This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
The Russian Air Force destroys around 500 fuel tanker vehicles used by ISIS and other extremist groups for transporting illegal oil from Syria to Iraq. (RT)
A gunman inside a betting shop near army barracks in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, shoots dead two Bosnian Army soldiers. The gunman, identified as Salafi extremist Enes Omeragić, later commits suicide after police surround his house. (Reuters)
Both the FBI and New York City police say they are aware of a newly released Islamic State video suggesting America's most populous city is a potential target of attacks. The agencies say that there are no specific threats, they will investigate, and they will remain at a heightened state of vigilance. (Reuters)
The United States warns travelers in Italy that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the La Scala opera house in Milan, and the Milan Cathedral, as well as "general venues" like churches, synagogues, restaurants, theaters and hotels, have been identified as "potential targets" for terrorist attacks. The message added the Italian authorities are aware of these threats. (AP)
Sweden's terror threat level is raised to 'high' for the first time in history, as national security service Säpo says that police are hunting a suspected terrorist. (The Local)
Nominator's comments: Biggest diamond find in a century and second biggest gem-class ever. Find hit the media on November 19, but the announcement was on the 18th. There is a non-free photo available, not sure if it can be used here though. w.carter-Talk10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the article needs to be way more than one short paragraph. Needs a lot of work. Significant find and sure to break the record for most-expensive diamond whenever it's eventually sold (probably years away). Modest Geniustalk14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the article is way to short, but it's just been dug up so there is only the press release to go on so far. More will be added as soon as available. w.carter-Talk14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Quality is sufficient to post, but I agree that it should be longer. Perhaps there are more details about the mine it was found in. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lord, BabbaQ, do you not understand that you are supposed to give a rationale why the claim is important enough to post? You are even wrong on the facts this time, it is not the biggest diamond found. Luckfully, the article has been expanded and posted, but "support because I support votes" do not help. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (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.
Support Multiple gold medals at the Olympics is as good a measure of "top of one's field" as there could be, and the otherwise storied life adds flavor. Article seems okay.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that historically we have waited for at least 4 supports before posting an item like this before it is a day old. I neither disagree with the posting nor blame the poster, but I think maintaining the four supports precedent is a good one. That being said, Post-Posting Support. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (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.
We have all sorts of national awards, both US and non-US(see the film section of the ITNR list). Requiring everything to be international would leave very little to post to ITN. The question is does this have notable news coverage, which can and should include international coverage; the nominator has already given one UK source about this award. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd be opposed to putting these awards up every year, but the Guardian article does suggest unusual factors in play this year (and ITN has been slow with so much European news being Paris attack aftermath). The problem is the suggested target (bold) article does no more than list the books and, as there is no year-by-year article for this award, it is hard to see how this might be rectified without undue focus on this year's awards. Could an article be created for Fortune Smiles, and the two books be made the targets? Or if Fortune Smiles is less notable (as seems perhaps the case), just focus it on Between the World and Me, which has an existing article of reasonable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "~"? We've already got the Pulitzer, and one of the awardees to this highly variable prize isn't even linked in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Alt Blurb, provided that the actual award page is linked in the blurb, not the list of winners - it's just a list and gives no information on the significance of the award. MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor award compared to Literature Nobel or Booker which we post. Fourth literary award (and at least second from US in the same field) looks redundant to post. Brandmeistertalk12:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "national" part is not a problem. The real notability of the prize and its winners is. The prize could be called the "Not to be Posted at ITN Prize" and we would still post it if it were important enough. In this case there are bigger prizes and we are simply not slow on news. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Why is the Booker Prize more important (which it must be if it's recurring?)? Our article about it is almost completely trivia. That said, our article about this prize is almost all bureaucratic details (and why did James Patterson win a lifetime award?) Neither one looks very important. I might withdraw this nom pretty soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2015 (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.
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.
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 APEC Summit's economic leaders' meeting is an ongoing event happening from November 18 to 19 attended by economic leaders and/or representatives of 21 Pacific Rim economies. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that people should read the article. Fully one third of it is a criticism section, with a section on travel impact and a section on homeless people. These are given a huge ammount of attention for such and article. There's also the gem that: "This will be the first APEC meeting for Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau since their inaugurations on 15 September 2015 and 4 November 2015, respectively." Of course any summit will have new attendees. The article also needs a total going over for grammar and idiom. There's a statement that people "took on" social medial to protest. I assume what is meant was that they "took to" social media to protest, not that they sued socioal media, or engaged in denial of service attacks against it. There's no demonstration of any sort of major impact, and the article is not in the shape needed to be featured at ITN if there were. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing is meant for events where the article gets incremental updates with things that individually might not merit posting . It isn't meant for events in progress unless new newsworthy developments will come out of this every day, which seems unlikely for this type of meeting.331dot (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself is newsworthy. An economic meeting that is attended by economic leaders that represents 50-60 percent of the world's economy is of international interest. I am not nominating this as a stand alone headline, I only intend this to be included on the Ongoing events section as to inform Wikipedia users of an international affair that is taking place on this very day. Hollyckuhno (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it should be a stand alone headline, and with this type of event we usually note the conclusion of the event, along with anything notable coming out of it. Ongoing is not meant merely to post events in progress, but ones where the article would have incremental updates, as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedure. As the above comments show, this is not what Ongoing is for (although I wouldn't blame someone for being mistaken). This nom would have better luck as a standalone headline, but as the G20 nom below shows, merely being an international gathering is perhaps not enough for the support of most.128.214.200.219 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing because that's not what ongoing is for (it's not a "what's happening in the world today" slot). Unless and until there's an actual story to post, then this can't make ITN. I note in passing that the "see also" section reveals that 11 of the 20 leaders met last week through G20 and 13 of them will be at another regional summit next week, so these sorts of high-level meetings are really rather routine. BencherliteTalk11:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing, this is either full blurb per ITNR (or ITNC at this rate if these pointless junkets keep getting shunned at ITNC) or it's nothing. Not ongoing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD tag blurb - Top of his field. Article in good shape. Not so sure if he's major enough for a blurb. He is certainly notable for a blurb. Shaped the sport's industry. I was about to nominate him but you beat me to it mate! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - exactly what the nom said: I don't know much rugby, even to the point that I can only name one non-Australian player - Lomu. Unquestionably belongs in RD (assuming the sad news is true). Just clarifying: strong support for RD, even as the article stands. Neutral on having an ITN blurb: I will defer to people with more knowledge about rugby or NZ. Adpete (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs work (lots of unreferenced material for which no doubt references can be found) but obvious support for RD. Not sure on blurb but he was one of the biggest names in rugby union (the BBC report I'm listening to while typing this said that "many regarded him as the greatest rugby player of all time") and this is a very big story. BencherliteTalk01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needs improvement Many paragraphs are unsourced. Meets notability as New York Times in 2014 called him "one of the most recognized rugby players in the world."[1]—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb - Notability for RD is of no question. As for a blurb - the fact that for the last ten years he's had dialysis and other issues related to his kidneys means that while this was a sudden death, it wasn't wholly unexpected, and his importance otherwise to the world at large is not sufficient for a blurb. Article is in terrible shape though for posting, most of his career sections unsourced. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy with blurb or RD. Probably the only rugby union player to ever transcend the sport (think the equivalent of Michael Jordan in basketball). The article is in good enough condition to be on the main page -- I'd like to see it improved, but it's acceptable to me. -- Shuddetalk01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either when the article is in shape. I think he's one of only about two non-Brit rugby player I could name (and the other one is a Frenchman whose name I'm not completely certain of). Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly meets the criteria; this even was in the news to a degree where I live. I think a blurb is fine here, given he is described as a "legend" in most stories that I perused on this. Many including PM Key have commented on the death, and the possibility of a state funeral has been discussed.[2] We also don't post much about rugby or New Zealand. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready I've pulled the ready tag. I tagged specific sections in the article that have no or need more refs, and a few personal data sentences that should be sourced. Otherwise, I think this is close.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's just funny how someone who transformed the global oil industry is not notable enough for RD, but for a rugby player even a blurb is considered. Shows nicely what systematic bias is. Obviously oppose blurb and RD, it's Rugby, not anything of real importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.67.96 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some people do consider rugby important, like the Prime Minister of New Zealand and many readers. If you feel other stories should be posted, it is up to you to convince people of it. From the available information it wasn't clear to me how the oil industry was "transformed" by that individual. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then read the article or something on the web. Clearly most of those who opposed did not even do that, because they were not even aware that the guy was the oil minister of Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.77.54 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Significant figure in rugby, but he had long retired and his death has no widespread implications. Raising this to a blurb would make a mockery of even having the RD section, which is where this should definitely appear. Modest Geniustalk11:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD after improvement, oppose blurb - Notability is most definitely not in question here. However, there are still some issues with referencing. There is no need for a full blurb, the death is sad, but not unexpected. Fgf10 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Only one section is still thin on references but I see there's constant work on the article so this should be fixed soon. I agree, RD is the case here. --Tone11:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support blurb - He died at an unusually young age and he's at the top of his field. Those two factors alone should qualify him for a blurb. I don't want to hear anything about a Mandela standard after the last few blurbs that have been posted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that should be the distinguishing feature for blurbs. At the top of their field at the time of death, leading to major implications -> blurb. Had retired, declined in significance or was otherwise no longer at the top of their field, but had a significant historical impact -> RD. Lomu had not been one of the world's best rugby players for the last ~decade, so he falls into the latter category. Modest Geniustalk15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were no implications when Thatcher died, she hadn't been PM for the decade or more before she died. She got a blurb. Mandela died 14 years after being the top of his field. He got a blurb. Your logic isn't that ... logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes sportspeople at the top of their field different from politicians or film stars? Mandela, Thatcher and the guy from Fast and Furious were all blurbed, their deaths didn't have "major implications".... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a death had "major implications", it would have to be something like the assassination of a top political figure, and so would likely be an ongoing item rather than merely a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpected but not unanticipated, given his medical condition (Nephrotic syndrome). In other words, they knew he would likely die young, but they didn't have any time frame to expect exactly when. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were likely too. I don't really see your point other than try to refute the indisputable fact that his family have stated that this sudden death was entirely unexpected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb when it comes to rugby (which has an international audience larger than say American football) this guy is the biggest name - pretty much Tom Brady of the rugby union. Plus, the death seems completely unexpected since he was taking care of his health problems. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article still has a major section tagged as unreferenced, and there's several paragraphs throughout lacking references. While I don't feel it appropriate to pull this as an RD at this point (it's decently sourced, it's not like a complete BLP failure), this is a serious matter before this can be even be considered a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally finished a run through of the article. Not perfect, but hopefully satisfactory for the front page (I know it is already there, but it seemed conditional on further improvements). AIRcorn(talk)08:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as RD That's why we instituted it: so news items don't get bogged down by notable deaths. With Thatcher and Mandela, the response was so major that a blurb was appropriate. For the German chancellor, I don't think it was. For him, I don't see the need either. Blurbs for deaths should be reserved for the most extreme cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's more than I had thought were posted as blurbs since RD was implemented. I agree with Williams, since it was so high profile and surprising, but the others? I'm not sure they should've been posted as blurbs. Partly because I don't know who some of them are... Standards here are inconsistently applied, which is a problem, but the answer isn't to simply stop trying to enforce them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is preventing future posting of blurbs that don't meet the arbitrary standard that a handful of people around here have set, then that ship has sailed. These postings range as far back as 2012, when RD was recently instituted, to as current as earlier this month. Consensus had plenty of time to change in those three years and it has remained mostly the same throughout. The hard truth is that the threshold for a full blurb posting is not as high as people think it is, and that in all of the above cases, the posting administrator believed that the qualifications and requirements for meriting a full blurb were met. Just as with regular ITN articles, if a posting was incorrectly made, it is at the discretion of other presiding administrators to pull an article (see the Holm-Rousey fight). If you want to dispute those postings on the basis that standards were inconsistently applied, then the entire ITN system needs to be re-evaluated to see where consensus does stand. Until then, on the basis of precedence, Jonah Lomu deserves a full blurb as much as the other candidates do. The Mandela and Thatcher standard does not exist.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RD Generally, I don't think rugby union reaches the same viewership and magnitude as association football, for example. And as much as I like to read and watch, I never heard of Lomu before. Brandmeistertalk20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 6.5-magnitude earthquake strikes southwest of Ioannina in Greece, at a depth of 6.2 miles (10.0 km) killing at least two people. The quake damages the main road in the southwestern part of Lefkada. (RT)
The Israeligovernment outlaws the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, declaring it "an illegal organization". The northern branch of the Islamic Movement is led by Raed Salah, who has been convicted in court of numerous activities, including funding Hamas, contacting an Iranian agent, assaulting a police officer, and leading a violent protest. (The Jerusalem Post)
Obama administration officials hold a conference call with 34 governors to assure them, "refugees would undergo the most rigorous screening and security vetting of any category of traveler to the United States." A spokesperson for Michigan Gov.Rick Snyder said that he has asked federal officials for "more robust data" and an "enhanced flow of information." (Reuters), (AP via ABC News)
The president of the Czech Republic, Miloš Zeman, marks the 26th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution by attending an anti-Islam rally in Prague with the "Bloc against Islam" group which supports the president. The rally is also attended by observers from the German protest movement, PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident) and Tommy Robinson, a prominent British anti-Islam activist. Zeman tells the crowd of several thousand that they aren't extremists for advocating closing the Republic’s borders to Muslim migrants. (AP via ABC News), (Breitbart)
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: No sooner did we pull this from ongoing, than a major new development occurs. Could put this back in Ongoing, but might also deserve own blurb. Smurrayinchester09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all the (many) blurbs attribute the claim to the FSB, none of the blurbs are stating this as absolute fact are they? I have no idea what human rights violations has to do with this news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case I don't see a compelling reason not to trust this, and FSB cited the results of relevant analysis on substance traces. This is also consistent with ISIL claim. Brandmeistertalk10:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given that only Russia and Eygpt investigators are involved, even if there is question on trustworthiness, this is about as official as it will get. Note that Russia says they've held 17 workers at the airport and two are of critical interest, so they already have suspects and acting on it. --MASEM (t) 10:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on update; official finding of a cause is notable; questions of trustworthiness are not relevant, as the readers can decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Given the barrage of previous coverage on this point, suggest we say "confirms" rather than "announces." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe concludes? That is was a bomb is technically a hypothesis though one they appear to have enough evidence to support to engage in police/legal action and would likely have high confidence in before doing so. "Confirms" implies they knew exactly what happened which doesn't yet seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (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.
Authorities search for Belgium-born French national Salah Abdeslam, one of three brothers suspected of involvement in the attacks. Raids are reported to have taken place in Grenoble, Toulouse, Jeumont and the Paris suburb of Bobigny. This contradicts previously published official information that all the perpetrators of the attacks were dead. (CNN)(The Guardian)
Mohamed Abdeslam, brother of suspect fugitive Salah Abdeslam, and Ibrahim Abdeslam, a suicide bomber in the attacks, is released by authorities after questioning this weekend. His attorney told reporters, her client "hadn't made the same life choices." (The Independent)(Fox News)
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a leading Belgianjihadist who is one of the most active ISIS operators in Syria, is the suspected head organizer behind the Paris massacre. He is also linked to thwarted attacks on a Paris-bound high-speed train and a church near the French capital, earlier this year. (NBC News)
Hacktivist group Anonymous declares war on ISIS taking down 2,000 related Twitter accounts as well as some donation groups for the terrorists on the Dark Web. The group also criticized the lack of similar actions by Western governments. (MSN)
Yemeni security officials, who are neutral in the conflict, say Saudi-led airstrikes and clashes have killed over 40 Houthi militants and 4 civilians over the past 24 hours, with most of the airstrikes taking place in the southwestern Ibb Governorate. (The Washington Post)
Nicaragua deploys its military to help close its southern border in a dispute with Costa Rica over the passage of Cuban migrants on their way to the United States. Nicaragua’s government said Costa Rica’s decision to grant seven-day transit visas to 1,200 Cuban migrants who entered the country through Panama, “violated national sovereignty”. Nicaraguan troops and riot police fired tear gas at people attempting to enter in what Costa Rica called a "humanitarian crisis". (Bloomberg)
Law and crime
Six people, including a child, have been found dead on private property in Anderson County, southeast of Dallas, Texas, USA. The victims are members of two different families. One person, unrelated to the victims, is charged with one count of murder. More charges are expected. (CBS DFW)
Politics and elections
United States PresidentBarack Obama, in Antalya, Turkey, says America will continue to accept refugees from Syria and elsewhere, though, "Only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks." Responding to calls to admit Christians but not Muslims into the country, he said, "We don’t have religious tests to our compassion." (The Washington Post)
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 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.
