? The piped article quite clearly states where the Masters is held. Include both titles in the blurb if absolutely necessary, just like the article does, but to seriously call this an example of systemic bias? Just drop it already. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely this story is going to be confused with any other golf tournaments...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But since it'll do no harm at all and since our own article offers "The US Masters" as an alternative and acceptable title, there should be no issue with the alt blurb, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point about systematic bias is a good one. The assumption that if no country is mentioned then the country is assumed to be the USA is a very clear example of systematic bias, in my opinion. The merits of the person putting forward the argument are not relevant here - if you have a conduct complaint then take it to WP:RFC/U. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Balaenoptera musculus The systemic bias gun didn't need to be brought out immediately; simply noting the potential confusion was sufficient. Looking for systemic bias everywhere means one will find it everywhere. "The Masters" only is assumed to be from the US if users do that themselves; however, it is confusing with other "Masters" tournaments. That's the bottom line. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the potential confusion is sufficient reason to state the country. All users should however feel free to raise whatever arguments they like in whatever order they choose. The 'systematic bias' argument is not one which is illegitimate or should be held back, in fact the evidence for it is (in my opinion) rather strong (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments that get overused weaken over time; systemic bias should be saved for instances when it is actually needed. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I an unconvinced that we should mangle the name of the tournament. There are many international participants, so it is not a US-only championship. The Masters is held in Augusta, Georgia every year. Yes, it is not a bad idea to say where an event happened, but in this case that fact is not critical. By clicking the link the user can learn all about it. JehochmanTalk 12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that a certain user will be along to beat the systemic bias drum, even though that isn't the most important argument in favor of adding the nation(to avoid confusion). 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But does anyone really refer to it as "The Masters Tournament"? I don't think so either. It should be "The US Masters." Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? All that virtual ink spilled over literally 3 characters? If there is a potential for confusion, even a small one, and it can be solved by adding 3 chars, there is no real reason not to do it. Meanwhile, the real issue - that the update was very minimal - went nearly undiscussed. Get your priorities straight people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still an issue with the name, can someone in the US clarify if this is ever called "Masters Tournament" in general parlance? It's certainly not called that in Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK "Masters Tournament" is the official name, but I don't think most people call it that in general parlance, no. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even an issue? To anybody that knows golf, there is only one real "Masters" because it is one of the four majors. Anyone arguing about this is just trying to make trouble based on anti-American bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 (talk)
So, ITN is just for people who know golf? Right? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the users pushing to call this the U.S. Masters also decide to complain when we post the "Open Championship" in July. Calidum 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a silly simplification too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Calidum 02:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if you don't know golf, why would you care about the event at all? If you do know golf, how could you ever get confused? Click the link and it tells you more information. What a miracle. I guarantee people will push for "Open Championship" to not be called "British Open Championship". People causing needless trouble. How much information do people need to be given? There will always be someone who doesn't understand or makes assumptions. We should also focus on the needs of native English-speakers first and foremost.
Hey,want to learn something today? Most Australians are native English speakers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you need to be spoon-fed information? If you see an ITN about golf, and you are a little confused, click the link and watch the magic happen. For clarification, I'm Canadian not American.
Then, being a smart Canadian, can you please sign your posts in future by typing ~~~~ at the end? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IIRC this was posted as the US Masters but now seems to have gone back to being the Masters. Some error perhaps? Or have I mis-remembered? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Boxing
No consensus to post this, and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (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: Boxing is currently not represented in ITN, and I believe that it is a sport which gains significant coverage and is notable enough to be in ITN. Andise1 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Opposition - Hard to establish a bench mark for cultural significance in boxing. Far more important stories going on. Can we also cover UFC while were at it, as thats never been featured. It was a big event, so there are some plus points, but London Marathon is probably more significant. I dont think this was a fight for the ages, but it was arguably one of a handful of fights qualified to be deemed fights of the year. Title changed hands, but Champion had no tenure. Was Bradleys first loss, so I guess that helps. 