To me it is not at the level of the ''Challenger'' or ''Columbia'' disasters. And to make up for that, it would have to have been a significant unmanned mission, perhaps a probe on a planetary mission; or the first such launch of that kind/from that site. Yes, it happened just in time for the evening news U.S. Eastern time, and it would have been neat to watch in the sky. But that doesn't establish the kind of importance that would give it this space. A lot of the rest of the world couldn't have seen it, and I'm not sure that they cared so much.<p>Yes, these are not commonplace. But as space flights like this become more and more commonplace, so too will the accidents that happen. A single-car [[motor vehicle accident]] without fatalities or injuries might have been news in 1902; by 1922 it needed to be a multi-car pileup. So on the scale of spaceflight disasters I do not consider this "huge." I read what ITN/R says; however in this case I respectfully dissent. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
To me it is not at the level of the ''Challenger'' or ''Columbia'' disasters. And to make up for that, it would have to have been a significant unmanned mission, perhaps a probe on a planetary mission; or the first such launch of that kind/from that site. Yes, it happened just in time for the evening news U.S. Eastern time, and it would have been neat to watch in the sky. But that doesn't establish the kind of importance that would give it this space. A lot of the rest of the world couldn't have seen it, and I'm not sure that they cared so much.<p>Yes, these are not commonplace. But as space flights like this become more and more commonplace, so too will the accidents that happen. A single-car [[motor vehicle accident]] without fatalities or injuries might have been news in 1902; by 1922 it needed to be a multi-car pileup. So on the scale of spaceflight disasters I do not consider this "huge." I read what ITN/R says; however in this case I respectfully dissent. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
***This is the most-read article on the BBC news website (in the UK the launch was shortly after 10:20pm), it's the top story for the Straits Times (launch 6:22am Singapore time) for example. This isn't as big as Columbia or Challenger, but very few things that make it to the ITN section are - indeed I'd venture that nothing currently on there is. The article clearly states that "This was the first attempted flight of the Antares 130" so combined with the fact that space rocket launch failures are ITN/R there is no basis for your opposition. If you want to challenge the ITN/R status please use talk page where it can be discussed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
***This is the most-read article on the BBC news website (in the UK the launch was shortly after 10:20pm), it's the top story for the Straits Times (launch 6:22am Singapore time) for example. This isn't as big as Columbia or Challenger, but very few things that make it to the ITN section are - indeed I'd venture that nothing currently on there is. The article clearly states that "This was the first attempted flight of the Antares 130" so combined with the fact that space rocket launch failures are ITN/R there is no basis for your opposition. If you want to challenge the ITN/R status please use talk page where it can be discussed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Not yet''' I would support this when the article has stabilised. However, at the time I reviewed this article (immediately before I composed this) there were still undos being made on the basis on the basis of factual accuracy. My rule is simple: if it's not true it can't go up. The headline blurb in this can ''is'' true but we can hardly start highlighting articles that are still in such a state of flux. We are not a news ticker: ITN is a service to the reader and to highlight ''quality'' content. [[User:MonumentallyIncompetent|MonumentallyIncompetent]] ([[User talk:MonumentallyIncompetent|talk]]) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
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 - These kinds of actions are far from common place, so something like this happening is easily noteworthy. As the nom mentioned, launch failures are listed on WP:ITN/R, and with good reason.--Fyre2387(talk • contribs)23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks to be in reasonable shape. The update is not huge, but I think sufficient. I've fixed a couple of bare URLs. There is some use of primary sources, but it looks reasonable. Also some slightly dicey RS, blogs and the like - though I guess that's all that's likely to be out there for a day or so to come. I think it's ready to post all the same. GoldenRing (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was thus no loss of life on board, nor on the ground. No one even seems to have been injured.
The spacecraft it was carrying was a routine resupply mission to the ISS
To me it is not at the level of the Challenger or Columbia disasters. And to make up for that, it would have to have been a significant unmanned mission, perhaps a probe on a planetary mission; or the first such launch of that kind/from that site. Yes, it happened just in time for the evening news U.S. Eastern time, and it would have been neat to watch in the sky. But that doesn't establish the kind of importance that would give it this space. A lot of the rest of the world couldn't have seen it, and I'm not sure that they cared so much.