Nominator's comments: Overshadowed by recent events, the article is pretty bareboned at the moment. Some topics to expand on: aftermath of events in Paris, Russia's intervention in Syria, terrorism and refugees. Particularly enjoying the cat trivia in the lead. Fuebaey (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to have been pushed out of the news by the Paris attacks; maybe that should mean it gets pushed out of ITN this time, I'm not sure, but I could understand that. Article is not currently acceptable, as stated. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. I realize that G20 Summits are ITNR, but I'd like to register a symbolic oppose on notability and impact anyway. Even as far as group economic summits go, this one was especially void of meaningful discussion.128.214.163.142 (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything on this summit seems to be about discussing talking points but with no real resolutions as past summits (G8 or G20) typically have. And yes, it's overshadowed by events in Paris. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (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.
[Removed] Remove "Metrojet Flight 9268" as Ongoing?
My opposition to featuring this as "Ongoing" wasn't well convincing before it got re-posted. Don't worry; I'll try not to rebut a lot. A week later, the editing has slowed down, and I don't see anything else new at this point, aside from future events that I shall not foresee here. I want to discuss this a week from now, but I've not seen recent stories on investigation lately since bomb hypothesis. You all had it as "ongoing" again that you wanted; shall we retain or remove it from Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Because the investigation has been closed off to Western agencies, and the last bit was that the black box was sent off for more detailed analysis, this story has gone stale. If the investigation affirms it was done by a bomb, it would gain a new ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Paris attackers is identified as Ismael Omar Mostefai, a 29-year-old who was born and raised in the Paris suburbs. (Fox News)(BBC)
Paris prosecutor François Molins says three jihadist cells, apparently multinational teams with links to the Middle East, Belgium, and possibly Germany, as well as France, staged coordinated attacks at bars, a concert hall, and a soccer stadium, killing 132 people and injuring 350, including around 90 who are in a serious condition. (Reuters)
French authorities identify two of the suicide attackers; both French nationals living in Belgium, one age 20, the other 31. (AP)
Daily fantasy sports companies DraftKings and FanDuel, who are fighting New York's cease-and-desist order that their industry is gambling in the U.S. state, apparently are OK with that label in the United Kingdom. DraftKings obtained a British gambling license in August and FanDuel applied for one earlier this month. (AP)
Disasters and accidents
The death toll from a landslide on Friday in China's Zhejiang province rises to 16 with 21 still missing. (New York Times)
In a suit filed by two former Americanprofessional football (NFL) players, the Ohio Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling that Cleveland's formula for taxing visiting professional athletes, the so-called "jock tax," violates players' due process rights. A spokesman says the city will begin issuing refunds to players. (AP)
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 for now. Now news: the article doesn't seem to mention anything about a qualitative change in the airstikes that have been ongoing for quite some time, and any attacks on Raqqah that happened today aren't mentioned. LjL (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose France might be increasing the intensity of air strike conducted as a result of what happened in Paris, but they didn't start it in response to it. -- KTC (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There might be potential for a ongoing if there a new sustained campaign as a result of the Paris attacks, but at this point as others point out, this is still part of a longer effort French troops have had. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also unclear as to if any actual damage was done to ISIS; they are claiming that the attacked facilities were abandoned in anticipation of retaliatory strikes. 331dot (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (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] UFC 193
As noted below, this is generating more heat than light. It was posted for a while, let this be a compromise. Closing now. --Tone19:22, 17 November 2015 (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: Now I know UFC events have been nominated here before and opposed, however, Rousey is one of the top names in MMA today and usually wins her fights fairly quickly. As she has lost, this is pretty surprising and newsworthy. Andise1 (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Not a fan, but I know the name, and I guess this is a pretty big UFC story. This seems as good a time as any to feature two topics I don't necessarily care about, but some do: UFC and women's sport, which we feature never and rarely, respectively. The UFC 193 article is currently a weak target, however, and this should obviously be slotted below the Paris attacks if this does get posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would prefer to keep the article front and center on the ticker, George is correct. We have to maintain some semblance of objectivity so anything from November 14 onward would be posted above the atrocities in Paris. It will likely be moved to ongoing in due time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should put consensus first on recent Paris attacks as ongoing. Development took three or four days to make the "Metrojet" investigations ongoing, although I certainly opposed it. Actually, Metrojet was pulled out temporarily by consensus; three or four days later, consensus (or support votes) favored reinserting the event. Look, I'll do the consensus proposal if the Paris attacks blurb is at the near bottom and soon to be pushed out by newer stories. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that thinking, but I strongly disagree in this case. I don't want to keep the Paris attacks as the top blurb as some memorial, but it's clearly in a different league from anything else on the template, and from anything else we've featured for quite some time. This will continue to be a huge story in the days and weeks ahead, and I don't think we're losing our objectivity by recognizing that and trying to stay in front of that in some fashion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a discussion to see if it's warranted, I'll be in favor of keeping it on top as well. I agree with your reasoning entirely, just trying to maintain status quo of nominations otherwise. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated the article with a bit more information. Please feel free to edit or add anything else to the article to make it suitable for the main page. Andise1 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't follow UFC and still know the name Ronda Rousey and know of her record. I've tweaked the blurb though since it said that Holm was the championship and should read that she is the champion. Dismas|(talk)16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – I can see I'm in the minority here, but I really question the significance of this story in the global scheme of things. Must we? Sca (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In the global scheme of things?" If you mean "in relation to Paris", then no, but based on that criteria, we wouldn't update ITN again for weeks. In relation to sports and culture? Absolutely. Rousey is the biggest name in a very popular sport, a crossover star who now acts in movies and models (and, for example, was the first woman ever on the cover of Men's Fitness), and the person Sports Illustrated called the world's most dominant athlete. ESPN's business reporter thinks that the UFC can easily survive her losing once, but also states, "It can be argued that never before has any sport's league or promotion had as much riding on a single event than the UFC will have when Rousey steps in the Octagon with Holm again." This loss was the biggest event in MMA history, and one of the biggest events of the year in any sport. -- Mike(Kicking222)19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstood me. I meant details about the other fights that occurred at UFC 193 before the Rousey vs. Holm fight. Andise1 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the time to add this information right now, but if someone else is willing to go ahead. Otherwise, I will try to add it when I get the chance. My main question was should details on the other UFC 193 fights be necessary before the article goes up on the main page? Andise1 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if this is such a big deal, why is the article so slim, and why is there absolutely no reaction to this so-called surprise result? What does the result of Rousey losing even mean? Expand away. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You guys are constantly posting the most obscure sports stories to ITN, so why not UFC? ITN/R has no less than 31 different sports events, all of which are 'notable' enough to be posted without even a discussion. Also this nomination has overwhelming support. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of voting without any kind of substance, other than the claim this is supported, the point is that we're trying to establish if this is actually updated sufficiently, not just the headline. If it's really such a big deal, why is the article so crap? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What, George? What? Fix it, as I suggested. Sense what you like, it's creepy and a little bit sad, but fine by me if it makes you tick. Look, stop saying "Look" at the start of your sentences, it's not helpful and a little rude. OMG to you too, I note you didn't take any of my advice. Start. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If this is so significant, why is the article so crap?" - well perhaps because nobody bothered to update it!? Since when did 'if it is significant it will have a big article' become a rule anyway, and why should anyone feel obligated to update an article? People update articles based on what they are interested in + what they have time to do, and people nominate articles they think should be featured on ITN. FYI I nominated the Astrosat article to ITN in September, which was almost universally supported, and I didn't write a single word in the Astrosat article. While you're in the business of calling George Ho rude, I'm going to say as well, TRM, that I find your reasoning for not posting this - which is almost a variant of "I'm going to sit here and and do nothing while you people update the article to my satisfaction" - rude. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting articles at ITN is two-pronged: (1) significance of an event; and (2) showcasing Wikipedia articles. It is reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is of broader interest than the Rousey story; it is therefore also reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is likely to be put in good shape more rapidly. Hence, TRM's point is valid. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article opens with a lede saying 'this is notable because'. That's always a bad sign - Wikipedia bureaucratese in a self-justifying context. Until the article is rewritten - and the notability not just for WP but for ITN - is more self-evident, I don't think I can support this. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues with the article aside, are you saying you think it's a bad thing that the lead contains a concise summary of what was important about the event? I also am not sure what you mean by "self-evident" - it doesn't seem like a concept that has any logical relevance to a scheduled sporting event, or something I would find a useful guideline for ITN notability in general (or anything else really). An oppose on article improvements is perfectly legitimate, but taking the summary out of the lead doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me. - OldManNeptune⚓04:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It seems a lot less notable than the average ITN sports nom. Let's post something else than this. You can pull that ready tag. Jusdafax03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Now that the initial excitement of the result has worn off, the truth is clear as stated by TRM -- there is no lasting notability that merits posting this on ITN. And the quality of the article... UGH!!!--WaltCip (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to complain about the quality of the article, you could always work on updating the article to make it better. I have edited the lead paragraph to make the wording better and more suitable for the article. Andise1 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Numerous sports news sources are indeed calling this a truly significant outcome. The article as I write this comment has 22 references and looks perfectly fine for an article summarizing a fighting event. It would be helpful if the "article sucks" voters who also have no desire to improve the article would offer more useful feedback than "UGH!" but such is ITN. - OldManNeptune⚓04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was in a pretty poor state when I first nominated this, (as are most UFC event articles), but I have tried to update the article the best I could. As I have mentioned before, other editors are welcome to add any information they deem important or necessary to the article for it to be on the main page. I don't have all the time in the world to work on articles, and seeing as I was one of the few who added significant updates to the article, I tried my best to bring it up to main page standards. Andise1 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considerable coverage especially compared to typical UFC outcomes. Article has improved greatly since initial nomination.LM2000 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This has gained significantly more coverage than other UFC outcomes. Even people who don't follow the sport (like me) seem to know the result. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recognize significance, but oppose on article quality – The article I'm reading is awfully skimpy compared to the media hype I've witnessed both before and after the event. Yes, the only news worth repeating is that Rousey lost the fight, after having been built up as an unstoppable monster for at least the past two years. However, the coverage of that fight in the article pales in comparison to the coverage given to Jędrzejczyk vs. Létourneau, which makes no sense. I've seen articles devoted to Rousey's individual fights before. If the "newsworthy event" is Rousey's fight, then perhaps a separate article is a better way to go. BY THE WAY, the blurb is worded to state that Holm is pictured, when the photo accompanying the blurb is actually of Rousey. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rousey was knocked out suddenly in round 2, while Jędrzejczyk vs. Letourneau went on five rounds and was decided by the judges. That's why Rousey vs. Holm is shorter. Smurrayinchester14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as fanboy POV. I haven't taken the time to read all of the coverage of the event, but it's clear from what I have read that the focus of attention from both media and fans was on Rousey/Holm and little else, as mentioned earlier by Kicking222. One would hope that we would reflect that weight, rather than merely providing a mini-play-by-play which gives far more article space to a far less important fight. At least the section "One-round fights" was renamed before it was necessary to point out that the lack of sufficient background provided may mislead readers into thinking that the fights were scheduled for one round, when instead it referred to the fights not lasting beyond the first round. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post oppose - train wreak a lot more newsworthy, and it's not even exceptionally newsworthy (I actually opposed it). LjL (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support. This is the sport at its highest level. It's currently main page news for the BBC and the Guardian, made a $6 million gate in Australia, and is a pay-per-view juggernaut in the US, so unlike 99% of the sporting stories we post, it's clearly of international interest to boot. GRAPPLEX15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC currently leads with "Paris attacks: France 'at war' says President Hollande."
Guardian currently leads with "Alleged Mastermind of Paris attacks named."