36 people died in mexico and its deemed trivial. This seems pretty trivial. On the other hand, all sport is trivial and needs to be represented none the less. The article would presumably be good and informative as these things are easy to do. The fight was truly international, and boxing is probably under represented considering its global status as a sport of interest and participation in all corners of the earth. Tepid opposition. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think UFC should be covered, then feel free to nominate it here at ITN. You claim this was a big event, yet you also claim that there are "far more important stories going on." You also claim that the "London Marathon is probably more significant.", which may be true, but is not a valid reason to oppose this event. Plenty of items at ITN are more significant than other items at ITN, yet one item isn't not posted because another item is more significant. You also claim "I dont think this was a fight for the ages", which may be true, but neither are annual events we feature like The Masters and Wimbledon. I also want to point out that the significance of other nominations, such as the bus crash, are not relevant in nominations aside from their own. You seemed to contradict yourself quite a bit in your oppose.Andise1 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, plz no UFC,. Thats a fake b--- sport if ever I saw one. Im not your biggest opponent. Save your fire for the next guy Andise1. Tepid opposition is more like "meh". Wimbledon is like once a year and is the recognised biggie tournament in tennis. There are another 3 majors, but there you go. Tennis is arguably far more popular than boxing, but then boxing is PPV. Im not your biggest fan or critic, so just take it as a "meh" and prepare for the naysayers. My opinion is divided, not exactly contradictory. Its quite a left field suggestion and its not easy to work out in the context of sporting events. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious question How many boxing organising bodies are there these days claiming to create world champions? If there is more than one, it cannot be our job to decide which one is more important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cant avoid assigning a degree of arbitrary merit in these things. Anecdotally Pac was considered top 1 or 2 P4P for many years and Bradley is in that bunch just behind that. The biggest issue is working out the significance of a big boxing match to boxing. Its not like the UCL or the Superbowl. PPV figures often tell you how big the fight is, and thats a dirty road to go down. The belt is somewhat legit, but the weight range is not undisputed, as you have mayweather right there, refusing to fight pac and vice versa. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sanctioning organizations, but there are generally recognized to be 4 major ones: The WBO, WBC, WBA, and IBF. This would qualify in the boxing world as a major championship. Welterweight#Current champions lists the champions of the 4 sanctioning bodies. --Jayron32 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Four, but why can't it be our job to decide which matches (not which organizations) are the most important? That is what we do with every story that comes around. Boxing fans don't need some organization to tell them "this is an important match" - they already know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's four boxing organising bodies, multiplied by how many wieght divisions? We have a number up in the 20s at least. We won't post them all. Choosing any will involve masses of unsourced POV. No way we should be posting any of this disorganised rubbish. That turns my position into a clear... HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There are plenty of (knowledgeable) lists of the best pound-for-pound fighters. A rule like two of the top 5 on those a list could be used. It might be subjective - most of our decisions are - but it wouldn't be without sources. And of course, there is always the level of media attention that can be used as a guide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen professional boxers whose matches are likely to attract international attention, such as Wladimir Klitschko, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., etc. There's no inherent need to post every title defense by at every weightclass, or even every fight by these fighters. However, certain fights would garner ITN attention. For example, Klitschko currently holds 3 of the 4 major titles; should he get the fourth he would be the first Undisputed Heavyweight Champion (widely regarded as the most important title in Boxing) in 15 years. Likewise, the results of a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight would attract enough attention worldwide to be worthy of posting; such a fight has been hyped for many years now, and if it were to occur, it would garner enough media attention sui generis and on its own, to be worthy of posting. --Jayron32 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually easy to determine which fights are "big"; the same way we decide which tennis or golf tournament is big. The fights which have the biggest purse are "big". A world title fight for any of the flyweight titles in the middle of nowhere isn't big. A world title fight in Vegas could very well be, but I dunno if it's automatically ITN material. Now I dunno how big the purse was on this one. –HTD 02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ever reliable Bleacher Report, The purse for this fight was $26 million dollars, with Pacquiao earning $20 million, and Bradley $6 million. This was less than the 2012 fight. Pacquiao was also to have his share of the PPV earnings; in 2012 he likely earned about $12 million from PPV buys on his fight with Rios last year. Compare to the purse for the Masters, where Bubba Watson got $1.62 million, or at the 2013 Wimbledon where Andy Murray won 1.6 million pounds, but both weren't beaten up. –HTD 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (See above) HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in boxing circles, this was considered the most anticipated match of the year. I was considering nominating it myself (despite nevr watching boxing, I knew it was a big match). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This and the marathon are probably sporting events of this week, worldwide, if i put my mr planet hat on. Boxing is truly an international sport, if a male dominated one, riddled with corruption. Just please, no UFC as thats not a real sport. Period.