Yes, these are not commonplace. But as space flights like this become more and more commonplace, so too will the accidents that happen. A single-car motor vehicle accident without fatalities or injuries might have been news in 1902; by 1922 it needed to be a multi-car pileup. So on the scale of spaceflight disasters I do not consider this "huge." I read what ITN/R says; however in this case I respectfully dissent. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most-read article on the BBC news website (in the UK the launch was shortly after 10:20pm), it's the top story for the Straits Times (launch 6:22am Singapore time) for example. This isn't as big as Columbia or Challenger, but very few things that make it to the ITN section are - indeed I'd venture that nothing currently on there is. The article clearly states that "This was the first attempted flight of the Antares 130" so combined with the fact that space rocket launch failures are ITN/R there is no basis for your opposition. If you want to challenge the ITN/R status please use talk page where it can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet I would support this when the article has stabilised. However, at the time I reviewed this article (immediately before I composed this) there were still undos being made on the basis on the basis of factual accuracy. My rule is simple: if it's not true it can't go up. The headline blurb in this can is true but we can hardly start highlighting articles that are still in such a state of flux. We are not a news ticker: ITN is a service to the reader and to highlight quality content. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone say how often this is awarded? Some "highest honors" are given out frequently, others rarely. I think this one is rare, though I can't tell precisely. Also, our article says that the Order of the White Lion comes in five ranks, but neither source seems to identify which rank was awarded in this case? With ranked awards (like France's Legion of Honour), the specific rank given can greatly affect the novelty and apparent significance even though all of the ranks often get described as the "highest honour". Lastly, I think it is important that any blurb note that the award is related to life saving actions he took during World War II. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 29 October 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: I think the Pope admitting evolutionism is going to strike very hard into the mindsets in the Bible Belt. Previously "the Vatican" as an entity admitted something similar, but the Pope saying this is quite more impressive than the whole gay-tolerance debate happening lately there. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. He did not fully accept evolutionism and Big Bang since he still believes that a god affected the two.It sounds like some fringe theorist partially admitted he is wrong (said fringe theorist just holds a position of power). No offense to Christians intended.Catlemur (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if we didn't post the damning reality that he accepted a significant portion of his clergy were paedophiles, I'm not sure why we would post something as half-baked as a tacit acceptance that "God" is commensurate with the Big Bang and evolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Bible Belt stereotype is not representative of all Christians. Catholicism has accepted such things for some time. The Vatican has its own observatory. The first article cited here proves that this is nothing new: "As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII said that there was no intrinsic conflict between Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution." Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing the significance here. Besides, "Big Bang theory and evolutionism are compatible with a divine creator" is rather different to "admitting evolutionism." GoldenRing (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this...even news? I was under the impression that the Vatican already accepted evolution as not incompatable with Catholicism and had for quite some time. - OldManNeptune⚓03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wish people would pay attention. This is nothing new. Catholic doctrine hasn't had a problem with either of these theories. Don't mistake Catholics for rebellious and uncouth Protestants. Your little "Bible Belt" is historically "anti-Papist", and hates Catholics. What a horrid conflation. RGloucester — ☎03:15, 29 October 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.
Oppose. If Rob Ford had stayed in the election, maybe it would merit posting(big maybe), but he had already left the race. Given that, this is essentially a regular local election. We don't post the Mayor of New York, Tokyo, London, etc., all cities larger than Toronto. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I'm not certain whether this should be RD or a blurb, but the untimely death of a current international football (soccer) captain seems notable enough to me. --Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support purely on news coverage, which this seems to be getting a lot of. I'm not sure he meets any of the RD criteria(though a captain he doesn't seem to have won many titles or held records) Should be a blurb as the death was unexpected and a story itself. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only knowing what is written in the article, it is not immediately clear that this person was near the top of his field, and indeed it seems that he's only been playing the sport professionally since last year (and rather unremarkably, at that). Compare this nomination with the one three below.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"he's only been playing the sport professionally since last year"? No. He started playing football professionally in 2005 at senior level with his club team, the Orlando Pirates - he started playing at international level last year. There is rather a big difference. BencherliteTalk11:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sadly in this case, I think you need to look at the fact that the article was a six-year old stub with only one minor edit this year before his death to judge whether this meets any ITN criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nathan121212: This doesn't qualify for RD unless he meets one of the RD criteria, which is debatable at best. While there is a lot of news coverage(as I state above); I wouldn't call it "huge worldwide news" i.e., top headline story in large print around the world. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD He doesn't meet the level of notability for an RD listing - 162.95... makes the point in a manner that is very difficult to counter even if you wanted to. I'd be less opposed to a blurb listing since the death itself has a certain level of notability but I wouldn't be madly enthusiastic about it either. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both He fails RD and his utterly tragic murder is simply not notable enough - even with the circumstances - to warrant a full blurb.--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The results will likely be announced in the next few hours. The article is crap, but unfortunately I won't be doing much about this because I will be very busy in the coming days. I hope someone gets there soon. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:49, 27 October 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.