You may need to point out where I said "leading story", because I distinctly recall typing "main page news", which it is. Both of them feature it on their home page at the time of this comment. And in regard to your second question, to sport fans, clearly. GRAPPLEX15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither website's home pages seem to mention the word "Holm" at this time, so if they did when you posted, it may have been a very brief fluke. LjL (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have "Ronda Rousey knocked out by Holly Holm in UFC title upset" on the BBC home page right now; is it perhaps regionally different? GRAPPLEX16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. I'm located in Italy, and The Guardian for instance explicitly sends me to http://www.theguardian.com/international when I load their homepage. Still... Wikipedia is international, and probably shouldn't mention events with only a local significance, if this is such a case. LjL (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we post England-only football, US-only gridiron, or Indian-only cricket stories; sport is often inherently local. But for what it's worth, it's pretty big news here in Ireland, for a fight that took place in Australia, between two Americans, which doesn't scream local to me. GRAPPLEX16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I guess. My personal view is that just because sports fan are often very adamant, vocal and passionate about their hobby doesn't necessarily make it international news of general interest. LjL (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry but how was this posted? I don't want to go into the entire is it significant thing (it is not in my opinion, but I don't mind if consensus says otherwise). But how do we post such a slim article that does not even mention the fight in the blurb with more than two lines? This is embarassing for ITN indeed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was posted and should never have been posted. Posting that piece of garbage brought the correct reaction; it should never have been posted. Abductive (reasoning) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. The ITN blurb actually contained more information establishing the event's significance than the article itself did. A match summary, while important, is insufficient. As discussed above, there must be coverage of the bout's "upset" nature and reactions thereto (the reason behind its high level of notability). —David Levy18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REPOST Are you people serious? The article is almost over 5kb prose, so much longer than many articles that get posted here. Pulling an article makes it harder for people to find it, and therefore harder for them to update and improve it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is "In The News", not "Long Articles". You can make your point with lowercase like everybody else, by the way... LjL (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I've made my point. This article is sufficiently long and updated, with consensus to post after a sufficient debating period here. I see no valid reason to pull it and it should be reposted NOW. All caps. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I don't support the posting of this on ITN, posting it for half a day and then pulling it is extremely confusing to our readers. Either post it and keep it posted, or don't post it at all!--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting things right is more important than causing a little fluke (and I don't see how a normal reader is liable to be very confused, anyway). LjL (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be great if those who advocated for this to be pulled help update the article to main page standards. I know some of you are not interested in UFC, but those who can help and know what needs updating should help if able to. Andise1 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get reposted, can it be placed below the information about the Paris attacks? Regardless of whether or not the fight is significant enough for the ITN section, it is far less significant than the Paris attacks and I feel that placing such a soft news story above the attacks makes us look bad. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be easier and less consensus-breaking (as well as, in my opinion, more sensible) not to post it at all. LjL (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus already strongly favors posting this, which is presumably why it was posted. Given that most of the votes opposing on grounds of quality have failed to give useful feedback (does the article itself need to explain both the concept of a sports upset involving a famously undefeated champion and the celebrity of the first truly successful female fighter without allowing that a reader might click the link on Ronda Rousey to see what she's about? It's obviously too soon to expand upon what impact this could have on the sport, which is the section that stands out as most plainly absent when compared to other articles dealing with other major sports upsets.) and largely simply express disgust (and one, mysteriously enough, claims 36 hours isn't enough time to debate?), I suspect the tacting being employed is to simply obstruct until it goes stale, hardly uncommon but never fun for those who work to get articles in good shape to please those who really don't want to see it posted anyway - as you've admitted is the case for yourself. - OldManNeptune⚓00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus against listing it under the section on the French attacks, then I oppose listing this ITN update at all since the article is underdeveloped and of questionable significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vote tally I just counted is 13 support, 6 oppose, hardly the slim majority you're making it out to be. It's purely subjective, but by my count a number of the opposes are also rather empty votes, amounting to no more than griping about article quality without offering suggestions. At this point I think it's fair to ask exactly what you think is missing for this to go up since it has popular support and editors willing to make the needed changes - and I emphasize that it is not respectful of others' time to say that this only needs improvements if admins intend to veto this no matter what is done. - OldManNeptune⚓02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you coutned, but I counted 10 among "oppose", "pull" and "agree with pull". As to what is missing, I guess you'd have to ask those who think that, because personally, I just think it shouldn't be posted regardless. LjL (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull is not the same as oppose - and some are duplicates. Your specific words are that not posting this would be less consensus-breaking. In what possible way is that true? Not posting this is a direct defiance of consensus, and I point out that a number of the opposes seem to be directly in defiance of policy (such as "don't post at all if it would go above the Paris attacks") besides consensus. Indeed, your own oppose uses this reasoning: "train wreak a lot more newsworthy", not generally considered good rationale, so I wonder why you want to argue over the "legal" definition of consensus when your own vote was empty of substance? - OldManNeptune⚓03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the rationale for pulling the pose. The article needs to expand on why it was considered an upset e.g. pre-bout expectations, post-fight reactions).—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to expand on that when the link to Ronda Rousey, right there in the blurb, explains her status and hence why this is an upset? What specifically is unclear? - OldManNeptune⚓00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basic information about Rousey relevant to the fight should ideally be in this article. Readers shouldn't have to chase links to figure out why the fight and the loss was a big deal. More detailed information can be left in her bio. I'd expect to see a few sentences on her prior record and reputation and why Holm was considered an underdog.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Though Ronda Rousey was favored to defeat Holly Holm, Holm won in an upset, for Rousey's first career defeat" is the current second sentence, which concisely describes the basics of what happened (Rousey was undefeated and favored, Holm won). I am concerned that creating an entire subsection in the UFC 193 article simply to describe the renown of one of the competitors is inappropriate given that the event, like all UFC events, featured numerous fighters, and fighter bios can rightly go in their own articles. In short, I feel that what you are suggesting may be writing an article solely for ITN at the expense of proper writing for the topic in general. - OldManNeptune⚓02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why "an entire subsection" would necessarily be needed. I don't think a few sentences explaining why she was favored and to what extent is "at the expense of proper writing". As the basis of notability of this ITNC nomination is that this was a monumental upset of sorts, I would expect the article to have some expansion of that for the benefit of non-UFC fans.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above regarding fanboy POV. Wikipedia content is supposed to be written for a general audience, not "by fanboys, for fanboys". The latter is a little too evident with our coverage of a great many sports with ardent fans. I agree with those editors who have pointed out that the article is sorely lacking in background. A non-fan who reads the article at some point in the future, without the surrounding media hype, may have a hard time understanding what the big deal was. Remember, there's a reason why editors constantly refer to WP:NOTNEWS and how there's a difference between news and encyclopedic content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting and oppose pull. The "article is not good enough" argument for opposing this is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Even if we accept that the article is not good enough, ITN has four purposes, of which only one is violated by the article not being good enough. Furthermore, WP:ITN says "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable", and the article right now has well over five sentences with three references, something that should qualify as 'more than sufficient'. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely the top competition in mixed martial arts; the next closest promotion in size doesn't even have the clout to enter the pay-per-view market. In terms of high-level competition, UFC is MMA. GRAPPLEX15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major venue, major attendance, major gate, major buys, major hype, major title change, major knockout, major win for major boxer and major loss for major celebrity. That's why it received major coverage "in the news". InedibleHulk(talk) 15:23, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
Given the obvious schism in opinions here, I think it might be fitting for an admin to close this nom as no consensus. This is not likely to get anywhere further other than generate more heat than light.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (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.
Thousands are turning to social media (#PorteOuverte/Twitter) to check-in on loved ones in the area, many using Facebook's "Safety Check" feature. (CBS News)
A Syrian passport is found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday's attacks in Paris. The holder passed through the Greek island of Leros on October 3 as a refugee, according to Greek officials. A Greek police source said the passport's owner was a young man who had arrived in Leros with a group of 69 refugees and had his fingerprints taken by authorities there. Police declined to give his name. (Reuters)(ABC News Australia)
Poland's recently elected government led by Law and Justice (PiS), declares it will no longer accept EU-mandate quotas for refugees following the terrorist attacks in France. (RT)
A U.S. airstrike on a compound in the Libyan port city of Derna is said to have killed Wisam al Zubaidi, also known as Abu Nabil al-Anbari, who commands the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's branch in Libya. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the operation, said the airstrike involved F-15 aircraft and was believed to have killed Zubaidi. He said the attack had been planned for some time. (The Washington Post)(BBC)
Turkish troops kill four Islamic State militants in Turkey's southeastern Gaziantep Province when two cars with ISIS passengers advanced on a Turkish armored vehicle near a border post in Oğuzeli. (Daily Sabah)
During a raid on a suspected ISIL hideout in the city of Gaziantep (Antep), a suicide bomber fires on Turkish police before he explodes, wounding five police officers, one seriously. (Al Jazeera)
Ten people are dead and eleven injured after a high-speed TGV train catches fire and derails near the northeastern French city of Strasbourg. (Independent)(BBC)
Scott N. Johansen, a UtahJuvenile Court judge, reverses his original order to remove a foster child from same sex-parents. The state Division of Child and Family Services and foster parents all filed motions asking for the reconsideration and promising an appeal. The new decision eliminates the phrase, "It is not in the best interest of children to be raised by same-sex couples" and strikes an order for the child to be placed with a non-same-sex couple. (New York Times)
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 on article improvements More sourcing is needed. On the importance, I'm on the edge but would swing in favor of the BAFTA wins. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most of the article is inline sourced, and per frequent pleas here, the rest of it is sourced by blue links to other articles which verify the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two paragraphs that included potentially contentious claims/original research without sourcing, and a blue link is not sufficient for that purpose. However I added the inlines to support those two points, so it should all be good. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, which I will attempt to answer. This is his obit in the Independent. His main role, Alf Garnett, was a national institution, watched by 20 million viewers, even if not everyone understood that you were not supposed to agree with the character's racist views. (Ricky Gervaias called Garnett "one of the most influential and important characters and performances in comedy history.") But he was also an actor with a life outside the TV show that was his trademark, and the obit records that Arthur Miller said he was the best Willy Loman he'd seen (Death of a Salesman). The Guardian says that "The fact that Mitchell could play impressively on television both Garnett and Shylock – a mouthpiece for religious intolerance and a victim of it – is a measure of his range." He won awards for stage and for TV work. Probably loved in a different way to Briers, whose comedy was of a different character but who also did some serious work; and probably a broader appeal than Palmer (who isn't dead, but you had me worred that I'd missed something!). I was thinking of nominating him but someone beat me to it, so I'm going to say belatedly that I think that he was widely regarded as a leading British actor of his generation, and so this is a support for RD. BencherliteTalk23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To possibly help: when trying to find references I mentioned above, (speaking as an American that has not seen Till Death but enough other British television to get the gist) I got the direct impression one could compare the character of Alf to Archie Bunker, and in fact, Archie's actor, Carroll O'Connor to Mitchell's own career. This comparison is far from being one to one, but both Bunker and O'Connor had recognition within US television, hence I feel Mitchell here is just as reasonable in British comedy/acting. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bunker's character is renown for the impact it had on social issues of the time. Is there evidence of something similar here?—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the last section in Alf Garnett, yes, as the name of the character seems to be used in a manner in UK politics. But I do agree that it doesn't seem to be as much as with Archie Bunker. Still, I still weakly support this. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add another British voice, I felt the failure (as I recall) to post Richard Briers was a mistake. The two are hard to compare; Briers was very well known for several hugely popular roles; Mitchell not so much, but 'Alf Garnett' is synonymous with a particular set of attitudes. Garnett is, I think, better known than any role Palmer played. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (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.
Oppose. He seems to be a maybe above average coach but I don't think that meets "very important" to his field. I'm not convinced that the scandal makes him important(maybe I could be, but I'm not yet). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2015 (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.
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.
Egeymi said I should have mentioned his position as political minister of oil. I don't know how significant the position is, but I don't think it would have made any difference, given the opposition here. Also, he lost his role as an ambassador due to his incident with some woman at an Egyptian airport during the start of the Egyptian crisis. That's more significant than being related to oil politics unless someone can add more content in the article. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing how this person is important. Also, there's tense issues with the article so some more updating is needed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clueless oppose- he was the oil minister of the largest oil producer in the world. The person who nationalized ARAMCO, the most important oil company in the world. And he was ARAMCO's first Saudi chairman. In the world of oil (post World War II) he was a hugely influential figure, second only to Ahmed Yamani Juan Pablo Alfonso. Maybe that is not notable enough for RD (I guess he should have been a wrestler or an actor instead), but at least when opposing make an attempt to educate yourself about the person in question. Same goes also to the person who claimed that the person who nationalized ARAMCO hads no significant impact to his field. That's laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.67.96 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: Bockwinkel is widely considered to be one of the top wrestlers of all time. He was a wrestler for four decades (1954-87), headlining shows across the United States and in several other countries, including Canada, Australia and Japan and was almost always the top guy everywhere he went. So in terms of notability this one is a no-brainer (though I'm sure the unofficial criteria for wrestlers, "I've never heard of him", will be applied). At least three wrestlers have been featured in RD before (and Bockwinkel easily ranks among them in importance), so let's not get sidetracked with the "wrestling's not notable" red herring. The one issue is that there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage at the moment, but the news of his death is still new (EDIT: His death is getting more coverage now, but surprisingly it's mostly among celebrity news websites like TMZ). Scorpion042214:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the "American Wrestling Association" and "Post-retirement" sections are unreferenced. Also I can't see where the second para of the lead is expanded upon and seriously referenced in the main part of the article. Claiming things like "many industry experts to be an excellent wrestler" need multiple reliable sources for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing work is underway. Based on how things have gone in the past with underreferenced articles nominated at ITN, the professional wrestling project has done quick work (see Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper this year for examples). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on article quality – To address TRM's concerns, I'm not so concerned about the AWA and post-retirement sections being unreferenced as I'm concerned about those sections dominating the article. As with most pro wrestling biographies on Wikipedia, this is more a coatrack to the promotions the wrestler worked for than a proper biography of the wrestler. His father was a top wrestler, and in fact promoted Nick as a future wrestler when he was a teenager, but according to the article, nothing is known about his life prior to leaving OU and turning professional? I don't buy that one bit. One of the Slam Wrestling pieces I read, plus Bobby Heenan's autobiography and other sources over the years, have mentioned that Bockwinkel had multiple hot runs in Georgia Championship Wrestling throughout the 1960s and 1970s, of which there is zero mention. He also appeared in more than one episode of Hawaii Five-O, which causes me to wonder if more can be said about his acting career than merely offering a list of appearances. The AWA section, like the AWA article itself, gives undue weight to particular events at the expense of providing a more accessible overview. Bockwinkel had mentioned in interviews that the AWA's touring schedule gave him several days off per week. He fondly took advantage of that and defended the AWA title in numerous other promotions, including those affiliated with "rival" National Wrestling Alliance. Instead of providing that overview, we mention a single such match against Bob Backlund. Curiously enough, this exact same problem exists in the Antonio Inoki article – little or no mention of countless notable events, but it does mention a particular match against Backlund, a match which was never even acknowledged to Backlund's North American fans at the time due to its controversial finish. Oh yeah, there's also zero mention of numerous appearances in the Memphis promotion from 1981–83 or thereabouts. In particular, he played a minor role in the Jerry Lawler vs. Andy Kaufman feud, events which the industry and even fans make out to be a bigger deal than it really was (including on Wikipedia), presumably due to Kaufman's celebrity. Once again, not reflected in the article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. For sports-related deaths, my litmus test is based on coverage by a newspaper of record like The New York Times, where I see no mention on his death. Aside for industry longevity, he doesn't have the wider impact of a Roddy Piper. Bockwinkel seems to below the tier of even other long-time wrestlers whose deaths did not get posted recently like Dusty Rhodes (Rhodes' ITNC link) or Vern Gagne (Gagne's ITNC link). The Times had its own writeup for Gagne[3] and ran AP's story on Rhodes.[4] Even ESPN.com, which has been providing more mainstream coverage of wrestling, doesn't cover Bockwinkel, though they had AP's story on Gagne.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Gagne was one of the bigger stars in all of network television during the 1950s, while Piper was one of the stars of the "Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection" and related events, which led to a film career and other reknown. There's about a quarter century in between in which the mainstream media was content to pretend that professional wrestling didn't exist, apart from occasional derisive hit pieces found in a local newspaper or a monthly magazine. This period coincides with the majority of Bockwinkel's heyday as an active wrestler. Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists. The AWA was based in Minneapolis, hardly a media capital back in those days. I can assure you that such lack of media attention wasn't very important to fans: the business overall was healthy, some of his biggest matches of the 1970s occurred in venues as large as Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, plus AWA All-Star Wrestling was getting consistent 20+ ratings and 60+ shares on most of its affiliates. Arguably the pinnacle of Bockwinkel's career was on April 24 (? I've seen two other dates mentioned across various sources), 1983, known in the wrestling world as "Super Sunday" (once again, the article fails to give appropriate mention to this event in favor of details and results of more obscure matches). In that event, for the second time in less than a year, Hulk Hogan pinned Bockwinkel, only to have the title returned to Bockwinkel on a technicality. That previous time, however, they did the switcheroo on television after the fact. This time, they did it at the event itself, which led to a near-riot at the St. Paul Civic Center. Fan riots or the threat thereof were fairly common in the Northeast and Southern United States back in those days. I forget who wrote this, but one account of that event pointed out that it would have taken a very special performer to incite a riot among "mild-mannered" upper-midwestern people of Scandanavian descent.
I see that the article has been updated, but I still question whether there's any improvement. Obviously, someone out there is a huge Bob Backlund fan, as there is now even more mention of Backlund than before. A paragraph was inserted mentioning how he began using a dictionary to bolster his interviews, but it's in the AWA section, potentially misleading readers into believing that he began this practice while in the AWA. The source I read stated that he started it while working a program with Dory Funk, Jr. in Georgia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists" If media wasn't covering him then, and his death is only sparsely being covering now, that lends greater weight to not posting this based on the WP:WEIGHT of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Directed at Bagumba) There are two problems with your argument. The first is that Dusty Rhodes SHOULD have been posted, and an admin even admitted that, but was ignored until too much time had passed. Verne Gagne had little mainstream coverage and the nom just petered out. NEITHER of them was rejected on notability grounds. Three HAVE been included: Maurice Vachon (who Bockwinkel surpasses, except in Quebec), The Ultimate Warrior (who Bockwinkel easily surpasses on notability, although Warrior is better known to today's audience) and Roddy Piper.