Nominator and thad do have a point. If one was to template two sporting events for this week, id be inclined to favour the london marathon and this fight. If it was 1, Id still be inclined to favor the marathon. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sports stories nominated in a week is irrelevant. Each sporting event should be assessed individually and not on the basis of whether there are other sports stories being nominated or posted at the same time. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said Andise1. - qualified meh. Concentrate on the nay sayers, because to me its bordering on 50/50. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on shaky grounds because boxing just isn't that big anymore. As somebody who has a love/hate relationship with boxing, I would like to see a story about Pacquiao on the front page because most boxing analysts (of which I'm not) seem to say that Pacquiao is one of the top fighters of all time, but this would be at least his 6th major title, and that kind of diminishes the value of it, in my opinion. Mvblair (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Manny Pacquiao fight has been described as the Super Bowl in the Philippines only it happens twice a year. That means it's actually (A LOT) bigger than the NCAA tournament or the boat race in the US or UK. Now the question is if Pacquiao fights should be on ITN, and if yes, which? I haven't checked every Pacquiao ITN, but it seems we've posted if Pacquiao begins a new "tuple" champion. Pacquiao, with all of the 4 major sanctioning bodies, and tens of smaller ones, is the only Octuple champion in history. In this fight, he won back the WBO welterweight title he lost to Bradley in 2012, so he didn't win a new title in a separate weight division. I could not look into the future, but I'd guess that the next Pacquiao ITN that we should if he wins a new title in a different weight division he hasn't won before, or if he and Mayweather finally goes at it. –HTD 02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manny is practically the patron saint of the Philippines and this is a big fight in boxing I believe, although I haven't seen a mtch since I was at my grampop's on a film reel. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another boxing match, just one of the four(?) welterweight world titles... If we start posting changes to world titles in boxing, we'd need a ticker. And the target article is barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree the fact there is no single boxing authority issuing titles and boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re:" boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore" -- Page view stats challenge: Manny Pacquiao vs Bubba Watson vs Mo Farah. Pacquiao eats both participants in ITNR events. It even had more views than the UEFA Champions League! –HTD 11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the article as it currently stands (very short). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think boxing in some circles is much more popular than some ppl realize. At my work there was more 'watercooler' talk about the fight than the NCAA or the soccer. Certainly for many people boxing is considered to corrupt and too violent to pay attention to but not everyone feels that way.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (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.
[Closed] Overland Park KS attacks
No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2014 (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.
Article:Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A shooting occurs at a Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas, U.S., and another shooting occurs at a Jewish retirement center in a nearby city. Three people are killed. A gunman is arrested. (Post) Alternative blurb: Something about anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism News source(s):[20] ABC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Gun crime / anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism. Staying out of this one, I'll nominate for debate, so we dont get hesitance about parochial noms and let you guys sort it out. Personally would question if scale warrants inclusion, but maybe it has cultural significance in the US Media. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly not notable enough. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on this one myself, but in what way is this clearly not notable enough? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three deaths. Simply not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Marathon was 3 civilians. Sikh temple shooting was 6, and was considered an act of terrorism. Woolwich murders were 0 civilians 1 soldier and was erroneously reported as terrorism for a long time. I do think things like this are terrorism, however unfashionable it sounds, whatever religion was assailed and however few the victims. Will probably be categorized as a hate crime, but i dont see much difference between this and the sikh temple thing. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the reports, this appears to be "crazy white man goes crazy, shoots up things" as opposed to anything planned out with any sense of terrorism. EG, this is comparable to the Fort Hood incident or the PA school knife stabbing, which neither was ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; unless developments show this was an organized conspiracy, this (while horrifying and tragic) doesn't rise to the level of noteworthiness for ITN. Right now it looks like one guy with a gun and a screw loose. Willing to reconsider if information changes. --Jayron32 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even if it was a conspiracy. There are plenty of conspiracies to murder people, some of which are racist attacks. Unless quite a few more people die, they aren't ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am heartened by the fact that there was already a Wikipedia article on the suspect. This suggests that the number of people who would actually do such a thing are vanishingly rare. I can't see posting this, though. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: shootings, tragically, are not irregular in the US, as was mentioned, unless there was some greater plan, there is no special reason for inclusion for this article. Thanks, Matty.007 10:11, 14 April 2014 (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.
[Closed] Acayucan bus crash
No consensus to post and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (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: It was significant enough to attract the attention of the president of Mexico, so it should be significant enough for ITN. --Jinkinsontalk to me 19:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random traffic accident, which we shouldn't even have articles about. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So an earthquake that kills 5 people is notable and should be posted on ITN, but an automobile crash that kills 7 times as many is neither. Got it. (Facepalm) Jinkinsontalk to me 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's monetary damage and the fact that earthquakes can't be prevented in addition to the fact that tracking earthquakes indicates long-term interest in geologic events, compared to traffic accidents that are typically have no significant long-term impact and can be prevented. This is what WP:NOT#NEWS is about. Death count is never a factor. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically though, death count is a factor. Also one wonders at the media reaction if this happened in New York or London. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. ITN is to highlight WP articles that are topics of current news. Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT, traffic accidents are too common - even with death counts in the dozens - to be considered as notable topics that should not have standalone articles on WP (Wikinews, yes, but not here). That's why one piece of advice we use here is that we are not supposed to be reflecting a news ticker, but being careful about its selection. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If enough people die, it will be ITN, regardless of what you say. Im not arguing with your position regards traffic accidents, only commenting on the nature of thing. If a tidal wave kills 2 people it wont be ITN. If it kills 280,000 like the one ten years ago, im sure we will be reading about it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, that's not the metric. It's the encyclopedic nature of the event. A natural disaster on the scale large enough to kill someone is also likely going to have caused serious property damage, and will be something that geologists/scientists/civil engineers will study to understand and prevent similar damage in the future. A traffic accident is a very isolated event in the larger scheme of things. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is a factor, merely saying it is not does not make it so. It isn't the only factor and there is no magic level of deaths that makes something automatically notable, but if you think the death toll doesn't have any bearing on something's long term impact you are mistaken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not dismissing the death toll but that's secondary to whether the event is encyclopedic in the first place, and it's also going to depend on the nature of an event. If, somehow, a road traffic accident caused the death of hundreds, that might be something. More clearing the notion that death toll should be considered a critical factor in comparing the value of various ITN stories. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50/50 The death total is particularly high, but traffic accidents do happen every day. Contrasting this with the forest fire in chile, the fire killed half the amount, but turned the city into a disaster zone. This has ruined many lives too, but is a localised disaster by comparison. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrible crash, but no notable cause or victims, no long term impact on society besides the victims, I.e., not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Needs more celebrity. If Ultimate Warrior had been on the bus, or it had crashed into Peaches Geldof, that would be notable. But 30 dead mexicans just isnt a news story. #f---theworldwelivein. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it posthumously inspires legislation that limits such deaths, as a result of public outcry. Then it becomes retrospectively significant culturally, based on the assumption of cultural significance at the time. ie Dunblane attacks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual celebrity (and non-celebrity) deaths are posted based on the impact of the person's career not the death itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP:77 is just trolling, Thaddeus. There are logical responses to his non-sequitur, but the effort isn't warranted in this case, as it just encourages it. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying rude things when no one can pronounce your name is trolling. I was making a point, but essentially I agree with the naysayers on this one. Road accidents are prevalent. Unless Randy Savage is in the car, or it kills treble figures, its unlikely to make ITN. 36 is a lot though, regardless of everything. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some very odd arguments being made against this. First there's the argument that traffic accidents are too common: well guess what - earthquakes are also very common. In fact, there are more than 1000 earthquakes every day. So by this reasoning we shouldn't post any earthquakes. But while most earthquakes, like most traffic accidents, are utterly non-notable, that is no reason to refrain from posting earthquakes or traffic accidents that are significant. Then there's the argument that death toll is not a factor. That is saying that whether a traffic accident kill 0, 36 or 360 people has no bearing of its notability. That is absurd. We would never apply that to other disasters - nobody thinks that an earthquake that kills nobody is as notable as one that kills thousands. Of course, it's not the only factor, but it is an important one.
Frankly, there is a great deal of prejudice against "traffic accidents". Virtually any other disaster that killed this many people would be posted. But apparently it is different if it is a "traffic accident". And while the argument about widespread damage to property might be relevant for natural disasters - earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc - it doesn't apply to train or air disasters. Nor does the argument that traffic accidents are preventable - air or even train disasters don't get objected to on this score.
Nobody has been able to articulate a good reason why we should treat road accidents in a particularly unfavourable manner. This disaster killed three dozen people. It is getting widespread international media coverage. That is enough to make it notable and ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia and trying to document topics with long-term, global significance. A "routine" traffic accident (a paradoxical statement yes, but you get my gist) is not going to have any significance beyond the short term time frame and local area. It will have a short burst of coverage, but it highly doubtful that next week we'll see much mention of it. This is not considered a notable event per WP:N + WP:NEVENT. As such, while it is "in the news", it is not the type of news we cover, and thus why we should not have articles on these things. And if we shouldn't have an article on the event, then by no means should it be at ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Neljack is right. widespread international media coverage, a massive number of deaths for a crash. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been sent to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is too short and certainly can't be posted while it's at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at present, per The Rambling Man. Matty.007 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment, not because it isn't notable but because the article isn't strong enough. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose this for ITN, but the AfD is an overwhelming keep, and we have posted AfD candidates before. If merely proposing an AfD, which lasts 7 days min, were grounds for disqualifying a nomination, any old editor could veto any nom simply by placing an AfD tag on the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain that when this happened in the past (posted noms with AfD's) the AfD's were snow closed by the posting admin. Should this nomination, which I Oppose, be posted, the closing admin could certainly close this AfD, which is doomed to keepture. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification required perhaps this needs to go to RFC or at least be discussed at WT:ITN (I'll start a thread there shortly), but are we content to post items with an AFD template at the top? I have no dog in the fight, but if I was a first-time visitor to Wikipedia's main page, clicked on an ITN item to discover the top half of the article emblazoned with a "This article is being considered for deletion" tag, I'd wonder just what the hell was going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated a discussion here, I'm not sure an admin posting an ITN item has any kind of carte blanche to snow close an AFD, the processes being 100% independent of one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (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.
[Closed] 2014 North Pole Marathon
No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (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.
Both articles need 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.
Oppose target article makes no mention of Wardian, makes a "future" note of a "marathon" on 9 April, and has maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its definitely news from a different part of the world than we are used to hearing from, but other than that, I dont really see it as significant. Will await the coming civil war between the polar bears and the wolverines. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More record trivia than news. Thue (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (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.