Strong Oppose - He had a mediocre half-season in MLB. Not remotely significant in his field, and not even the "untimely death" clause would be enough to justify any sort of posting. --Bongwarrior (talk)
Oppose "top prospect" is not the same as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." RD is for achievement, not potential. BencherliteTalk11:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The end of a major military operation, one that has come define the Western military operations of the early 21st century, is definitely worth posting and this might be about as close as we're going to get to the absolute end of Western operations in Afghanistan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 28 October 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.
Oppose - Not widely reported In the News. ITN/R is a guideline subject to common sense exceptions, potentially frequent ones given the general lack of common sense in the ITN/R criteria. A re-election for the 11th time of the same old government in a country with less population than Connecticut probably doesn't generate a lot of news. If the opposition ever wins, that might be more significant. If you present multiple sources showing significant international coverage of this election, I may change my mind. JehochmanTalk14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This objection must have been overcome by new sources added... The difference between Connecticut and Botswana is that Botswana is a sovereign state. If Connecticut declares independence, that would be a different matter. By the same argument, no story apart from Chinese and Indian government changes should be covered... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- This isn't the right election for people to try their "ITN/R elections is way too all-encompassing" argument on. This is actually a reasonably important election for a not so small country. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamonte, the prime suspect in the shooting deaths of two Northern California sheriff's deputies, is reported to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico. (Los Angeles Times)
Sixteen workers are killed after a coal mine collapses in far western Xinjiang region. (Reuters)
Law and crime
Despite an international campaign, Iran hangs Reyhaneh Jabbari, sentenced for the murder of a man she claims was in self-defence. (BBC)
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.
Oppose on article quality - the last half of the prose part is lacking references and a bit too much proseline. Support RD on principle otherwise. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon quality improvement per Masem; in terms of notability he would seem to meet DC2. Even my local news ran a story about this. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, he was in Cream, of which I am a fan, but his career after Cream in no way compared to the other members, and seems largely to have consisted of minor works and collaborations and reissue new versions of old hits. The claim he is "very well known" is dubious at best. NO awards, no charting singles outside Cream. does not meet ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd never heard of him, but after a quick read of his Wikipedia article, it sounds like he was a musician in a popular group for about two years and spent the rest of his career as a minor character in the larger field of rock music; hardly top of his field (being considered by many to be the one of the best bass guitar players is a quite limited claim to greatness in the scheme of things). Where are the multiple Grammys and other awards that are the usual markers of the creme de la creme of the recording and music fields (pun intended).86.172.46.89 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but... The article would need to be improved first. It isn't particularly well-written, especially the paragraph on his recent album. I think he makes it. Founding member of a highly influential rock band, was with the group for its (albeit very short) entire existence, and was a major contributor to the bands seminal works. Yeah, he fits. But the article needs work. -- Scorpion042221:45, 26 October 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.
I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't have been posted to Ongoing in the first place. Hong Kong is not on top of the headlines anymore. Are the protests really that significant right now? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal right now, but with the reservation that it can be added back in due course should events re-ignite. It was clearly easily notable enough for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are anti-government protests going on in many places in the world at any given time. Unless the military gets involved or if the protests lead to genuine revolution, they shouldn't be posted. --Tocino02:26, 26 October 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.