The second is that mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots. A wrestler retired for 25 years who is largely unknown to today's mainstream crowd is an easy one for them to skip. This is not exclusive to wrestling of course, many very notable people who have been retired for decades have died with barely a blip in mainstream coverage. This should NOT automatically exclude them from RD. -- Scorpion042213:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main criteria is lack of mainstream coverage of his death. The other examples I gave were for perspective of past wrestler deaths with more coverage then Bockwinkel that (for either notability or content reasons) didn't manage support. "mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots:" Perhaps, but WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article seems in good shape. I do express concern that few major sources have picked up on this, but also consider the # of championships he has won and other text we have that he actually was important during his peak, but time has since forgotten that period and no major sources have really covered that. (Also considering the timing with other world events...) Swing in favor of inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this should be good. Name me one household name from his era. And before you go to look someone up, keep in mind that I'll have a pretty good idea of whether you're lying or not. And for the record, he was a household name in the Midwest, which is where the AWA was based. -- Scorpion042219:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bockwinkel was as big a star regionally as Maurice Vachon but was far better known beyond than him. Article is in much better shape than when initially nominated.LM2000 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (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 - Tragic, but this is no exception to other train accidents, especially this year's. If it's not linked to terrorism, then I shall say don't post this. I'm astonished by consensussupports here. This ain't special, no matter how "deadliest" the crash was. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article says this happened during a test run on an unopened section of a high-speed line, with a crew of 49 technicians. Tragic, but not a regular passenger service. Brandmeistertalk18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I honestly believe it wouldn't even get listed, or get widespread support, if people didn't think it was somehow linked to the Paris attacks. LjL (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - apparently nothing to do with yesterday's events in Paris, despite some claims to the contrary. Significant accident on a modern high-speed rail system. Death toll adds weight to the case for posting, but is not the reason to post. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only real rationale for posting a one-off transportation accident is that if it bleeds it leads. This is tragic, but without some other aggravating factor like sabotage it doesn't reach the level of encyclopedic notability we want for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as its confirmed to be unconnected, a test run that involves no passengers, while unfortunate, is not really that important in the scheme of things. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose I oppose its addition. It would cause too much confusion due to the major top story, not to mention the fact that it is only getting so much attention because it comes on the heals of a more worldwide crisis. This is certainly a big deal in France, and at most western Europe as it is part of an international railway system, but not universal enough for the highly selective news blip on the front page of an enormous website who's first purpose is not be a newspaper. However I will add that despite not being a regular service passenger train, it is a setback for a major high speed rail project that will have implications beyond France, as aforementioned. B137 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in light of the events overnight in Paris. Would give a weak support otherwise, but given the recent atrocities it's probably best to avoid posting this one in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ammend and support alt blurb II or III This nomination should be renewed with a different focus that would also cause less confusion with the attacks: In France, the first fatal accident in the history of the TGV high-speed rail system occurs during a test run on a new line.SourceB137 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As soon as I realized how many "alt blurbs" there were available I knew there shouldn't be a duplication, but then I wasn't sure if editors other than the nominate were supposed to edit the nomination. B137 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given I have been pung, to be frank, it doesn't bleed enough in the current context, so it shouldn't lead. We just had 6 migrant workers killed in a crash in Arkansas. We have have plenty of such crashes that have been opposed in the past. I will remain opposed, although posting this would not normally seem terribly out of place, nor will it truly bother me if it is posted. The bottom line is that what we post depends on the context as well as the facts, and this is not the slow season. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A week ago I might have supported this, but right now the Paris bombings and Russian suspension are far more significant news items. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High speed rail accidents are newsworthy because high speed rail transportation is in my opinion a very good option for future development due to its high efficiency and potential for expansion. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because fatal high-speed rail accidents are rare indeed, even if this was a test(I believe this was the first for the TGV). 331dot (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Train crash with more than 10 people dead is clearly suitable for ITN. Regarding the "it is not important compared to Paris" opposes: Now that some relatively obscure UFC news is at the top (here in Europe this is nowhere near to making headlines anywhere, and noone even knows what UFC is), one cannot argue against adding a major train accident to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bbc.com is not the corporation's main news page; bbc.co.uk/news is. That's had mention of the crash and developing investigation - including whether and why children were on board - more or less since it happened. (ETA: It's gone now, but the principle is still good: if you're going to use this test, do it right.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bbc.com/news is the international arrival point for those using the BBC from outside the UK, I get to see both bbc.com and bbc.co.uk every day, so there's no need to tell me or anyone else for that matter to do the test right. That homepage did have the UFC fight noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a train crash with only ten deaths is clearly not automatically notable enough for ITN. Suitability then devolves into questions of coverage, which is very low given that this was more of an industrial accident. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (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.
When his blurb falls off, and its within 7 days of his death, it can be moved to RD, but should not be moved now. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The United States conducts airstrikes targeting Kuwaiti-British militant Jihadi John. Later, the U.S. says it is "reasonably certain" a drone strike in Syria killed Jihadi John, né Mohammed Emwazi. (BBC)(Reuters)
During an arrest attempt in Cairo, Egyptian security forces kill Aly Ashraf Hassanein al Gharabli, an ISIL-linked militant who masterminded the murder of Apache Corporation worker William Henderson in Egypt last year. (Fuel Fix)
At least 22 people are killed this week in a string of raids on villages in the Central African Republic. The escalation of violence threatens to derail a visit by Pope Francis and crucial elections scheduled for December 27, 2015. (Reuters)
South Korean news agency Yonhap reports China's mobile phone users are discarding 80 million devices annually, but almost none are being recycled. China's recycling rate stands at 9-10 percent of the global recycling average. (UPI)
The bodies of eight babies are found wrapped in towels and inside plastic bags in an apartment in the town of Wallenfels in Germany's state of Bavaria. Authorities are looking for the apartment's most recent occupant, Andrea G, a 45-year-old woman. (CNN)(Irish Times)
At least four people are dead and 33 injured in a landslide in China's Zhejiang province. (CRI)
International Relations
U.S. diplomats, amid growing international concern the violence could spiral into an ethnic conflict, push for peace talks in Burundi. The European Union advises non-essential staff to evacuate the Central African nation amid rising violence and an uptick in political rhetoric. The head of the opposition UPRONA group urges the United Nations to send peacekeepers quickly. Yesterday, the UN Security Council called on the Burundi Government to protect human rights and cooperate with regional African mediators to immediately convene "an inclusive and genuine inter-Burundian dialogue" to find a peaceful resolution of the crisis. (Al Jazeera)(Reuters)(UN)
German ChancellorAngela Merkel asserts she still isn't prepared to name an upper limit to the number of refugees who can come to Germany, despite mounting domestic political pressure. (AP)
Oxfam's Belgrade Center for Human Rights reports migrants coming through Bulgaria have faced beatings, threats and other abuses by police, though the country's own refugee agency said it had received no such complaints. (Reuters)
U.S. Secretary of StateJohn Kerry meets in Vienna, Austria, with the foreign ministers of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as the U.N. special envoy for Syria, ahead of Saturday's next round of international summits on the Syrian Civil War. The talks, aimed toward a cease-fire in Syria's devastating war and a political transition to a post-war government, will include senior officials from 19 nations/groups and, as in October, Iran will participate. (AP)
As a temporary security measure, effective Saturday, Russia bans incoming flights by Egypt's state-owned airline, EgyptAir, two weeks after an apparent terrorist bomb downed a Russian jet in the Sinai. (Reuters)
Law and crime
Police in the Dominican Republic raid a mansion owned by 30-year-old Francisco Flores de Freites, one of the two nephews of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro facing charges for allegedly trying to traffic 800 kg of cocaine into the U.S., and found more than 280 pounds of cocaine and 22 pounds of heroin hidden inside the nephew's posh Casa de Campo property and a 135-foot yacht named "The Kingdom" docked behind it. (Fox News)
Nominator's comments: The Sinjar/Yazidi issue was hot on the news when it was first captured by Daesh. Seems to be resolved after ages with the announcement that the place has been brought back under Iraqi control from Daesh. Lihaas (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously support. This is a hugely relevant step within the struggle agaist ISIS. Rather than merging the articles I would create an umbrella article covering the whole Battle of Sinjar though (compare fr:Bataille de Sinjar) with the two offensives as specific sub-topics. Also added a photo and an alternative blurb stressing the actual liberation rather than the announcement. PanchoS (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support First, I have looked to verify that other western press agencies are reporting this, so this isn't just posturing on the local press. That said, I do see the importance of this but worry that this is only one step against a longer war, so posting every update like this might be a problem. We did post when ISIS took hold and destroyed ancient ruins of other cities, the focus being on the latter part, here this is just one strategic target. But I also realize how big this victory is in the efforts there, so I would still support it, just caution to avoid posting every victory in the future. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re User:Thue: While I'm yet to hear who feels occupied now in Sinjar, I agree "recapture" is more neutral. Added this in another blurb propsal. Now let's get forward, before it's yesterday's news. PanchoS (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recapture is absurd, and the opposite of liberate, not a neutral alternative. The city was always part of Kurdistan. "Retake" is neutral, I have posted that as an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, "recapture" is absolutely neutral regarding to whom some area "really" belongs. But more importantly, I added the discovered Yazidi mass grave which is today's news. PanchoS (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sinjar was never captured by the Kurds in the first place. If it was, provide a link{.{cn}} Otherwise, let's use English. The town was taken back (retaken) from ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting waaaaay into grammar pedantry, but how do you see 'retaken' as grammatically different from 'recaptured'? If it was taken by ISIS and then retaken by the Kurds, then surely it was captured by ISIS and recaptured by the Kurds? Not important for this nomination, though, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we continue like this, then we'll have to announce the full defeat of ISIS, before getting this posted. This is really getting ridiculous. I mean, we're not talking about some minor battle amongst hundred others that are taking place every day. We're talking about the largest offensive in months, an offensive discussed in public days before it began, an offensive that was supported by Kurdish, Yazidi, Iraqi and (for the first time officially) even U.S. Special Forces. An offensive that effectively split ISIL's controlled area in two, and reversed control of the town that last year was the reason the U.S. got involved in the war against ISIS. If for whatever reason we delay the most spectacular defeats of ISIS like this one, until it falls off the breaking news ticker, while always being quick posting every single shocking act ISIS committed, then we're effectively participating in ISIS' recruiting propaganda. No, we're not taking sides, and exactly therefore this may not longer be withheld. Please think about it, and now post whatever you like, just post it, and post it now rather than tomorrow. --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems to me that someone is reluctant to postmerger proposal is preventing this story from being featured, making this story stale. The Kurdish recapturing of the city is not similar to terror attacks in Paris (or in Beirut), but it is still... well, bigger news to Western media. Unsure about how other regional media (e.g. Russian or Chinese) in global news treat it, but it's still big. Can we just post the recapture already with or without mass corpses of women? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposal wasn't going anywhere (no support !votes, three oppose !votes, and apparent momentum toward building up the new article with additional information and updates), so I closed it. This should be ready to post now, unless there are any other issues that are eluding my attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have multiple blurbs to choose from, many of which include the finding of a mass grave. However, this fact is deemed so insignificant that it isn't even featured in the lead. Please make a decision on what needs to be done before re-marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling Man, there is already a consensus to post the recapture Sinjar blurb in any form. If you can't decide which one, at least pick the least surprising blurb (for now) until consensus decides to pick. Otherwise, let's wait for another administrator to do this. Also, I've started a discussion on multiple blurbs. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article could do with improvement first, if a new one specifically regarding this aren't created. KTC (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a response that I would have wanted to see based on the previous nom. I've added a altblurb regarding that it was the IAAF that did the suspension. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the primary source says that the suspension is provisional, and that all possible steps will be taken to make sure Russia competes in the 2016 Olympics. Until Russia is actually excluded from or boycotts a competition we have a declaration, not a fact. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I continue to "Support", you make a valid point. The last argument in the initial WADA announcement was that "nothing has happened yet". Using that logic, still nothing has happened yet, except another announcement. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is suspended *right now*. IAAF may/will have a meeting ~next month where they may change their mind over the suspension (unless Russia say they're happy to be suspended), but that doesn't affect the fact that the suspension is active. If a person is convicted of a crime, they may still have (possibly many) avenue of appeals but we say they have been convicted of the crime, we don't wait until all the appeals go through first. The suspension is in force until it's overturned, either because IAAF changes their mind, or Russia is deemed to meet whatever criteria that are yet to be set out, or possibly the passing of a fixed timeframe but that one's unlikely. What's "in the news" is that IAAF have suspended Russia from its competitions. By next month's European Cross Country Championships, that's not news anymore since it would be "yeah they're still suspended". If you don't think this item isn't right for ITN then that's fine but make that the argument, not maybe later ... until the story is not actually in the news anymore. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be supported - in fact the original WADA item should have been posted and this would just be part of "ongoing", which would make more sense. I can easily argue that until Russia actually is unable to participate in something, this is nothing more than an announcement. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Given the magnitude of events, may I suggest, if posted, that we post this below the Paris attacks blurb? Thanks. Jusdafax02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not supposed to feature a poor quality article in the Main Page? I don't see why quality is used to normally not feature articles, but somehow quality of the article may be misinterpreted. George Ho (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant attack in Paris with at least four killed, and many others seriously injured in two shooting incidents (unknown if they were coordinated at this time). Three explosions reported at Stade de France where President François Hollande was present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability, obviously, massive multiple attacks which are now suggested to include 18 dead, in a country where gun-toting freedom is unacceptable. The article needs work, but as soon as it meets the minimum acceptable quality, it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This implies that this would have been non-notable if it had happened in another country (i.e. one where "gun-toting freedom" is acceptable). The obvious political swipe is beneath comment, but even on the face of it, what a profoundly cruel thing to say. I really wish you'd think before you speak so recklessly, especially when it isn't even tangentially related to the story or how you voted. - OldManNeptune⚓02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has regularly ignored war event, like the taking of strategic cities with many dead, with a "meh, business as usual for the Middle Eastern chaos". I personally disagree with that de facto policy, but it is de facto policy. Thue (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This will be the biggest news story for many days to come, and possibly weeks. Article very sketchy, as noted, but I agree we should post as quickly as it gets to a decent level. Jusdafax22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
post-posting support. In obviously notable cases like this, where the article will obviously be massively updated as more information becomes available, I think it is perfectly fine to post at this stage. Thue (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. The article is pretty much a skeleton at this point. Certainly later when we know more about this incident but this feels rushed to me. The ITN section should be showcasing Wikipedia content like any other MP section, not rushing to cover breaking stories. — foxj22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, bollocks I'm afraid. We're talking about dozens of people killed, this needs to be posted (as was) and needs to be updated accordingly. This is Europe, not America, most uncommon and will be headlining for days to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's true, if a co-ordinated attack at different locations which resulted in multiple deaths had taken place in the US, I'd probably be in favour of supporting it at ITN, unlike the daily mass shootings that take place in just one location courtesy of the amendment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was making the point that multiple shootings occur every day in the US and not in Europe. Bongwarrior took the point further. Feel free to collapse this sideline detritus as typical US mass shooting nonsense, as we see every day. In the meantime, the posting of this item was exactly right. This kind of thing doesn't happen in the civilised world, and it's shocking to the core. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said this kind of thing doesn't happen in a the (typo) civilized world and I gave at least one example where it did. Is it really that important if it's mass shooting instead of bombing or a building falling on you? You'd still be dead and I was nitpicking that this scale of mass death does happen in the civilised world (at least twice once before). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The attackers, be it 9/11 or today, are not civilized. Also, while shootings happen frequently in the US, I can't recall any significant Islamist-driven terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, while they continue to happen in countries where citizens are not allowed to own guns. So there ya are. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the article and its not thin now, but I'm going to assume that even if it had only 4-6 sentences of text, as long as it was confirmed by a source like the BBC that it involved what appeared to be multiple simultaneous bombings and the taking of hostages, it was going to be ITN; details are going to be thin but obviously this is the type of current event that we know will be notable and we should hasten to get eyes to help out with it as was the case on the Boston Marathon Bombing a few years ago. The article's in good shape now, in any case. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are seeing the death toll climb alarmingly in the past hour. I am seeing reports as high as 50. Any solid numbers should be updated responsibly on the blurb. Jusdafax22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's unnecessary. There's far too much going on right now to focus on a single event, as horrific as each one is. I've updated the blurb to reflect the confirmed 40 deaths, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that closing the borders is a drastic, significant step, but I think that the criticality of the news story is already there by what we have now; if anything, a more critical fact is 100 ppl being held hostage still, which should be in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is, that implies that this is an ongoing/developing story, and will help draw more people to help edit/improve, over the border closure. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching the Sky News feed and their expert said this is the first time a nation has closed its borders since the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it will be extraordinarily difficult for that to happen properly given the land borders that are usually not monitored between France and the rest of mainland Europe. Hence the futility of Masem's comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not trying to diminish the action of closing the borders, but the fact that there are known to be people still at potential harm, to me, is much more serious than the reactions, even one as serious as closing the border, since those reactions aren't going to help those hostages right now. As it reads in as short a blurb we have, it makes it sound like something severe happened and people reacted and the major apparent threat is gone, but that's not the case. Now, if it is the case that the hostage situation will be dealt with in the next few hours, sure, then the border closure is the big point to attach in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Media gag request apparently made by police regarding the hostage situation. Likely will be resolved relatively soon as that's the general signal of a raid (which was just reported by AFP as I type). The border closure will have large-scale ramifications (not that this tragedy won't on its own) that will extend far beyond the immediate gruesome actions. I believe Germany has already confirmed the closure between the two nations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Photo suggestion - Though numbed, we continue. The article has a picture of the Bataclan concert hall where many died. Suggest we go with that as the photo. Jusdafax01:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, thanks. You might make the word "shooting" plural, to acknowledge there were multiple attack points, but it's a small point compared to the photo. Thanks again. Jusdafax02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting Support. Note that Nytimes says border controls are only "Tightened" not closed entirely. I believe this was a clarification issued recently by a French agency. -- Callinus (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Based on what I've readonline, I think at this point it would be reasonable to revise the blurb to something like this:
'Islamic State' claims responsibility for attacks that killed 128 people in Paris(Bataclan theatre pictured).