[Closed] BLM/Nevada
No consensus to post and would be stale by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (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.
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: I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias), but when the government acceded to protester demands in Ukraine, Yemen, etc that was posted here and indeed WP called it a "revolution". This is along those lines...some are terming it the "second civil war" even (im not going that far, but there is some acrivity brewing around (look at the BLM page)) --Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Minor legal dispute; this sort of thing is not uncommon in the western US where the federal government owns most of the land. The BLM has also not given up on enforcing the court orders; the movement was to prevent a violent confrontation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been significantly improved, well done Lihaas, but the story is still parochial and of seriously limited interest and impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. ! "I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias)" Why be predictable. Lets use this. :D Now if youll all support the chile fire and the marathon, we can have tea and biscuits like gentlemen. Nominator - this is a genuinely interesting story, but seems a little small scale in comparison to current events, in my humble opinion. Thank you for bringing the dispute to a wider audience and will read with great interest as soon as I have some time. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support showcases the recent militarization of bureaucratic agencies from the federal to local level, with federal Bureau of Land Management's own internal sniper division training guns on family members armed with cameras and the sheriff saying protesters better be ready for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters ain't just packing cameras(and have threatened to violently overthrow the government). 331dot (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family had threatened no such thing, and I am unaware of any source attributing that to protestors, although the family does call the feds, whov've seized 134 of their cattle, thieves, and called for them to be "hung" in public opinion.. The BLM does not dispute that it dispatched its own armed agents in SUV's and helicopters prior to the huge public response as a result of the media coverage. Regardless, this is a showcase of coercive state action within the US against civilians in civil matters, no different from NSA spying, just potentially more deadly. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said the protesters made the threat, not the family; That said, the protesters have included militia groups from all over the West CNN states at least some were armed and The Guardian states that Bundy said "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" Someone also stated ""Range War begins tomorrow at Bundy ranch at 9.30am. We going to get the job done!"331dot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you have the chronology wrong. The feds showed up with snipers, and trained their guns on the family when no protestors had yet shown up, and the family was only photographing the actions of the feds. Then the news broke, and all sorts of protestors showed up, and the family, emboldened, posted things to heir website that I would not have posted. Then the feds said after the fact that the threats from the protestors was the reason they showed up with guns. That is patently false. But the reason this issue is notable is not the dispute or later developments, but the fact that the BoLM, a strictly bureaucratic division of the strictly bureaucratic Department of the Interior, showed up with its own unconstitutional enforcement squad in the first place, rather than getting a warrant to bring in the state constabulary, or the militia or military for an insurrection. It's as if the BBC showed up with its own snipers to take out an unlicensed TV, or the National Health had snipers with guns trained on a patient protesting her discharge from hospital. The matter is a civil one in a Western Country with a cherished history of the rule of law with civil regulators using armed force without warrant against citizens not charged with any crime. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in commenting further but it probably wouldn't be relevant, so I will just thank you for your comments. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Youll rue the day when another IL president created war in his own country ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where to begin.. From the article, it's not even clear what has happened – apparently the nominated "news" is that the authorities temporarily called off a law enforcement operation due to safety concerns. If you look at the edit history and talk page, the article's neutrality is being contested. Including the suggested blurb, which seems to misrepresent the current situation in favor of one side of the dispute. --hydrox (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the news is the profile not the halt. Operations are created and halted everyday, but most don't create such temprement.
Also no neutrality contested..Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whoever called this the "second civil war" should be nominated for a "hyperbole of the year" award. If another civil war breaks out, feel free to nominate that and you will have my strong support. Until then, no. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support and I swapped the blurb for the (standards-conforming) altblurb. I would normally oppose this, but a record was set this year.128.214.214.26 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR and gets posted every year, as being on ITNR means it is automatically considered notable; if you oppose its presence there, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was looking under athletics and running on on ITNR or probably wouldnt have posted. Remove it as a nominee if you feel its redundant because of prior inclusion 331dot. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items still need to be posted here, for discussion about the blurb and article quality. Being on ITNR only means notability and its merits of posting are presumed, unlike non-ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much of the prose in the target article is in the incorrect tense and no prose at all appears to exist for the result which we're publishing here, do we not also publish the winner of the women's race? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding (re the women's race); I'm not sure when that got removed as it was originally in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ive now changed the prose on the original article. Also I had a different blurb, but someone changed it. Someone has edited out the womens, and two wheelchair winners, which were originally to be included. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article will need prose on the race itself, not just a list of the results. I will do this at some point today if no one gets to it first. We do normally list the men's and women's winners (but not wheelchair winners), and I support mentioned the course record as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Thad, have done the first paragraph from template, although require help with picture.