Nominator's comments: This is one of the deadliest attacks on the Egyptian military in decades and the deadliest in the Sinai insurgency. The article requires some expansion, so any help would be highly appreciated. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worst? can we get a direct quote with specific figures of the last major attack(s) and a reference? "One of the worst in decades" is very vague, and unattributed. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to The Guardian, it was "the deadliest attack on the security forces since the army deposed Islamist president Mohamed Morsi last year" so we need a reality check. However, it doesn't detract from the actual impact of the story and the newsworthiness of it, so support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Records of 2012 beaten; does this happen every other year? More accurately, these records have been set three times since 1960. That's three times in 54 years, to help with the "math". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The the article is not updated. It says "peak speeds exceeding 821.45 miles (1,322.00 km) per hour" vs "and fastest speed of free fall at 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)" for B. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is just a random stat, of interest to some people, maybe, that's broken every other year. All it requires is being a multi-millionaire to afford the attempt. Are we supposed to be a ticker for that? Try DYK. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the record that Baumgartner broke had stood for more than fifty years. While it is sort of odd that it was broken again so soon, I think it's too early to say that it's now commonplace. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an incremental bump and as noted this "achievement" is more to do with the depths of one's pockets than any inherent skill. I don't think Baumgartner sets any kind of precedent - he got a lot more popular media coverage than this latest record. That implies to me there isn't the same kind of appetite for information about this copy-cat stunt and ITN is primarily for what our readers are trying to find, not what we consider "notable". Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything new or worthy from an educational standpoint to this factoid. TBH this is barely news, never mind ITN for an encyclopedia. --Tóraí (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Though I have to admit it's sort of strange this didn't get even half the coverage Baumgartner did, I think it was just wasn't hyped up nearly as much as Red Bull did but it's still an international story, so it shouldn't be punished for that. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike Baumgartner's jump, Eustace's jump didn't receive widespread international fanfare. The scientific value of these jumps are questionable, and they seem more like dare-devilish stunts if anything else. --Tocino02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- As a response to the last two oppose !votes, the reason it didn't get as significant coverage as Baumgartner is because they didn't have Red Bull to hype it up like last time. That in no way diminishes the significance of the accomplishment. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While not as hyped up as the Red Bull sponsored event, this is getting coverage and is a notable record; pretty much the next step would be a dive from orbit. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As others have noted, this is a little unusual because it comes so soon after Baumgartner's jump, with relatively little fanfare. But judged on its own merits, I see no reason not to post this. If these jumps truly become a biannual event, then I might feel a little differently. But right now, no problem. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Needs Attention. Have been on the fence about this one for a while now, but I find myself moved by 331dot and Bongwarrior's comments. Adding a needs attention comment as well because I feel this has the support it needs and is marked as ready so we should get it up. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:36, 27 October 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: School shooting by a fellow student is never a good thing. However, I will note that this doesn't yet have major international coverage (BBC has nothing yet), but its still early in the news cycle. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sad but school shootings in the US are almost ten a penny (we have about 45 articles about US school shootings vs about 15 for the rest of the world), so they need to be extraordinary for some reason to be ITN worthy and I'm just not seeing anything about this incident that rises to that level. The Washington Post article even says "This was the second shooting at a school in the region this year. In June, a gunman opened fire on the campus of Seattle Pacific University, killing one person and injuring three others." [1]Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the above. Tragic, but not uncommon and unlikely to have any lasting impact across the country. Level of media coverage is fairly minimal outside the US (although it is the no. 4 most read story on the BBC right now). --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare and tragic event in a pro-gun control state, while the US Murder rate is estimated to be at its lowest level ever mother Jones, Chart these events happen and this has been the top news story all day long, even displacing yesterday's Canadian double shooting. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 24 October 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 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.
Weak support. Multiple gold medallist in international competition, and first black South African to be #1 in the world (in most cases being the first of $ethnicity in a country is not really relevant, but South Africa is a special case IMO). My support is weak only because the article is a little light on prose, but what's there seems OK. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better, but citations are needed lead and several parts of the article's body. Thanks for working on it, but it still has a way to go! Rhodesisland (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Chang'e 5-T1 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: China launches Chang'e 5-T1 which will perform a loop behind the Moon and return to Earth. (Post) Alternative blurb: China launches an experiment lunar mission, Chang'e 5-T1, which will loop behind the Moon and return to Earth. News source(s):[1] Credits:
Nominator's comments: First re-entry from a Lunar trajectory since 1976. Significant achievement for China in its Moon program. --Hektor (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- In my opinion, the best positive news stories we can post are in the field of space exploration, and this one has a mild political element as well. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mission is going to take eight days. Would it make more sense to post it after it has completed the mission? Because right now the return aspect, which is the major distinction of the mission, hasn't actually happened. C628 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For new types of rocket we normally post the launch. For space probes we post the launch and when they arrive at their destination. Given the timescale of this one, if it isn't posted today then it may be best to wait until it returns. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll wait for a comment or two more, then ready to post. When mission is accomplished, we can update the blurb, if it is still on ITN then. --Tone10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures."--Catlemur (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The use of WMD is notable, and this is in some better sources than the prior nomination below. I wonder if it merits a separate article, though. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; though I reviewed the sources before posting my above comment, I am persuaded by what Masem says below. Waiting for further sources would help, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'd have to counter the claim this is an WMD, that first, I don't see any sources specifically calling it that (we should not be making that distinction as OR), and that as per NYT on this subject, they note that there were no deaths here, and in previous uses of homemade chlorine-based bombs, the harm was more likely from shrapnel and the like than from exposure to the gas (the gas does nasty chemical burns and that itself can lead to death but in terms of what one would normally called a "chemical weapon" it is not the same thing as what, say, would be making a huge international incident). Even the BBC writer [2] notes that classifying the chlorine bombs as chemical weapons is a bit of word play (And certainly not WMD). The lack of broad coverage based on other more critical events from the ISIS stuff in the past suggests that this is not really anything surprising (they have claimed that ISIS took over a chemical production plant that made chlorine compounds for pools, and there were plenty of unconfirmed reports in the past of the claimed use of chlorine gas), and that we have the ISIS ongoing, makes me think this is not as significant as it reads, only because it implies a more drastic situation when it really isn't. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionIs this the same story as below? If so, I'll repeat my comment from below. I heard this on the radio news just this afternoon, not sure if it was Fox or NBC, but it was one or the other and I would count either as a RS so I Support.Rhodesisland (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Hamas member carries out a terrorist attack in Jerusalem by intentionally striking a group of pedestrians in a train station with his car killing a 3-month-old baby. (Times of Israel)
Mali confirms that a 2-year-old girl has tested positive for Ebola, marking the country's first documented case. (BBC)
Law and crime
A man attacks a group of police officers in New York City with a hatchet, injuring 2 before being shot dead. Police suspect the attacker was motivated by radical Islamic ideals. (CNN)
Politics and elections
Protesters in Iran call for increased security after four women are injured in acid attacks in Isfahan for allegedly not wearing veils. (AFP via ABC Online)
Science
Partial solar eclipse visible over much of North America today. (timeanddate.com)
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.
Official figures will soon show that cases have topped 10,000 and over 5,000 people have died.I have no idea if this is standard practice (I know it is in ongoing events) but should significant milestones like this be reported separately. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy. ITN's not into records unless it's Messi, or if it involves round numbers unless it's a century in cricket. Well I think "a century" is round... –HTD12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, snooker's OK. Compared to American football, tons of Mexicans and Canadians play it (who am I kidding lol). Messi and Ronaldo are closing in on Raul's Champions League goal-scoring record. Now that's an easy-as-ITNR-post-it-God damn it-now support. –HTD12:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to figure out what milestones we would report on Ebola. I think we could report whenever a country is declared Ebola-free, and we could report when a vaccine is finally declared effective. I'm not sure body counts are very useful because the number are grossly underestimated. What upsets me is that the news seems to completely forgets the thousands dying in Africa as soon as two or three get sick in the US or Spain. JehochmanTalk12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'd like to know what kind of event should happen to merit the return of ebola as a blurb in ITN. These "arbitrary records" ain't it. –HTD13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side, I would assume that an organization like WHO or CDC would have a point of classification where they would call something an epidemic or pandemic which would be, for us, the point of being ITN. (or hopefully when they declare it eradicated.) --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They had already classified it as an "epidemic". I don't think it'll reach "pandemic" (common cold?) levels. The thing is if there less and less cases, the people would lose interest and once WHO says the epidemic is done, it's no longer in the news. –HTD17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is already on ongoing, so visitors we see it in ITN. Otherwise you could argue the landmark would bring visitors looking for the subject, but in this case they will find it. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, believe it or not. An In the news candidate is opposed because it's in the news. I will qualify it by saying that this event is already in the news, and people can link to it from major websites like Google, Yahoo!, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Suggest Close. already in the ongoing and a seemingly random number assignment; also, I suggest we close it as there is not a single Support comment other than original nomination. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:02, 27 October 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.
Rear Admiral Anders Grenstad, while pointing out that Sweden's military operation is focused on gathering intelligence on a suspected foreign submarine in its waters, stated that military force could be used to make it surface. (BBC)
Indeed; I haven't seen a RS that has stated they even possess chemical weapons(though I suppose they could have gotten them in Syria). 331dot (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added Daily Mail and Kurdish Tribune articles on the topic.ISIS captured a lot of chemical warhead shells in Iraq recently, so it might be true.--Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Needs Attention and Support. I heard this on the radio news just this afternoon, not sure if it was Fox or NBC but it was one or the other. Support as being very notable development in this conflict. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:57, 27 October 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.