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: Interesting points - took 6 months to decide on Cabinet ministers; appointed himself as Minister for Petroleum - a ministry which has been full of corruption and mismanagement for years MurielMary (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support ALTBLURB itd be more notable with context (And youve got the 6 months of instability). Also I changed the wikilnk to the updated one.
comment We posted last Australian and Canadian and UK election more than once (one before the most recent). And Nigerian is Commonwealth too.
Comment@Lihaas: You have substantially changed by nom by changing both the target article and the blurb. Could you make those alternative options instead of replacing my suggestions with yours?? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cabinet appointments are a routine part of assuming a presidency(though I concede it is unusual to appoint one's self to a position). I'm not seeing what makes this stand out- and it's not top level news from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unusual for the time frame and the self-appointment, but cabinet appointments are still a routine process after a leadership change. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose results of elections or other changes in heads-of-state are usually posted, the minutiae of organizing a cabinet usually haven't been posted in the past. --Jayron3217:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Only notable aspect is how delayed this was and that Buhari appointed himself to a position, otherwise it's a routine procedure in any nation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (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.
I have since updated the article's lead that vote officials have declared the winner. Most of the results are in the article's infobox, although all results won't be updates for a few days. JollyΩJanner06:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather a shame since CNN has reported it will take at least two weeks for all results to be tabulated. I sense there isn't much certainty on the timescale. Hopefully if is in a couple of weeks, the article will be in top shape. JollyΩJanner06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The results most certainly we be stale if we wait. Now that NLD has crossed the 66% threshold for a majority, the result is certain and the rest is just a matter of how big the majority. No-one will report when the very last seat is called (especially since the vote in a few constituencies is postponed due to violence). By this logic, we should have waited four weeks to post the results of the 2010 UK General Election because Thirsk and Malton's results were delayed. Article could do with more explicit referencing, but it's better shape than many election articles we post. Smurrayinchester11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it may be preferred to use the term "gain" rather than "win" for an election blurb. An electoral majority is not a prize to be won nor an award to be bestowed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This delay in releasing the full results in interminable. By the time we get every single seat back the overall result will be old news. In that situation the natural point to post is once the majority is reached - regardless of what happens with the remaining seats that cannot be changed. That's the point we're at now, so I think we should go ahead and post it. As long as the article makes it clear that there are still seats to declare, we're not misleading anyone. I also support saying 'gains' rather than 'wins', not for the reasons WaltCip gave but because there is a change - we wouldn't say gains if a party was simply renewing and existing majority (perhaps 'regains' in that situation). Modest Geniustalk14:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support this should have gone up once the ruling junta conceded. The news is not so much the specific races, but that an election was allowed at all, that Aung San Suu Kyi was not excluded from the race, and that there will be a peaceful transition of power. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli agents, disguised as Arabs escorting a woman in labor, raids a hospital in Hebron, West Bank, seizing a Palestinian suspected of stabbing and shooting dead his cousin. (New York Times)(Haaretz)
Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, tells the European Parliament in prepared testimony that the outlook for inflation is "weakening." The comment was taken to suggest the ECB will soon take a more stimulative stance on interest rates or money quantity. (Bloomberg)
The city of Montreal in Canada begins dumping 2 billion gallons of raw sewage into the Saint Lawrence River, an action the mayor, Denis Coderre, says is necessary to make repairs and improvements to the city's wastewater system. The move has caused outrage among residents and environmentalists, while the hashtag "#flushgate" is being used on social media sites to voice opposition to the dumping effort. (CNN)
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: It is not confirmed that he was killed, however, the United States are "reasonably certain" that they killed him. Andise1 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wait till confirmed. If so RD could suit as he was top of his field in raving lunatics (wed post the more infamous serial killers if they were around durng ITN I suppose).Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting "suspected to be killed"; should wait for confirmation of some kind. As I understand it the US government only believes that it has killed him, and does not know for sure. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: High enough death toll which is unusual for a single incident in the region and currently back in the headlines (especially after the recent Israeli bombings near Damascus...things are heating up) Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflicted Post-Posting Support A minor nit is a lack of source on the background section but that's easily verified by the main-linked article on that section, so not an issue towards ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (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 To be clear, Groberg is the 13th recipient of the MOH of all those that served in the Afghan War, not the 13th MOH overall, which numbers in the thousands. This is not a rarity as to be a significant ITN item. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I clearly wrote. Additionally, my suggested blurb is that he is the first foreign-born from this war. 2.5 million have served in this Afghan War; only 13 have won the MOH and only one is a naturalized citizen. How is that not rare? —МандичкаYO 😜 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your third blurb ishad been written in a manner that could be read that it is the 13th medal overall, not just from the war. And while many serve in the war and there's only a few honored, the fact that there's thousands of MoHs out there shows that the overall award is not necessarily a rarity. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create it and nominate it, I'd likely support it for ITN. I'm not terribly comfortable writing articles outside my meteorology realm. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I very much doubt we would post the awarding of the top military honour in most other countries - we've had Victoria Cross nominations (which I've opposed), but I don't recall seeing similar nominations for other countries. Yet what makes this more significant than the top military honour of, say, Russia? I don't see that him being French-born changes matters. In any case, why the tendency to privilege top military honours over top civilian ones? Is the Medal of Honour any more important than the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Yet we don't get nominations for most awards of the latter. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be the last person to oppose an ITN for a similar person from Russia nor would I oppose the Victoria Cross or Medal of Freedom. Medal of Freedom and Medal of Honor are equivalent. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't say I find this significant or interesting enough. The citation for the award is a great act of individual bravery, but didn't lead to anything decisive either. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not important or significant in his field. It's kind of interesting that he's the first foreign-born recipient but more of an "interesting trivia fact" than ITN which seems to aim at "important world events". MurielMary (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I considered closing this on the 12-hour mark, but here's a pile-on instead. I wouldn't consider national awards to be ITN material. What might've swayed me would have been the context of the award, yet this seems to be your run-of-the-mill 'soldier winning an honour for heroism' type medal. Notable enough for an article, just not significant enough for ITN. Maybe try DYK? Fuebaey (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2015 (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.
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: Drummer with archetypal heavy metal band Motörhead, toured worldwide, the band is a household name even among those with little or no interest in heavy metal. 86.28.97.168 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. Key member of a very well-known band during their best-known work. Would support on significance, but the article quality is well below what I would want on the main page. Large swaths of the biography have no references. --Jayron3219:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on importance, don't see how he meets the RD criteria of "a very important figure in his/her field". No awards or hit songs in his career. MurielMary (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a popular member of a popular band, like Baby Spice or Andrew Ridgeley, but without any awards noted in his article, a clear and obvious fail on the notability required to be significant in the field of music. Popularity and well-known-ness does not equate to encyclopedic notability near or at the top of a specific field. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (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.
Turkish security forces backed up by tanks and combat helicopters launch a large-scale operation against PKK militants in the mainly Kurdish town of Silvan, which has been under a punishing curfew for nine days. At least five people are killed in the fighting, including a Turkish soldier. (AFP via Yahoo)
Carrying coffins holding the beheaded bodies of seven ethnic Hazara, thousands of demonstrators from Afghanistan's different ethnic groups - Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara - march on the Presidential Palace in Kabul, urging the government to take action against the rising violence against Afghan civilians. The murders, which the United Nations denounced as a potential war crime, have fueled a growing sense of insecurity since the Taliban briefly seized control of Kunduz in late September. (RAWA News)(Reuters)
Tourism bookings in Egypt’s main Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh plunge in the wake of the plane crash with some 80% of reservations cancelled and at least 40% of the tourists leaving the resort since the crash. (The Globe And Mail)
Slovenia's army begins erecting a razor wire fence along parts of its southern border with Croatia in order to stop a tide of illegal migrants entering the country. Around 180,000 people, mainly from Syria and Afghanistan have streamed into Slovenia since mid-October after trekking northwards along a Balkan corridor from Greece, most of them bound ultimately for Germany. (Reuters)
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.
Weak oppose. Other than being designed and produced in Japan I don't really see what is significant about this aircraft, and I don't really see how being designed and produced in Japan makes it notable. Its article states that Fuji Heavy Industries already makes aircraft in Japan. News coverage of this seems limited. I think China's C919 got more coverage,[8] and that wasn't posted. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The US, China, Germany, UK, and Brazil make airliners (Category:Airliners by country) but Japan did not for 50 years (and that one was a failure and the one before that was pre-war). So if Japan makes an airliner then the biggest economy in the world that doesn't make airliners goes from the 3rd biggest to the 8th (or 9th or 10th if you count this failure). Even Sweden with 7% of Japan's population made airliners that still fly today in places like Britain and Russia (Saab 2000). The New York Times says the plane is basically a Japanese government plan to revitalize the country’s lagging economy (which the Japanese call the Lost Two Decades). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C919 says it came off the assembly line the day of the CNN article and hasn't flown yet which is a very early stage (I didn't realize that). So it's too early to use the Chinese plane as precedent (and that wouldn't be possible anyway if the Japanese plane reaches all milestones first). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Spend some time fixing article. The subject is an important philosopher in the French philosopher field. Meets criteria. Death being reported globally. Statement from the president of France and has been an outspoken critic of Russia and Islamic State in recent years. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What did he do between 1977 and ~2000? There seems to be a huge coverage gap between "early years" and then the Philosophy and Activism sections. SpencerT♦C18:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is sufficient for the main page, though if one were looking for ways to improve the article, WP:LEAD would recommend a more comprehensive summary of his work. --Jayron3215:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with update; aa glance at his French article shows his relative importance, and his bibliography does not skip his activity during any period. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mortar attack on the coastal city of Latakia kills at least 23 and injures 65. (UPI)
Business and economics
Technology news website Re/code reports Dell Incorporated's $67 billion offer to buy data storage company EMC Corporation could be derailed by a tax bill of up to $9 billion if key aspects of the deal do not qualify for the sort of tax treatment the companies consider essential for the transaction. (Reuters)(Economic Times)(Re/code)
Disasters and accidents
All nine people aboard a HawkerH25 business jet are killed after the plane crashes into an apartment complex in the American city of Akron, Ohio. (Fox News)(WOIO via WNEW)[9] The NTSB in October 2016 concluded First Officer Renato Marchese improperly set the aircraft's flaps and failed to maintain a proper speed ABC News
Chinese state news agency Xinhua joins critics of Shenyang's handling of serious pollution problems. "The city of Shenyang has failed to apply emergency measures that could have reduced smog, and didn't provide advisories to residents to stay indoors," Xinhua wrote. The BBC reported pollution readings in the northeastern Chinese city have been 50 times higher than levels considered safe by the World Health Organization (WHO). (UPI)
Reuters reports Russia's eight-point proposal, drafted prior to this week's international talks on Syria, wants the Syrian government and the opposition to agree on launching a constitutional reform process of up to 18 months, followed by early presidential elections. (Reuters)
Iran stops dismantling decommissioned centrifuges in two uranium enrichment plants, according to state media reports. This comes days after Iran's conservative lawmakers complained to PresidentHassan Rouhani that the process was too rushed. (Reuters)
French media reports that a planned lunch for November 17 between Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and French president François Hollande is scrapped after Rouhani asked that all wine be pulled from the menu. (Fox News)
The United StatesFBI foils an alleged plot by white supremacists in Virginia who were planning a reign of terror — shooting or bombing religious institutions, robbing jewelers and armored cars, purchasing land, stockpiling weapons, and training for the "coming race war." (Washington Post)(WTVR)
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia suspends district court judge Richard Leon's ruling yesterday that found the U.S.National Security Agency's phone data collection program is unconstitutional. Leon's decision barred the agency from further collection of data on the plaintiffs in the case -- California attorney J.J. Little and his law firm -- but did not have sufficient authority to outlaw the practice against all Americans. The government plea for the injunction said it will take "at least several weeks" for the NSA to implement a technical change that would prevent collection of Little's data and therefore the entire program would have to shut down early based on Leon's order. (UPI)
Nominator's comments: The previous furthest solar system object sighting was of Eris, whose detection distance record was in the news 10 years ago (Eris' discovery was also in the news for being bigger heavier than Pluto, remember?). Since things move so slow this far out it's likely the record will change hands by discoveries instead of merely being passed by something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nothing fancy, but this is one of newsworthy discoveries. Should be posted soon before it becomes stale, especially in light of bad things happening in one day. Marking as ready. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (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 on article quality. Article is in dreadful shape, large swaths of it are unreferenced. Totally unacceptable for main page inclusion. Would support on significance easily, so if you can clean up the article, I would support posting it. --Jayron3217:56, 13 November 2015 (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.
Weak support on the merits, as he seems to be in three halls of fame and has influenced others, but oppose on quality as there are many citation issues in the article. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with article improvements Importance for RD appears met, but I see a lot of CN tags, and even if those were added just recently (after this ITNC), we're still missing a lot of citations. Also, some of the formatting of the lists in the bottom half is a bit weird, and I'm not a huge fan how how the covers are presented (you'd think these would go on notable songs, or perhaps better to collapse as a list of "Toussaint song - list of bands that covered it". --MASEM (t) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Question how does this death meet the criteria "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? He was inducted into two national halls of fame, each of which induct 15-20 people per year, and one state hall of fame. Does that denote "very important"? There are a *lot* of people in those halls of fame .... Also according to the article he had seven notable songs? Not sure how this is significant enough when a screenwriter with an Oscar nomination for a massive hit movie wasn't considered notable enough for RD? (i.e Melissa Mathison, writer of E.T) MurielMary (Note, this question is not asked bitterly as in "why didn't "my nom" get approval", it's asked to genuinely understand the standards! TIA) (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing the "importance" here. He had a "long" career, so what? I also don't see any real evidence that he was "a very important figure" in the field of music. Lots of unreferenced material in the article needs to be addressed if this is to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly recognizable name in the field of music. There's a few cn tags, but the article seems mostly referenced. I don't see anything contentious, and it has improved considerably since the initial nomination. --Jayron3212:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several instances lately where "popular" or "recognisable" or "long-standing" or "long career" are used to justify a support for RD. Clearly they're all wrong. But you can't please all of the people all of the time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was important enough for his death to have been noted on national TV network news.