Note to all. Brits are likely to exaggerate the importance of Mo Farah competing. He brought publicity and crowds, but little else with regards to the elite competitive context of the race. He did reasonably well for a brit, but did not achieve any measure of relevance in the competitive narrative of the race. The british papers are all about Mo, when in reality he was not important in the races actual competition, others than the publicity and crowds he brought. Great athlete, but lets not get distracted by his participation. Strongly recommend trading on American media accounts for this one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This is an ITN/R article, so it's got nothing at all to do with Mo Farah or any other runner. You need to spend some time reading about what ITN before making so many fundamental faux pas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People are editing the article. You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. 1 It "has" nothing to do with Mo farah. 2 spend some time reading about what ITN "is". You talk about faux pas, but you cant even type clear English. Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this has nothing to do with Farah, and the idea that you'd advocate using American press as a preference is appalling and demonstrates your lack of understanding of this entire process. Take some time out to read about it son. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im editing the article and using different media articles as reference. A lot of the british ones are focused on Mo, rather than focusing on the race itself. If this is the wrong place to mention that, then fair enough, you have me there. would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS, before advising on the latter directives about the specific section we are in. Many thanks and have a nice evening. I have enjoyed reading a few of your articles, although I may have to edit some of those commas out. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, firstly, you need to, well, stop complaining about, um, the commas. Secondly, I suspect POS means "piece of shit", could you confirm? Thirdly, the point remains, there's nothing here at all to do with Farah, and certainly no advice to stick to American news outlets should be followed in any way. Many thanks, and have a nice, well, evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner. Will endeavour to stick to the format and use anything that doesn't focus the story on the guy that came 8th. Thanks for the heads up. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bill and I are close, and Aguero more so, but could you clarify that I understood POS correctly? British sources e.g. the BBC don't focus on Farah at all. Perhaps you're tired? Many thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purveyor of snideness. BBC Put down those rose tints and have a good night old man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine about all this, I didn't suggest you were a POS or even mentioned Farah, in fact all I said was that the article quality was inadequate. It's still inadequate. If you can be bothered to do anything, please do, if not, have a good night yourself old chap. Sounds like you need the sleep. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just woke me up tremendously. Feel free to jump in with some of those wikimedal level edits, and thanks for your comments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - unless there are specific objections, the article should now meet minimum quality standards and be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - got rid of the MPs, smoothed farahs story into the context of the race, and tried to weigh up performances according to merit. Review. The MP thing is saved in the talk pages if you have to have it, but the british public hate MPs and frankly they are right to. There were objectively more significant records amongst the public if you want to reflect that. Also the public part of the race traditionally reflects the public and not celebrities or MPs. but its still there in talk. Article looks crisp. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone sadly died after collapsing at the finish line. Added the detail. Theres lots of information about people attempting obscure records and celebrities and mps taking part. Will probably mention, as its a big public participation event. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thad::: I moved it around a little bit, but i'm happy with it now, if you are. trust me on the members of parliament/members of public thing. Its the best way of expressing it, keeping your entry and reference, without creating an elitist dynamic in a traditionally mixed race. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still only seeing the Elite men in the blurb. Article has been satisfactorily updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Someone changed the original article. Will swiftly resolve. Many thanks.77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally post the wheelchair winners. See alt II. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I tweaked the blurb a bit to fit the standard form for these sort of events. But consensus to post seems obvious at this point, and the article looks to be in good shape. --Jayron32 14:51, 14 April 2014 (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 with no article to evaluate or update(such as a specific article about this fire, not wildfires in general). The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles about subjects in the news. Looking at some other news sites I'm not seeing much coverage of this fire so I would be interested in seeing other news stories about it. Blurb also needs to be properly linked and bolded. I'm willing to reconsider if these suggestions are taken into account. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Give me a call when this IP editor gets bored of all these pointless nominations and starts to read the guidance. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* How rude. Better clear your calender for the foreseeable future if that's your attitude. Not a fan of self important amateur librarians or cult mentalities on a supposedly free web platform. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have said something in that manner, but I understand the sentiment. You're making a lot of nominations but not demonstrating that you are reading and learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the format seems somewhat redundant as one must edit or create a new article to reflect news stories not covered on wikipedia, which are many. Im not even sure I am allowed to edit some of these wikipedia articles or to create new ones as I am editing on an IP account. Furthermore I am not convinced that this whole thing isnt terribly provincial, as many of these stories would be covered if in a different region. However that last guy seemed very rude, and has really inspired me to contribute a bit more to these pages in the way of international stories that might otherwise be missed. Please thank lugnuts for the pep talk. I was indeed starting to lose interest, but he sure has made me interested now. I dont know who the we in "what we are looking for" refers to, but ill admit i was in perfect ignorance that you guys owned wikipedia and the internet. When i say "what we are looking for", im thinking of the worlds internet users, not a bunch of amateur librarians - all dude respect. Perhaps your contributions are not what we are looking for, signed the planet. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the Wikipedia community who comes here to discuss what is posted to ITN. That includes you at the moment- but you need to do a better job of showing us that you are learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. You are free to edit any article that isn't protected; creating an article requires IP users to ask for assistance (perhaps at Wikipedia:Articles for creation). 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats where the conflict lies. I dont answer to you. I answer to my understanding of the format on a free internet platform. Your contention is that im doing it wrong. My contention is that when i click "In the news" I dont see an adequate representation or reflection of the worlds major news stories. There are two possible explanations for this. 1 The population/consensus etc is horribly skewed by over representation in one region. 2 The articles that are indeed ready to go reflect this. I dont want a wikipedia badge. I dont want to be your friend. I want to see some accuracy and reflection of the worlds major news stories in the ITN section of my wikipedia. Im not righting wrong, I am attempting to write some accuracy into a supposedly global format. The world spins, and here are its major news stories day to day. You guys are complaining that the wikipedia articles dont exist to cover these stories or that these stories are pointless. I honestly dont think the stories are pointless or that a rock awards ceremony is worth more than a city in chile getting burned into a disaster area. If you guys think different, then well that is a genuine point of contention. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you act like you own the place you are going to be sorely disappointed. Your understanding of "the format on a free internet platform" is severely lacking. Being concerned with systemic bias is a valid concern, but that does not negate the need to do things in the correct manner. That includes understanding the purpose of ITN, which you haven't really demonstrated yet. If you are going to be a regular contributor here, that is something that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do own the place, as do you, as does every other sod online. The public own the place/ wikimedia foundation does. My only concern is rather than reflect the worlds news, the geographical bias behind article coverage, and consensus bloc, means important stories are being relegated behind NCAA basketball and the boat race. You think I have some explaining to do? A city in Chile just burned to a disaster zone and ITN is NCAA from last week and the boat race... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns the place; decisions are made by consensus(which was the point of my link above). It's fine to be concerned about systemic bias, but that doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else here. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage; if we get an article, I could support. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage"... theres me thinking it was pointless.77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We still need an article. ITN is for highlighting articles. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support if there was an article. 11 people have now died, and its still out of control, with Valparsio evacuated and w/o power now. But we need an article, say, 2014 Chilean wildfires, to be able to use this as ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point im making is the consensus is a geographical bloc, and the articles reflect the regional nature of the editors. furthermore theres the english language bias and the gender bias. Im not arguing that my opinion is worth more, im arguing that parochialism is a real issue that turns ITN into In The Neighbourhood.
Lets move past this. The story will gain traction as BBC and Reuters have both featured it, and it happened when much of the western world was asleep. Now if I was to write an article Im sure people would do their best to attack it. The fire really does approach the kind of notability that requires an article in my honest opinion.
All major news networks now covering it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot control who comes here and who does not come here to discuss nominations; we can only be mindful of systemic bias. I haven't yet seen disagreement that this fire merits an article, but we still need one before considering posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posit that this incident is far more important than our little squabbles and earnestly and humbly invite any editors that are interested to create an article to support inclusion of this important story. If you want me to work on it with you, I will do that, but of course experienced editors are more likely to want sole ownership of the article.
Either way, its an important story, and if you are reading this and you want it, its yours.
77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Total support. I completely disagree with the early commenters above. Systemic bias are common in major US/Europe news agencies. The Valparaíso news is big here. The fire has killed more people than the earthquake earlier this month did. The city has been declared a disaster zone (that means, that the army occupies the place to ensure protection of residents and that stuff). I can't see why this shouldn't be posted. Yes, it's missing an article, which should be named 2014 Valparaíso wildfire (since there are other notable wildfires in Chile that occurred this year and that may -perhaps- merit an article later. I can contribute with a photograph if you wish, though I'm not available to write an article. (Updated: By the way, President Bachelet said that this may be "the worst fire in Valparaíso" [23]) (2nd update: Added a photograph. More will be available later at commons:Category:2014 Valparaíso wildfire) Küñall (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Küñall, as stated above, this is now getting wider coverage than it was earlier, which I pointed out. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed. Küñall (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kunall - If you can safely get a picture from where you are, on to wikipedia, without breaking copyright or endangering yourself, it can go straight in the header. I completely agree with you on bias, but lets not get sidetracked again.