Oppose; doesn't seem to be mainstream news; blurb is also not accurate as it is not a monument to Wikipedia, but to Wikipedia contributors. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 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.
Nominator's comments: Significant shooting (17 deaths), so the trial should be at least somewhat significant as well, particularly given that we posted Pistorius' trial (which pertained to only one death). --Jinkinsontalk to me17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: What 'precedence'? We deal with each event on its own merits, and this is very different than the Pistorius case. Might be notable, but still different. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's going to point out that the article and the source given both say that only one guard was convicted of first-degree murder, not four as the blurb says? Oh well, guess I'll have to point that out, then. BencherliteTalk21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Even if there are no casualties beyond the shooter(s), this is a significant event that is affecting the Canadian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd want to make sure its posted with proper details, but I think regardless of outcome it is ITN. Eg: how many shooters, is this related to the ISIL threat that Canada had recieved, etc. Things are still happening as best I can tell. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big terrorist attack, regardless of the justification. It's an attack on the parliament building in the capital of a major country in the world. I believe this is unprecedented in Canada. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While no one has yet 100% affirmed this as a terrorist act, it comes exactly one day after two Canadian soldiers were run over by a car driven by ISIL agents, and subsequently caused Canada to raise its terrorist threat level due to other credible threats. Needless to say, this nearness of events is not going unnoticed by the press even if it is speculation for now. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry Masem, but you are inadvertently pushing FUD here. The terror level was actually raised last week, before either incident, and the guy in Quebec wasn't an "ISIL agent" - officials have said only that he was "self-radicalized". Though you are right that the timing of the two incidents is causing media to speculate links. Resolute19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I wrote that comment the only news was that the soldier's shooter was dead, and that they weren't sure if their might be other shooters. Are you suggesting that I was insensitive to the shooter, or advocating cannibalism? I don't expect you to know it, so I will refrain from telling you to stick your in your, but my boyfriend was shot to death in a car jacking, and I won't even describe what I went through as a NY'er on 9/11, so please keep your concern for my "if it bleeds it leads" comment to yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry about the loss of your boyfriend. I too was in New York on September 11. My comment does not have to be personalized. I simply, and I hope uncontroversially, ask that we not use the word "meat" in reference to a human body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A private note at my talkpage would have gotten my attention, and almost certainly convinced me, since the point was inessential, and I was literally thinking of a plate when I made it. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not normal for Canada. Regardless of number of deaths its clearly a directed attack at military personnel and the Canadian parliament. Prime Minister Harper was awfully close by when this happened as well. This will be significant news around the world -- Ashish-g5518:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait we still don't have a clear picture of what is going on here and there's no point in rushing something to the main page until we do. I agree, it's not "normal" for Canada, I agree, it's shocking and headline news, but the news outlets seem nearly as clueless as we do. We can post it when we have a better idea of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
STRONG OPPOSE on mere speculation. 0-1 deaths vs. much more in ME or Africa that don't get posted. like trying to say 6 million dead white people are more "never again" then the virtual extermination of an [red] peoples!Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's playing the race card for hyperbolic effect. It tells me a great deal about Lihaas - none of it good - and only confirms that he can be safely ignored. Resolute19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Lihaas' strong oppose vote is quite valid, regardless our opinion of the off-topicality of the comment that followed it. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: A Canadian soldier on guard duty has been killed, and the shooting has already had a ripple effect with increased security in other national capitals. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per above. Major attack with coverage all around the world. I was surprised to see it in Lat. Am. media so early in the day. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Per The Rambling Man, insufficient detail to make a useful blurb beyond stating the very most obvious (that a shooting occurred). I don't imagine we'll have to wait too long. Once information is more available, I would likely support regardless of motive, since it carries implications of an attack on a government due to location. - OldManNeptune⚓19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree, but waiting for a few more details will not be harmful either. At this point, the best we could say in an ITN blurb would be that a soldier is dead and that an attacker traded gunfire inside Parliament - which may be worthy of posting now, but an hour or two might yield more concrete information. Resolute19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on waiting just a bit. Make sure the situation has settled to a degree so that we can get accurate "basics" right. (Example, there was a third location listed before but that's been proven a misstatement by the police). Probably a few hrs will be good. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's still unclear what happened. If this was just a random lunatic shooting one person, that's very different from an organized terrorist attack. We need to wait for the basic facts to become known. JehochmanTalk20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ready soon The situation has not changed for a few hours now, the article has been extensively edited and sourced. While there is some disagreement on the talk page about the article's title, there is a 'Reactions' section being populated, and the structure is otherwise quite good for a young article. --NaturalRX20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the title won't be included in the hook, how desperate is it that we wait? The name seems to be generally stable. Most either support the current name, or suggest that a final name can't be decided until a few days from now, once the media comes to an agreement. May we post? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continue Waiting This appears to be a shooting by a lone nutjob. Also, the current blurb isn't suitable. Did we post the loon who jumped the White House fence? Do we post every time a loon shoots one or two people? JehochmanTalk23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand rationale behind waiting if its single gunman. Large portion of city has been in lockdown and its been covered all day worldwide, literally. The article looks good as well. It actually is starting to look odd not seeing it on ITN by now. -- Ashish-g5523:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand waiting. In the U.S., all of the news channels have been reporting on it nonstop for hours. It's not only the biggest news story they are covering, it's the only story. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious whether we even had a nomination for last year's shooting by police of a the woman who drove into a barrier at the White House [3] or the knife-wielding man who just made it over the fence into family's quarters, or the rifleman who shot a bullet into the quarters 11 Nov 2011?[4]. Beyond the moral preening at this point we seem to have one islamist convert who has assassinated a soldier. This is not Canada versus the US. It's an ideology of murder versus London, Madrid, New York, Ottawa.... μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The likely reason this story is HUGE (compared to those other two , which had wide national coverage but not wide international) is that with Canada announcing their support of strikes against ISIL and the events of yesterday, the press are widely speculating possible connections to Canada's actions and these "responses" (if they are that). But as others have said, in those event, the sole of the White House was effected; here, the core of the entire Canadian Parliment was shut down as well as around 10,000s of citizens living/working in that part of download Ottawa. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on the fence at first, but three things swayed me: 1) Part of this took place in one of the Parliament buildings. How often does this kind of thing happen in a major legislative building in a national capital? 2) This is getting massive media attention all over the world and has been commented on by major world leaders. and 3) A big part of downtown Ottawa was put on lockdown for a long time. So you have a large city (and national capital) where an important part of the city was shut down, and in some cases it's still ongoing. It just slips through, but I think it passes. People have been comparing it to the White House invasion. I'd compare it more to the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think that was in ITN. -- Scorpion042200:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An attack like this on a parliament building is quite extraordinary, and will likely be remembered in Canada for many years to come. I'll confess, I happened to catch it on ABC News (which the BC News Channel broadcasts to fill space at stupid o'clock in the morning) and my first thought was "oh, another shooting spree in America", but when I realised it was Canada, where this sort of thing is about as common as rocking horse droppings, and the parliament building, I was genuinely shocked. This would be extraordinary in Westminster (not least because we don't allow any loony to walk into a supermarket and walk out with a firearm in the UK) and even on Capitol Hill, but it is all the more so in Ottawa. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have provided an alt blurb that describes the events as completed. The only thing that remains an issue is if this was a ISIL-related incident but that's not something that should block the blurb posting (eg we can change that later if it does turn out to be true). --MASEM (t) 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For short term posting, leaving out the terrorist attack part might be best until it's well established. I know the shooter has very questionable ties, but that doesn't mean it was directly such an attack. If while this is posted and its confirmed it was one, we can change the blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I'm Canadian, and this is a massive news story up here. Canada is a very powerful country within the international community, and a relatively peaceful nation. An attack on the Parliament in Ottawa is significant, even if it was just a lone gunman acting on his own agenda. Kurtis(talk)01:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my opinion to support, the blurb says what is known and while I might have hoped we'd see even more information than what we have now, the lockdown of Parliament is a significant event. - OldManNeptune⚓05:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PM Stephen Harper has called it a "terrorist attack". Check the article itself for details. In general, the event is notable because it was a direct shooting and attempt to attack members of Parliament, not because of the amount of casualties. This is unusual for Western nations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's unusual for a shooting to happen at a national parliament, but otherwise there is really nothing unique about this event. Lone acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalists are sadly common in this day and age. Unless those acts of violence lead to catastrophic consequences (i.e. the September 11 attacks, Beslan, Mumbai, the In Amenas hostage crisis, etc.) they aren't notable or unique enough to be posted on ITN. -- Tocino07:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from two extraordinary things actually. The other was not mentioned -- which is that this happened in Canada. I don't think some people really have a concept of how rare such shootings are in Canada. There was a similar ITN discussion about three federal police officers being killed in Canada earlier -- dismissed as ITN-worthy in about five lines because apparently this kind of thing is not uncommon in some other parts of the world. (On