Support: As is said, article is much improved; has been reported by other national media. Personally, he was notable enough just for producing the recorded version of Jessie Hill's song ""Ooh Poo Pah Doo", which has spawned over 100 cover versions by other notable musicians. Thanks. Fylbecatuloustalk19:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us already have done. If you want to criticise other editors, please be more specific in your criticism - and, feel free to edit the article yourself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, call me a cynic, but if you guys can't see the bit that says This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2015) then I don't know what else to tell you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been provided for 90% of that material. Most of the rest (not all, but most) is both uncontentious and relatively unimportant. None have been specifically challenged - not one - but, if people feel it's important to remove those facts, they can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is certainly one time where certain editors' "everything is bullshit" attitude isn't serving readers. To boot, I'm catching a faint whiff of dismissing him as a "local celebrity". The music of New Orleans, and specifically the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, have a cultural reach far beyond New Orleans, even if that significance may not translate very well to non-fans. While many of the associated events of Jazzfest are dominated by the jam band scene, Toussaint has been a pivotal part of the festival itself for most of its history. There's also what other editors have already pointed out: an active career spanning well over a half century, the significance of many of his songwriting and production credits, the breadth of artists who have recorded their own versions of those works. In more recent history, there are the collaborations with Elvis Costello and others, in which Toussaint was brought into the project specifically due to his stature as a revered elder statesman of the music world. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:27, 16 November 2015 (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: Notability is a no-brainer, unfortunately, the article is not really that great. I started working through it when news about his conditions broke yesterday but he died faster than I had thought... will try to sort it out as fast as possible, help would be appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the biggest headache. Far too detailed especially considering the poor sourcing. I'll hit the library later today and tomorrow to sort this out with biographies of his and newspaper articles, but that'll take some time. I'll probably cut the article down first, so that it will be in a shape to post on the main page and then expand again with well sourced prose. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Top part is decent, rest needs work (refs/culling). I switched off after three page scrolls down the Chancellor section. Cabinet section should be split off. If anyone still doesn't know who this is: West German Chancellor 1974-82. Fuebaey (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Obvious. As a key politicalfigure in recent European history, Schmidt may merit a Blurb. He was very old, but he kept on making political comments and popped up in the news now and then into his 90s. Sca (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality only. Perusing the article, there's numerous quality issues that need fixing, but only one, right now, is (in my mind) keeping this off the main page: The paragraphs in the "Personal Life" section are largely unreferenced. That one thing would need to be fixed. Otherwise, he's clearly a major political figure and would merit mentioning on the main page. I'm agnostic on the difference between a blurb and an RD posting. From my perspective, this should NOT be posted until the personal life section is referenced properly, after that it could be posted to the main page (which isn't to say that it is perfect, but the glaring lack of cites in that one section is a major issue). --Jayron3215:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, but he does otherwise qualify for RD. A few sections aren't referenced at all. All sections should have at least some references. Mamyles (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. I've gone in myself and deleted a bit of fluff that was uncited too. Support for posting, still agnostic on blurb vs. RD. --Jayron3217:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb Schmidt was unambiguously one of the most powerful people in the world during the 1970s and 1980s and one who made a lasting impact in the post-World War II history of Germany. The news is also on the top across the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Es geht ohne [was zu] sagen. Week support as to a blurb, since I doubt it adds much, but he certainly deserves picturing. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying that this is English language Wikipedia, and while this is tres drole, it's not helpful at all. And I guess by "week" you mean "weak"? Finally, I'm not sure how you would expect him to be "pictured" without a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still some refs missing in the award section, I will try to provide as many as possible. Then there is the issue of the Domestic reforms section. Should we just block that out for now? I feel the most important parts of his chancellor years are covered above. Any thoughts on that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 3,800 words Domestic Reforms is obviously too long & detailed for English-speaking readers. Suggest we (you) shovel it into a sidebar ref'd under See also in main article. Later some guter Mensch(Who?) could summarize it for main article. Sca (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that blocking it out for now is a good option, which I have done now. Leaves some refs without page numbers in the Chancellor section... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb on article improvements, Support RD now - There is more sourcing that can be done, but this is far from a badly sourced article. I do feel that to highlight it as a blurb now it does need a bit more work, but as an RD, the update is clearly there, the sourcing is in a state that users can see where stuff is needed. I recognize there's a orange tag or two on it, but for purposes of posing this, if those were removed (still noting its not perfect), I could support the RD now. I would support this as a full blurb in terms of importance to the world at large were in a tad better shape. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb - With 87 citations, the article is definitely not poorly referenced. The supposedly missing page numbers to those in its Chancellor section constitute a non-issue, as most are to periodicals or websites. (Currently listed in the RD sections of D, F, NL, CZ, DK and N Wikis.) Sca (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Late support RD, pull blurb. Significant historical figure, but his death will not have any immediate present-day impact. He was long out of office and public life. RD is the correct place for this kind of nomination - the fact that we may have messed this up with other politicians in the past should not force us to make the same mistake twice. Modest Geniustalk00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that the newest blurb at the time this was posted was from over 6 days ago. While I agree that this would not usually be a blurb, all of the other blurbs in ITN are pretty much stale. Let this be an exception. Mamyles (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (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 once article sufficiently updated and sourced. One of the leading flat-racing jockeys of all time in Britain and Ireland, his 11 British championships are a joint-record (plus one in Ireland), he rode numerous big race winners across a career lasting more than 30 years and only one other jockey has ridden more lifetime winners in Great Britain. As noted by the nominator, the article requires some work to be fit to be linked from the front page. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Winner of Grade 1 stakes (the highest level of horse racing) in three different continents. Based on awards won and races won, probably the best jockey in the sport from the late 70's through the 80's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for sourcing "Major wins" when each of the Race wins points to an article on Wiki that has the jockey's name included for the particular year. Maok3 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Megh is expected to cross the Yemen coast Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. Arabia Standard Time (6:00 a.m. UTC). In the Gulf of Aden, the storm has maximum sustained winds of 111 km/h (69 mph), gusting to 130 km/h (81 mph). Its strength will significantly erode once it makes landfall and continue to decay after it moves inland into the dry and rugged terrain of Western Yemen. It is not expected to track back over water. (United States Naval Observatory)(Regional Specialized Meteorological Center)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Played with the Beatles (arguably the most famous band of all time), albeit only on some of their early tracks, but still, the BBC says that "He could therefore legitimately claim to be one of the so-called "Fifth Beatles", alongside the likes of Pete Best, Stuart Sutcliffe and others." (see link above) Also, according to his own WP page, "AllMusic called White "one of the busier drummers in England from the late '50s through the mid-'70s."" Everymorning(talk)01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very important in his field. Looks like more than half of his bio is dedicated to his brief membership with the band, and not so much about the rest of his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Beatles are obviously a huge phenomenon, and the two surviving members will probably be blurb candidates, but I just don't think this qualifies. He was slightly more significant to the Beatles than I had realized: he played with them only one time, but that one time was the recording of the Beatles' first single. There are maybe two or three "Fifth Beatles" that I think would have a legitimate shot at an RD listing, but because White's career appears to have consisted mostly of backing up other, more notable performers, I don't think his brief association with the band is enough on its own. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muboshgu + Bongwarrior. Just not really that important with that casual a connection to the Beatles. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Famous for something he didn't do: be the drummer in the world's most successful band. His involvement was very minor and ended before they did anything particularly notable. Near misses aren't enough for RD in my opinion. Modest Geniustalk13:05, 12 November 2015 (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.
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: As a BBC news correspondent noted, this is "as big as it gets". This is a massive event in the world of Athletics. Alleged state involvement in doping makes this also a geopolitics issue. LukeSurltc14:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits once we figure out what to update and when it is updated; a notable finding in the world of international sports. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a recommendation, nothing legally binding. If it does result in Russia's suspension from a major event, that would be big news. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a recommendation(though it is in part), but a finding that Russia is "non-compliant" with global anti-doping rules, which WADA deals in. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the news articles, the report, while from the world body that manages doping issues, still is making a lot of allegations that have not been otherwise proven in any court of law. The Olympic committee, for example, could decide to make a decision to ban Russia from the next Games without having any legal proof, but that's the news story, not that there's been a report that has said there's allegations of doping. Note that I'm not saying that the report is necessarily false or misleading, just that its a report from one sporting agency body and not proof otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A recommendation means nothing; to use an example from the NFL in the United States, the Wells Report all but recommended a suspension for Tom Brady which was promptly overturned upon appeal in a court of law.--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be fair, the NFL is so incestuous and introverted that that's an unfair comparison. We're actually talking about international sport here, not just a parochial decision that has no relevance to anything or anyone outside the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the NFL is a tiny regional sport when compared to the rest of the world, there's no doubt about that. In no way was I suggesting that anything that goes on in the NFL has any sort of international notability; it doesn't. However, I was merely making an analogy with regards to independent fact-finders and the actual impact they have.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind TRM. He's still upset a tiny regional sport (played in more than one country is regional?) is more popular than his boat race. It was a fine analogy.Correctron (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is actually done about this other than "recommend" would be a much, much bigger news story. I recommend waiting until some tangible suspensions or public scorn comes out of this. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets using steroids? I am shocked! But seriously, can we get a clear rationale here on who this anti-doping agency is, and whence Russia is to be blocked? Is this from all international competition? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two-fold: mergers are generally "good" news and not making allegations of wrong-doing as this report is doing, and because of that, when it actually occurs, there's rarely a blink; on the other hand, if there is action on this report (read: the banning of Russian athletes from a major competition) that will be newsworthy. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would state that business deal announcements typically get more news coverage at the announcement than when the transaction occurs; then the argument is that the transaction is not in the news, resulting in few if any business stories being posted(though a couple announcements did get through recently). I would concede that this is a different situation, since the taking of any action here (i.e. banning Russia even partly from the Olympics) would get much coverage. Though I realize this is looking like it will not be posted, this is more than a mere announcement, but an official finding of noncompliance. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the big news is the revelation by an official body that doping in Russia is widespread, pervasive, and supported by the highest structures. 87.154.210.163 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2015 (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.
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 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.
Nominator's comments: Let's try this again. This is the third Myanma election in 25 years. Preliminary results are trickling in, showing the NLD making significant gains. Full results may take a while to come out (feel free to move this up), but a heads up for anyone interested in updating the article. Fuebaey (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - however as I mentioned in one of the previous nominations, is that (Myanma) the correct spelling of the country or is it a typo?? MurielMary (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but not quite yet. Post when official results show whether the NLD have majorities or just pluralities in both houses of Parliament, or when the results are complete (and the article is appropriately updated to report this). --LukeSurltc17:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patience ITN/R doesn't need support to earn its spot, and the results tables are empty. Though I realize many are eagerly following this story, it may even be wise to hold out for several hours even when we do have results, as I am under the impression that this election carries considerable implications and may be contested (or am I mistaken?). I don't suggest unreasonable delay, just caution not to let it become a ticker. - OldManNeptune⚓17:47, 9 November 2015 (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.
Houthi forces regain several positions across southern Yemen after launching a fresh offensive against loyalist and coalition forces. In Lahij province, which borders Aden, Houthi forces are now positioned on a hill overlooking the strategic Al Anad Air Base, which houses Sudanese forces. The Houthis also retook the Damt District in the Dhale province after besieging it for hours, at least 16 people were killed in the clashes. (AFP via Yahoo)
Two suicide bomb attacks in Ngouboua, a remote village near Lake Chad, kill three people, including the bombers, and injure four others, according to Chadian Communication Minister Hassan Sylla Bakari. (Shanghai Daily)(UPI)
Russian air strikes on areas in the town of Maaret al-Numan, Idlib, killing nine people, including a child, and on Saraqib in the same province, killing another two women. (Al Bawaba)
At least 10 people were killed in Syrian government air strikes on Islamic State-held town of Al-Bab, including a woman and child. (France 24)[permanent dead link]
ManhattanDistrict AttorneyCyrus Vance Jr. announces over $800 million in grants available to various agencies across the U.S. for law enforcement-related initiatives such as testing of potentially expired rape kits, the funding of an international center devoted to monitoring cyber attacks, and a program at John Jay College of Criminal Justice dedicated to training prosecutors. The grants are funded from criminal penalties paid by several international banks accused of violating sanctions. (New York Times)
Early official results show the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), the country's largest opposition party, has a slim lead over Prime Minister Zoran Milanović’s ruling Social Democrats (SDP) in today's elections. With 32 percent counted, the HDZ, has 61 of parliament’s 151 seats and the SDP is second with 53. The third place Most (Bridge of Independent Lists) party is likely to have the balance of power in the parliament. (Wall Street Journal)(Bloomberg)(The Guardian) After the votes were counted, HDZ had 59 seats and SDP 56, and with 3 additional seats from the regional IDS party, SDP amounted to 59 seats. The greatest surprise was MOST, who won 19 seats and will be the key in formation of the government. If MOST refuses coalition with the two main parties, the country will have to repeat the elections in January 2016. (EUROPP)
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.
Nominator's comments: Balkan EU member holds election. As a migrant transit state, the economy and the refugee crisis are leading campaign issues. Exit polls inconclusive; early results show a narrow lead for the opposition, conservative HDZ. Feel free to tweak if results change otherwise. Fuebaey (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not well-known, but an educated reader could work out the meaning from the context of the sentence in the blurb, and could also click on the link to find out more detail. MurielMary (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By using a non-English word, with an easy link to the meaning for those who don't know it, it's an opportunity to open the reader's mind to something new .... educate them on the diversity of the world beyond their everyday. That's the power of knowledge. Depends whether ITN is into "dumbing down" or "lifting up". MurielMary (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements A few sections are weak in sourcing, and one section just presents data without any prose. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (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.
Support article quality seems sufficient at a quick once-over. (P.S. picture most likely won't make it since we have a more recent news item with a picture already)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only section that seems undersourced is the Changes section, but this would be something that would seem relatively easy to fill in and not contentious, the rest of the article is well sourced and looks ready for posting. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The results of this will be posted(assuming article is OK) when they are known; this editorial-ish blurb is not appropriate for ITN. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2015 (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 Gsnxn, I doubt anyone disagrees that this is a far more significant national election than most, but the point is we don't editorialise. No-one will disagree that the results should be posted, but not this kind of blurb. Redverton (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support - all rules are meant to be broken. This is a special case with a specially interesting and important election. Of course it should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)ys[reply]
I'm not sure if you speak/understand English or understand how ITNR or ITNC works, but we simply won't post an unreferenced blurb which strays into the editorialising that Ive already advised we don't do here. If you don't understand that, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—the important thing here will either be the winner of the elections, or the military disregarding the result if it doesn't go their way. If this does run, Myanmar continues to march steadily, if carefully, towards democracy after decades of martial law, with its implication that democracy=progress, is certainly not appropriate as a wording. ‑ iridescent17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose When the results come in, then we post that, and without such obviously nonneutral commentary. I don't doubt this nomination was made in good faith, but actually posting such a blurb to ITN would be something of an outrage. - OldManNeptune⚓17:39, 8 November 2015 (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.