331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it. The whole point of why ITN was set up was for stories like this post 9/11. Nevertheless, lets not get side tracked again. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "ignorant" to state that there (at the time) was little news coverage. We cannot control what the media discusses. Fundamentally an ITN posting must be In the news. This is also not a news ticker but a place to highlight articles about events in the news; we don't post things before they are 1) ready to be posted and 2) have consensus to do so.. Go to Wikinews if you want to post news stories ASAP. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can upload a photograph, yes. But let's not exaggerate, the city was not completely burned down as you state. It has devastated some four or five hills once fulfilled with houses of poor people. Local media is reporting now 16 dead. Küñall (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the American Alphabets were literally in bed time hours and most of the posters seemed to be preoccupied with sniping at me or trading on a misunderstanding of the severity of events. Again, instead of trying to get the last word in, lets get on with this thing. We are arguing while the poor blokes city burns to the ground. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Kunall. We are trading on what news we can get. Please upload photo if safe and we can move on under best practice from there. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "trying to get the last word"; I am trying to correct your erroneous impressions- such as "arguing while the city burns to the ground" which 1) is not yet an accurate statement and 2) belies our purpose here, which is not to instantly post stories before they are ready. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed 331 dot. BBC, Reuters and AJZ already had the story. Were you literally waiting for the american networks/posters to wake up and legitimise it? 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction : The city hasnt burned to the ground. 500 plus homes have, 17 people have been killed and the entire city has been declared a disaster zone by the Chilean leader. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot survey all forms of media in the entire world to learn how widely a story is covered. I can only go by what I see and find myself; when I first saw this nomination, it was not widely covered. If it is now widely covered, that's wonderful. That also does not change that consensus and an article are needed before posting something. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are arguably the 3 most credible and wide reaching news entities in existence. We've both made our points. Lets get on with this.77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn Kunall - I saw the pictures on the BBC report this morning, but it hits home even harder when its a wikipedia poster you are communicating with taking the snaps. Thank you for the image for the header and stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on merits (significant damage in a part of the world we rarely hear about), but obviously an article will have to be written before we can post anything. I will try to get to it today, but I have a busy day already. So, if someone else is willing to do it, please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have made formal request for article, under the inhabitant wikipedia editors title - 2014 Valparaíso wildfire. If someone can get the ball rolling, with regard to template, I will be happy to add detail. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would support if there were a suitable article, per ThaddeusB. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." Hold the Press--John Maxwell Hamilton. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Went to wikinews, but saw no sign of this story, so request collab there. Anyone who wants to make a template, I will add information and reference the best I can using the abundant reliable sources featured in the header above. I dont know much about article production, but im willing to do my bit. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now up in Spanish. 2014 Valparaíso wildfire Request information on how to translate and contribute. request all interested parties to spend 10 minutes contributing, using the many reliable sources featured in the header. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the translation. I would thank people not to mess up with it while I work on it. Küñall (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. All yours. Cheers. Stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if article is improved. The article is in a terrible state at the moment, with numerous malformed templates, citations, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is a disaster. Has made "minor" news, a handful of deaths, rather "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy working on the edit is in the city that's on fire. appreciate if you show a little tact, rather than complaining that not enough of his neighbours have died, to your liking. All major news networks are covering the story, and none with the headline "Meh, 500 homes burned down, prime minister calls city a disaster zone, only 17 dead". Be polite and realize some people are actually living in the area they are referencing, and not sniping at strangers from a dented couch. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip, anyone can work on any article here, whether that's the guy whose "neighbours have died" (cn) or you. Do something positive and edit the article, the quality of which (when I reviewed it) was inadequate for main page inclusion. Stop making this personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually mo? Article looks pretty crisp now. Im on it. Your thoughts are your own. Obviously. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"mo"? What are you talking about? I always avoid editing Wikipedia when drunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Thou protest too much, methinks. No one said you were drunk. Or a drunk. Or a drunk man city fan that bet on Mo farah. Lets concentrate on facts here. Baseless assertions have no place in these hallowed halls good man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the article, it is fully translated, and all issues with templates and stuff was corrected. Küñall (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Well done kunall. Stay safe. Should get an award for personally providing pictures and back story while the flames burn outside your window. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - article now meets minimum quality standards. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Marked Ready given the only opposes are based on the now inapplicable lack of an article. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work people. Nicely done. Pleasure as always. Well done Kunall for contributing so much. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, IP editor. However, I'd love if the proposed picture was actually used in the main page; I mean, it is much more 'impacting' than that of a bleeding heart drawing. Küñall (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed,. Its a good picture of a bad thing. I dont know how the picture is established, but you have my vote. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2014 (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.
Nominator's comments: There are reports of casualties and events are still developing. Mohamed CJ(talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting confirmation of extent of escalation. Will drop a few sources so we can all have a butchers. Presumably articles exist that are being updated regularly. This situation is on a powder keg and looks set to go off.77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strogn support this is certainly in the news and we need it on ITN. As its current, we can put it on the top.Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — Alas, this is one of those stories that take time to sort out. Judging from Reuters [24] and BBC [25] Kiev's attempt to dislodge pro-Russia militants is not faring well, so far. Sca (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now updated story — Reuters, [26] BBC, [27]Spiegel[28] say three pro-Russia separatists killed in abortive assault on Ukrainian national guard base in Mariupol Wednesday night. Sca (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems updated enough. PostedThue (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