average, Canada has 2-3 police killed in the line of duty in any given year across the entire country (StatsCan). Between 1961 and 2004, 120 police officers have been killed in the line of duty, but those numbers are heavily skewed toward the FLQ years and drop to zero or 1 most years in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2005, there have been at least 20 police officers shot (or deliberately hit by cars), a good third of them federal police.) - Tenebris 09:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Support, post it already. Despite the low casualty count, this kind of an attack is quite unusual for Canada, and it is already clear that it will have significant political implications there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now. I doubt that any additional information will become available until after several weeks of investigation, so it's rather pointless (and frankly disrespectful) to continue delaying posting this on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the blurb to better reflect the importance of the event. My blurb is now listed as the altblurb here. Please feel free to improve. JehochmanTalk15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Would seem to meet DC2 and the latter part of DC1(had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region) given his publishing of the Pentagon Papers. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak Support. While a player in the events of Watergate, he is not Woodward or Bernstein, the ones that broke it. And while an editor of a major paper, I would not really call that the top of the field considering journalism. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read his obits. His career wasn't just Watergate. That was the culmination of seven years of work as executive editor building the Post into the closest rival The New York Times has in American newspaper journalism. He persuaded Donald Graham to buy Newsweek, an investment that revitalized that publication and paid off for the Post Company for years. He was, really, the last of a type—the big-city newspaper editor as primal force. We will not see his like again, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to a weak support. Still not fully convinces of his importance once you subtract the Watergate scandal relevance, but also can't deny he is unimportant at all outside of that. Also not looking at a full RD list so no reason not to support something on the edge. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, oppose on quality: First of all: Holy shit, he wasn't dead yet? Second of all: a major historical figure, as a newspaperman, perhaps the best known of his time (the answer and American would give to "Name any Newspaper Editor" if the answer is not a blank stare, the person would answer "Ben Bradlee"). His specific involvement in most of the major Washington DC era journalism of the 1960s and 1970s, as a key historical figure in those news stories, also places him as a highly recognizable name, and therefor worth an RD link for that reason. However, the article has major sourcing problems. The sections "World War II", "Government Work" and "The Washington Post" are entirely unreferenced. For that reason Oppose on quality only. If anyone fixes those referencing problems, consider this vote a full-fledged support without me having to change it. --Jayron3201:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a minor talking head admired by some with a certain POV, but not an innovator in his field, just a witness on the sidelines of events he did not in any way influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Although he was well-known among U.S. journalists of era, the events (that inspired the film) that made Bradlee famous to the American public have receded into history and legend. I'm not convinced he's of sufficient current fame for ITN. (Anyway, most readers will think of Jason Robards.) Sca (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current fame is not one of the RD criteria. One doesn't have to be currently famous to be very important to their field, or to have had a significant impact on the nation/region. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, strike current fame from my comment and make it standing.
Watergate "has receded into history and legend"? How many other scandals brought down a President? Why are we still suffixing just about every scandal we can with "-gate"? Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be very useful for something in List of common misconceptions, but has no bearing on whether we run his death. Your language seemed to suggest that no one cares any more; I'd say the existence of those myths and the need to debunk them demonstrates the exact opposite. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, Daniel. Watergate was a watershed event. (No pun intended.) I remember it very well. You missed my point entirely — it's Bradlee whose stature was at issue (and I've modified my view on that). Further, your tone seems unduly abrasive. How about assuming good faith, and showing some tolerance for the views of others — even those with whom you disagree? Sca (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Probably one of the bigger players in the field he worked in, as well as a key player in one of the most significant events in recent American history.--Yaksar(let's chat)16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per this piece in the Guardian, arguing that even more important that his part he played in Watergate were his actions in respect of the Pentagon Papers, publishing the documents in the Washington Post even after the New York Times had been hit with an injunction. The effect was transformative both for his newspaper and for American journalism. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I'm in the minority, which in this instance makes me feel guilty. So I changed my oppose to a comment.
At the time of Watergate, I was a huge fan of Woodstein (and later, of All the President's Men). It was Woodstein doing the reporting — but perhaps I missed the significance of Bradlee's role. Sca (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would post this but there are a few citation needed tags, and the Washington Post section (which, after all, is the key thing) is virtually unreferenced. Others may disagree, but I ain't posting this crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References added. I've removed the tags and added several references. The article's not perfect but I believe it's ready but I welcome other editors to have a look.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