Bombs in and around Baghdad kill at least nine people, police and medical sources say. There is no immediate claim of responsibility. (Reuters)
Art and culture
The University of Sydney's Australian Archaeological Mission, excavating at a UNESCO World Heritage Site on the southwest coast of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, discover Cyprus's oldest theatre. Located in the ancient city of Nea Paphos (capital of Cyprus at the time), it is a Hellenistic-Roman structure believed to have been in use for about six and a half centuries, from c. 300 B.C. until its final destruction in the earthquakes of A.D. 365. The Roman columns are made of granite from quarries in Troad, Turkey. (AFP, via MSN)
A sudden noise immediately before the "black box" flight data recorder went dark indicates the plane was brought down by a bomb, according to unnamed sources. Officially, Ayman el-Muqadem says the Egyptian investigative team is "considering all possible scenarios for the cause of the accident" and has not yet reached any conclusions. (BBC)(USA Today)(The Mirror)
As rescue teams labor to reach isolated communities, state officials are taking precautions to contain the environmental fallout from the burst dams. A state public prosecutor based in Mariana says he will seek 500,000 Brazilian reais (US$130,000) in personal damages for each of about 200 families most affected by the dam burst. (Reuters)
A manhunt is underway for a gunman who shot and seriously wounded presiding Travis County, Texas State District Judge Julie Kocurek at the driveway of her home in West Austin, Texas. It was unclear whether she and/or her family members were targeted (they were arriving home) or if it was a botched robbery. She was listed in serious condition at University Medical Center Brackenridge in Austin but is expected to recover. (USA Today, via MSN)
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: President of Israel for five years; too bad he was just a figurehead. I was gonna propose a blurb, but Israeli PMs are more significant than Israeli Presidents. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notable, and not as well known as he should be. His contributions to Sefardic culture in Israel are underreported in the article. I'll see what I can manage, but people deserve to see this. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment we posted Yitzhak shamir to a full blurb (I remember doing up the page for his death). Though that might have been in the pre-RD era. Although we do have head of state on full blurb right now.At any rate, as RD its a given with precedence and "top of his field".Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose alt blurb I after update of articles; not much has been added re: end of epidemic in Sierra Leone. A notable event in a wider saga that has been covered by popular news sources for over a year. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the last time this was suggested some new cases were announced within a week, if I am not mistaken. At this point there is a strong opinion that Ebola is basically endemic to West Africa, so posting that it is not currently active in just one of the countries in which it has appeared seems like an incremental, rather than a tipping point development. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last time it was different country. This is for the first time in Sierra Leone. One conformed case is currently in neighbouring Guinea, so yes, it is possible, that isolated case will be bring back into country. However epidemic is over.--Jenda H. (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it was a different country. The principle still holds. Just as it would hold if you wanted to post that the Andrea Doria was unsinkable, and I said they said that about the Titanic. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, proving that something doesn't exist is a very difficult thing. If we reject this on the grounds that "maybe it hasn't really been eradicated yet", then we would also have to reject things like the killing of Osama bin Laden (maybe he actually survived, see various conspiracy theories) or the extinction of any species (maybe there's still a population somewhere). The WHO felt confident enough to make this declaration, which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2015 (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.
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.
[Posted to ongoing] Metrojet Flight 9268 investigations
Article:Metrojet Flight 9268 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: No blurb specified (Post) Alternative blurb: European investigators finds that the cockpit recorder was cut off during an explosion of the Metrojet Flight 9268. Alternative blurb II: Investigations continue into the cause of the crash of the Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 in Egypt. News source(s):BBCCNN Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is back in the news again, due to fresh claims of sabotage after looking at the flight data recorder. Lots of substantial changes are being made to the target article as well. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the flight recorder is consistent with a mid-air explosion, a bomb on the plane is not the sole explanation as these reports point out. The media is jumping at this story with rather poor reporting and wild speculations based on initial statements made by investigators. If it does turn out to be a bomb, that's an ITN, but we should not be re-adding this until we have more than just FUD being reported. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a blurb and renamed the section, but I ironically oppose this nomination. Either method would attract wild guesses, like Masem said. Even I was close to nominating this until I found a mere flight data recorder, as said in previous nomination, is not sufficient enough to prove a bomb. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still Oppose blurb, but I am now convinced that a mere mention of the ongoing event seems harmless. I did oppose restoring it back to "ongoing", but those were wrong times to dorestore it so soon. Westerners say that it could have been a bomb by terrorists; Russians... do they publicly reject the claim? Wont' matter, weak oppose to ongoing just to make readers search for the aircraft disaster themselves. --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You don't like the idea so you'll punish the readers by making them "search for the aircraft disaster themselves"? What use is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo. As for quality mentioned earlier, like Masem said, reporting is "poor" and speculative. --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo" applies to every link on the Main Page. By that logic, you'd abolish ITN altogether. (I can and have made a case for precisely that in the past, but as long as it exists we need a mechanism for deciding what goes on it.) ‑ iridescent09:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting is not poor nor particularly speculative. The CVR has recorded an explosion. Airbus have confirmed that every aircraft system was functioning correctly up to the point that the CVR recorded an explosion. British and American intelligence agencies are reporting that celebratory chatter has been picked up. There's little left to debate here, your opinion is out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my opinion is outdated, I'll try to update my opposition as much as I can. Explosion is explosion. It does not mean a bomb... yet. It's just a recording of explosion. The investigation is ongoing, but I don't see how the reporting of investigation development meets quality standards of ITN other than being ongoing and recording of explosion and Russian flights suspended, both of which may not meet ITN standards. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all "ongoing" events have been posted. Most sports events never have been featured in Main Page as "ongoing" by ITN standards. I would honourably mention September 11 attacks, but I can't. Enough comparing, investigations on the airplane crash are prematurely developed as is. No major key actions have been made, even with the recorder and flight suspensions. --George Ho (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're entirely missing the point, the fact is that this is in the news, is affecting Egypt, Russia, and many other countries whose tourists are now stranded. It's ongoing. We're here to help our readers find news items that they may find helpful, not to deliberately make them go and use Google to find the event that's all over their news. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Investigations are part of aftermath of the crash. Probably instead of investigations, the aftermath in general should be nominated... separately, not in this section. The result in Ongoing ticker would come out as "Aftermath of Metrojet Flight 9268", but the aftermath consists of just investigations, flight suspensions, reactions, and corpse recoveries. The plane disaster was featured once deservingly, but I don't like the idea of posting a part or whole of aftermath as "Ongoing" in Main Page. Readers can search for this article or read news outside Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, yet again. ITN is here to help readers, not to drive them to a search engine. Perhaps this is lost on you, maybe it's a language thing, but deliberately preventing our readers from reading about one of the most updated news stories in recent weeks is simply absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Given that this is the third active nomination of the event, I think a restoration to ongoing is in order... Incremental blurb updates are a bit much but it seems prolific enough to warrant ongoing for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I still hold that ongoing is more appropriate. Any blurbs regarding the investigation would have to be annoyingly vague until a conclusive report is written and published. Kind of regret taking it down myself initially now, but what's done is done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no; don't regret it. The process was right. I haven't regretted proposing removal from "Ongoing" ticker. Timing to re-post it should be right. If re-posted, as how shall the name come out? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in this form as it's a very active investigation and the story is changing and developing constantly. Something more general, such as the Alt Blurb I suggested in the other nomination, "Investigations continue into the cause of the crash of the Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 in Egypt." would cover any later developments. MurielMary (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have this incredible sense of deja-vu - a developing news story but nothing particularly blurb-worthy, covered in lots of news reports, plenty of constructive edits to the article? Sounds perfect to add to ongoing. <sarcasm> I wonder why it wasn't added to ongoing when the blurb rotated off the main page? </sarcasm> (Incidentally, "investigations continue" is not the stuff of an ITN blurb, because it says that there is nothing better to say, so it is a pretty firm indication that we are still in "ongoing" territory.) BencherliteTalk08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing. An article which is being constantly updated as the situation changes and new facts come to light, but where there's not been a single huge development to warrant posting a fresh blurb? This is pretty much the canonical example of what "ongoing" is for. ‑ iridescent08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either IP's presence is coincidence, or the IP is disguised by a registered person with similar traits. I don't want to accuse someone; that would be bad faith. Moreover, shall TRM's attempts to rebut opposition be taken seriously? Looks like I'm not the only oneoppose trying to make a point here. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, again and again. If you think I'm related to the IPs, ask for a checkuser. In the meantime, realise that your determination to prevent our readers from finding the articles that are in the news is directly contrary to the purpose of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. I got the point: attract Western investigator's and politician's speculations, Russia's flight suspensions to Egypt, and inconclusive evidence to general readers, hoping for readers to read over and over without making Wikipedia the crystal ball (sorry, don't wanna link this) until something spectacular happens. The plane crash was already the point. You must thank me and others for removing the "ongoing" event from the Main Page for nearly four days. Meanwhile, our search engine, even when imperfect, can help readers look for the article with or without AutoComplete by typing related terms that might not be exact title of the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But WP does avoid rumormongering even when it comes from normally reliable sources. The potential that a commercial plane crash was something triggered by agents in the ISIS/Syrian war can easily be seen as something that Western countries of power would love to use to initiate action; the reaction of US and UK intelligence sources compared to the more cautious take that Egyptian and Russian sources who are on the ground there shows this to be trying to push for an ideal situation of events for them. And of course, being mostly covered in Western papers, the press is jumping along with that. This is very comparable to the Sony hack that the US quickly pointed a finger at North Korea though since then there's been a lot of counterevidence to that and little conclusive to their point. There is zero question that if the actual investigators determined that the plane was brought down by a bomb (regardless who placed it) that we make it an ITN story and the situation becomes much more serious. But we at en.wiki have to be careful of stories that are pushed and manufactured by the press to be more important than they are without firm evidence. That's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt at work, just as that failed attack on the French train a few months ago was played up. Which is why we have to keep in mind that we aren't a newspaper, while we keep up with current events, we should be writing them and in the case of ITN treating then with how the work becomes more encyclopedic with inclusion of current events. This current string of stories on this plane crash, which is not revealing any new truths just yet, is really poor for inclusion in WP at this point because it is wild speculation. I still disagree this should be in ongoing for this reason, though clearly consensus is for it, but we need to remember that we're not here at ITN just to report on the loudest stories on the news, but to look with an encyclopedic eye on things which may mean we don't even touch on the loudest stories. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... deadliest both in the history of Russian aviation and within Egyptian territory. It is also the deadliest air crash involving an aircraft from the Airbus A320 family and the deadliest plane crash of 2015." The cause is still not resolved although 90% sure it was bomb. Not sure why it was taken off "In The News". 86.189.225.37 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! I truly don't understand this. The nominator of this posting is the same one who below told us that to promote the story would be racist?!?!? Will some Admin please just add this to Ongoing already? No need for a blurb. Last I checked there were tens of thousands of people stranded in the Sinai because of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing Taking the three different nominations, the level of editing activity, the level of news reporting, and the amount of support at all of the nominations, I've added this to ongoing. --Jayron3201:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll point out that the British press is giving some pretty detailed quotes of British intelligence sources saying that the bombers were overheard celebrating the explosion in London and Birmingham accents.[13]μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Historically symbolic, think Obama meeting Castro. First meeting between the two leaders in 66 years, hosted in Singapore. Politically significant to the world's most populous country, with newsworthy protests erupting in Taiwan. Fuebaey (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've slightly fixed the grammar ("since end of the" -> "since the end of the"), and I'd like to make a suggestion to change "leaders" to "presidents". To me, "leaders" feels like the blurb is trying to be too politically correct (in Chinese media outlets, calling Ma the Taiwan "president" is forbidden, so they use the euphemism "leader" instead). --benlisquareT•C•E06:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very significant story. Don't think the place they are meeting in needs mention, though; prefer Alt Blurb I without hotel metion. MurielMary (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt Blurb III reads that it's the first time they've met in Singapore since the war (but they might have met elsewhere). Grammar isn't right. MurielMary (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request - The blurb makes it look like it was the first time between the specififc two leaders. It is not obvious from the blurb that it was the first time any holder of either office met with each other since 1949. 176.92.242.33 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was originally posted at the end of September and removed about two weeks ago. While the event is undoubtedly still ongoing, I'm not seeing how the article has recently been updated beyond some standard copyediting. For what it is worth, I'd say the same thing about the European migrant crisis as well. Fuebaey (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli forces shoot and kill a 72-year-old woman in Halhul, a town near Hebron. The soldiers say she attempted to wound them with her car. Her son denies this, saying his mother was on her way to lunch with her sister. Later, three Israelis are shot and wounded, one seriously, in two incidents in Hebron. (Al Jazeera English)(The Guardian)(Haaretz)
The Ajnad al-Sham and other rebel forces recapture the village of Atshan and surrounding areas in Hama province, consolidating significant advances made the day before at the expense of pro-government forces. (Fox News)(Reuters)
India has cancelled Greenpeace India's license to operate and gave the group 30 days to close down, citing financial fraud and falsification of data, the environment watchdog said on Friday. (NDTV)(Reuters)
Thursday's flooding and devastating mudslides at the BHP-Vale mine in Minas Gerais involved two dams, not one as initially reported. Brazilian officials report the mud flow is eight kilometers (five miles) long and 2.5 meters deep. Those rescued – and emergency services – are being decontaminated; mining spoils being treated as toxic. There is no official information on the number of casualties or the cause of the incident. The company that runs the mine says it detected seismic activity right before the breach. Both BHP and Vale shares declined over five percent. Brazilian prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation. (Mashable)(Bloomberg)(CCTV)
U.S. officials say the U.S. Navy deliberately avoided military drills or other actions that could have further inflamed tensions with Beijing during the USS Lassen's patrol in the South China Sea last week. For instance, the Lassen turned off its fire-control radars while transiting within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef. On its part, the Chinese destroyer following the Lassen was, "very cordial the entire time … before and after the Spratly Islands transit," said the Lassen's commanding officer, Commander Robert Francis. (Reuters)(New York Post)
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 with improvements: Seems to have been significant in the opaque and byzantine world of North Korean politics, at least to outside observers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Certainly sounds important, but an article whose main source is an unofficial blog with no credited author is not going to be posted. Blythwood (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with waiting but this is also going to go stale if we wait more than a day. The fact that we don't have corroboration from western press begs how important this figure was or if the death was legit.. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greenpeace India
Article:Greenpeace (talk·history·tag) Blurb: India revokes Greenpeace's license to operate in the country. (Post) Alternative blurb: As part of an ongoing crackdown on NGO operations, India revokes Greenpeace's license to operate in the country. Alternative blurb II: As part of an ongoing crackdown on NGO operations, India revokes Greenpeace's license to operate in the country. Alternative blurb III: As part of an ongoing crackdown on NGO operations in the name of economic development, India revokes Greenpeace's license to operate in the country. News source(s):RT, Times of India, NYT Credits:
Nominator's comments: Possibly political, but major international NGO ceasing to exist in second most populated country in the world. Could do with a larger update and some general cleanup. Fuebaey (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder if Greenpeace India would be a more appropriate main article. Although it would require a major cleanup. Also wonder whether it would be worth mentioning in the blurb the wider context of India shutting down 9k other NGOs. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I vote, how is Greenpeace relevant in the environmental field nowadays? There have been criticisms on this NGO. It has received media attention for years, but most of its activities appear futile to the effect. Has the NGO done something successful to affect people involved in the environment? George Ho (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a previous Greenpeace supporter, I'm personally inclined to agree with your skepticism of Greenpeace @George Ho. But many would disagree with our views and revoking a license for them to operate in India is notable in any case. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a synonym for newsworthiness. Many notable topics haven't gotten the ITN spotlight. There must be crackdowns on other NGOs in India. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. I could possibly support posting an article on the crackdown as the main topic which mentions greenpeace as an example among others. Otherwise we are basically just cheerleading for one "victim" among many. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Greenpeace is a well-known mainstream NGO, which makes some difference IMO. But I certainly think that focusing on a broader trend would be more worthy of ITN. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wait/oppose for now its not much in international repercussions, moreover the appeals process is not yet exhausted. and considering the election result coming in now the central government is not gong to be so arrogant in its power.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment ALtblurbs are highly POV as the content described the events at greenpeace and not an "ongping" crackdown. Also this will look every follish when greenpeace is not banned.Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - per Medeis. Furthermore the proposed blurb doesn't explain why this matters, while the altblurbs don't explain why there is a crackdown in the first place. I'm going to somewhat paradoxically propose a third altblurb while weakly opposing this. Banedon (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is bigger news than suspension of flights or some sports event or tragic nightclub fire. It affects relations between Obama and Justin Trudeau, and this would affect presidential candidates. Also, this is an environmental issue, but it's centered on North America. That shouldn't stop me from reluctantly nominating this. George Ho (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While this is a definitive end to the Keystone XL issue (I do not see anything that suggests Congress can override it) and it has been a central issue for the last year, it is also part of pre-election year politicking. There still remains a pipeline that runs from Canada to the US for the same purpose, and the articles suggest that Canada's gov't is disappointed but nowhere close to severing ties with the US. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like a notable issue that readers would be interested in. Also, not a disaster or sporting event, which is nice for a change. True, this is pre-election politicking, but politics are real life, and this decision affects real things. Kiwi128 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable indeed, and game-changing news that signals a milestone in the shift away from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Story is international in scope and interest. Agree that this is a welcome change in blurb from sports and disasters. Let's put this one up ASAP. Jusdafax02:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a regulatory policy decision regarding one pipeline which can always be overturned by congressional action or after the next election--it is not "definitive". We don't even post when countries legalize gay marriage anymore. Why we should be posting not approving a pipeline is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the legal world anything can be overturned at a later date. That doesn't mean that a given legal decision isn't important. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment might want to add that the bcompany also redacted application to build it. Not to mntion the Canadian election produced a different circumstance (priceof oil too probably)Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For once in my life, I agree entirely with Medeis. "Something that was never likely to happen, is unlikely to happen" is not news; governments decide not to go ahead with engineering megaprojects on cost or environmental grounds allthetime. ‑ iridescent17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wull, gee, thanks. Next time my fishtank needs cleaning I will ping you. The issue here is that a negative (no more Ebola, no pipeline) is WP:CRYSTAL regardless of our status as wealthy donor-editors. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - my first impression of this was, "so what?". The nomination doesn't make it clear why this is of international interest, the blurb doesn't either, and even the linked news article contains the line "Obama downplayed the importance of the decision, saying the project had an "over-inflated role in our political discourse"". Banedon (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing for space, posted to ongoing per above nomination
Add to ongoing instead Suggest using a "piped link" if the article title is confusing, but the article is constantly being updated, and developments remain top news stories. The target article is correct, even if the title is wrong. We can fix that here via a piped link to a more appropriate descriptor for ongoing, so that's not an issue. If the article title itself needs changing, that's a discussion to be had on the article talk page. But the story clearly meets all of the checklist for Ongoing, and the Kogalymavia Flight 9268 itself is the correct one to link to because it is the one being updated with all of the information. --Jayron3215:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both this and ongoing. This is one country's reaction on a claim, and only affects specific flights (unlike, say, the US stopping all flights after 9/11 or the rearrangements of flights done after the plane was shot down over Ukraine). If official reports do say it was actually shot down, that's a news item. ---MASEM (t) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in whatever form. This was imprudently pulled earlier while the story was still developing, yesterday British intelligence sources were quoted as saying that a bomb was more likely than not. There is also the airlift of tens of thousands of tourists stranded in Sharm el Sheik being conducted by the British and American advisories to citizens not to travel to the area. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing, neutral toward blurb. This event is still interesting and newsworthy, with significant updates happening daily. Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing as per Mamyles. Once something clear emerges from this somewhat chaotic story, doing another blurb might make sense, but for now I think ongoing is best. Kiwi128 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose either method. First, listing the investigation as "ongoing" will not help matters, even when it attracts readers (immorally). At first I was uncertain whether most readers are interested, but I realize it won't matter or make any difference. Attracting suspense is already the job of the press. We shall not sink so low just to attract prejudice to all races... and fears. Second, the blurbs add nothing new to the development other than meaningless attraction. They are already posted as articles in Wikinews and other media, so why doing what's already on elsewhere news? Readers shall search for this event themselves if they want to read more. Meanwhile, I must removed "Ready". George Ho (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes an event that is ongoing, including the investigation. That is a fact, not an immoral statement or an attempt to "attract prejudice to all races". Our job here is solely to promote quality, newsworthy Wikipedia articles - it is not to censor what's in the news to prevent suspense or perceived prejudice. Additionally, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't have a Wikipedia article about the event, since the content is elsewhere. Frankly, your oppose statement makes little sense. Marking as ready again. Mamyles (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One guy changed his vote, so I'm re-removing "Ready". Second, censorship and deciding which to feature on the Main Page are not the same. Shall I explain more? Third, for my opposition, I'll rephrase: Claim of intent is possible. Without enough evidence to support the claim, this is just hypothesis by UK and US governments, including intelligence. The suspension of all Russian flights to Egypt, even when somewhat related to the flight crash investigations and unusual, tops neither more serious key points of this event... nor more seriousbigger, more major (going broad) events. Overemphasizing the suspension of flights is media's folly (or Wikinews); meanwhile, let's not implement our folly and post this story. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on what you (the singular you, George Ho) believes should and should not be covered by reliable sources. The fact that you (the singular you, George Ho) do not want this topic to be receiving this sort of detailed and well-covered attention from major, reliable, and unassailable news sources is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That you (the singular you) believe it is "folly" and "immoral" (to use your own words) for organizations like the BBC and CNN and Reuters and all the other to be devoting their journalistic resources towards covering this story is irrelevant. It's not what you want news sources to cover or not cover that matters. What matters is what sorts of news sources are giving what sorts of coverage to the story, not that you wish they weren't. You cannot claim this is a story ignored by the best, and most respected journalistic entities in the English speaking world. Because they are covering it. That you think it folly and immoral that they are doing so is quite unimportant to how decisions are made around here. --Jayron3221:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about consensus? Stories have been posted based on usually consensus, though 2014 Sydney hostage crisis was featured on Main Page even with (technically) no consensus. Second, these referred 'highly reputable' sources are Western; what about Egyptian and Russian ones? Maybe being pro-Kremlin makes a source less reliable, so there must be a good source from Egypt and Russia. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“
Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post.
Oppose - the story was the crash, and that one was posted already on the main page. A temporary suspension of flights (not just by the Russian government as the proposed blurb suggests) is a consequence. But that in itself is not unusual or notable, unless this suspension turns out to be more than just a temporary measure until security at Egyptian airports has been improved. 93.215.78.75 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A major country suspending all flights to another major country during peacetime is by itself remarkable news, and I don't recall any similar event in the recent years. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not blow this out of proportion. Temporary flight suspensions are anything but unusual. All it takes is a bit of fog or a typhoon, or security issues, or unpaid airport bills. It happens all the time in civil aviation. We should reconsider if this lasts more than just a few days, but right now this is not a ITN worthy. Especially as the real event, the crash, has been posted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.78.75 (talk) 17:19, November 6, 2015
You know what? I can't. The flight data recorder is not sufficient enough to support such claim. No confirmation yet; you can nominate, Kiwi. Can't you? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've renominated as ongoing. I don't think we would want to make definite statements on the main page at present due to the chaotic nature of the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian rebels seize control of Murak, a town located north of the city of Hama on a strategic highway that is crucial to control of western Syria, following clashes with pro-government forces. Murak was the scene of heavy fighting last year when government forces took control of the town in October 2014. (Reuters)
Despite one 'support' vote, the consensus opposes this. --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
Weak oppose - Article is in good enough condition, but I'm not sure if the man is a notable figure or made such a large impact on the Hollywood industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the guy, and have no opinion either way, but this is utterly ridiculous. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, and let the adults get on with things. Fgf10 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per TDKR. I would like to support, but I also am unsure if he was 'very important' to his field or just popular. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality only, per TRM. Would support if the two filmography sections were referenced. There's a few other fixes that could be made, but from my point of view, that's the only thing keeping this off for quality reasons. --Jayron3213:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I know his work - and most people do (the Batmobile), but his death isn't front page news in the US. He's at the top of his field, but is his field ITN worthy? I admit, I'm on the fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (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.
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 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.
Oppose - What award did she win that made her a notable figure? I can't see a reason why she's such a notable figure in the Sri Lankan film-making industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - read the first news source above, certainly appears to be a noteworthy figure in more than one field (film making as well as philanthropy), won awards in social work, three awards for "film of the year", PM and President at her funeral etc. Article could be developed with more of those details. MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality; at stated, article needs some improvement. She seems to be different than Thompson as he did not get awards/recognition for his fields, nor (I believe) do US government leaders intend to attend his funeral. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some work on the article out of curiosity. Her film-making contribution is problematic as the 12 films she produced were all by her own company, and the awards she received for them were from a company that's part of her family business as well. There's limited obejctive information on her business successes. However, her contribution in philanthropy seems significant and independently verified. I continue to support on the basis of her charity work. MurielMary (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2015 (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.
[Withdrawn] RD: Czesław Kiszczak
WITHDRAWN:
...unless I'm missing potential "support". --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A Polish Prime Minister for just one month in 1989. Also a soldier and a minister of interior (i.e. government structure and national security). George Ho (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on merits and quality. PM for a month does not make a person "very important" to their field. Sources needed for the article as well. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (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.
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: Blurb depends on timing, whether posted as the polls open (Myanmar goes to the polls) or posted when results are released, naming the winning candidate. I think election results are ITN/R?? How are elections usually dealt with (i.e. as polls open, as an ongoing item, or when results released? Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Election results are ITNR, but I don't recall the commencement of any election being posted. The results are what is noteworthy, not the beginning. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is well composed but rather odd in its implication; it seems to imply elections in Burma are unexpected events. Could the issue be better elucidated? μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes blurb could be clearer! "first openly contested elections in 25 years" .... I'm really on the fence, in some places where elections aren't common or frequent then the commencement of voting is a big deal, but sure, can wait and post the results. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (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.
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: not sure if this is meets ITN criteria - of interest, features two strong articles, but probably won't result in substantial changes or updates to either one?? MurielMary (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat oppose. It is a listing by one magazine. A big one indeed, but nevertheless. We usually don't post such stories. --Tone12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a single source in the sense that this ranking is only done by one magazine, but it's also a ranking that's widely followed. Plenty of noteworthy things are single source, such as the Nobel Prizes (decided by only one committee), the FIFA world rankings, and so on. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (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.
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.
Support - Note that technically, it's the US branch of DB that's been fined (since for obvious reasons, the German bank is not affected by US sanctions), so the blurbs that specify "German" are inappropriate. Smurrayinchester09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sanctions scandal of DB lasted for nearly 9 years (1999 - 2006) while BNP lasted for 7 years (2002 - 2009) according to the sources. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The word "US" is used three times in this blurb. Why not balance the blurb out by mentioning India and Pakistan? ITN isn't all about America. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: $250M is a blink of an eye to corporations/banks of this size; we've seen much larger penalties placed on banks before for poor behavior in both international and national incidents. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem actually, a bank fined 250 million dollars is really a drop in the ocean. British banks are paying out 10s of billions of pounds for PPI issues, this, in comparison, is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2015 (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.
Flights between the United Kingdom and the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh are suspended due to concerns of the British government that the crash was caused by an "explosive device". (ITV)
The United States Department of Defense says that last month's airstrikes in Kunduz hit three locations, mistakenly including the Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) (MSF) hospital where at least 30 were killed. Afghan commanders, whose forces were actively engaged with the Taliban, requested the attacks. The Washington Post reports a warehouse and a mansion in two densely populated residential areas were "pulverized" without loss of civilian lives. According to residents, earlier their neighborhoods had been conflict zones, but no militants were there the time of the attacks. "Together, the three attacks raise questions about the quality and reliability of the intelligence that Afghan security forces are providing to their American partners, as well as U.S. decisions to act on that intelligence," writes the Post. (Washington Post)
Médecins Sans Frontières held memorials around the globe Tuesday, the one month anniversary of the bombing, to reaffirm their request for an independent investigation. U.S. officials resist an independent probe, pledging that the three investigations underway, by the Pentagon, NATO, and Afghan officials, will be thorough and transparent. Thomas Nierle, head of MSF Switzerland, told AFP that he had little hope the inquiries would ultimately see any wrongdoers punished. (The Hill)(DW Akademie)(AFP via Yahoo News)
Police have the gunman in custody and San Diego International Airport flights resume. The airport closed after police encountered a man with a gun shooting in a Bankers Hill apartment complex, east of the approach path to the airport. Also known as Lindbergh Field, the airport is frequently cited as one of the scariest because of its downtown location. (AP update)(Reuters)(Airfare Watchdog)
The Mexican Supreme Court, in a 4–1 decision, rules that people have the right to grow and distribute marijuana for their personal use. The decision challenges the country’s current substance abuse laws. Fox News Latino and The New York Times point out the ruling only covers the plaintiffs in one case, a group that wants to form a "Pot Club." A precedent will be established if the court approves five similar petitions. (Fox News Latino)(Reuters)
James Tran of Sacramento County is arrested on suspicion of attempted homicide in the October 8 stabbing of Airman Spencer Stone near a bar in Sacramento California. Stone had helped foil the 2015 Thalys train attack but officials believe it was just a drunken bar fight. (MSN)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - List of her works is not lengthy, but a high percentage are for quality, notable films and television projects. Well deserving of an RD listing. Death at 65 is unexpected and cuts a fine career short. Jusdafax09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, substantive updates were added less than 3 days ago, and then the day before that and then two days before that. This is still a pretty well actively updated article, the current three day lull is not yet so long to say the story has gone stale, from a Wikipedia editing point of view. Maybe if there's nothing after a week (which is the usual maximum time a story spends on ITN before rolling off the bottom, and also the time we usually start removing RD postings if they've been up that long) we can revisit this again. 3 days is long-ish for no new updates, but the article is still getting regularly updated, seeing regular activity over the time frame of the last week, so I'd say it isn't ready to be pulled yet. --Jayron3200:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I continue to see news reports on this. This is also called "crisis" for a reason: it has substantial implications for the countries impacted. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no substantial updates for a number of days. I suspect we'll be making this ongoing again in the future, but let's pull it for now. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A lull in editing does not mean a lull in the event, still a major crisis with massive repercussions across the majority of the European continent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but no updates suggests that the content of the article is not newsworthy going to help someone trying to learn about current events. If someone updates the article substantially, I reckon we would want to keep this as ongoing. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Yes, there's a tag, but it's yellow-level, which can be fixed when the article gets more attention. The overall article is very detailed. --Tone13:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a request to bold both linked items, as they're both the "main" story in this instance. IMO that's a reasonable suggestion. ‑ iridescent22:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The resigned PM article has improved... Rather, the "Resignation" section expanded into just one paragraph. As said, the link is ready to be bolded. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, suggest blurb mention most of the causalities were on the ground which makes it even moreso a big story. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
collapse for space, item restored to ongoing by above nomination
Kogalymavia Flight 9268 is currently featured on the main page as "Ongoing" without consensus. The airplane crash may be tragic, but making the ongoing investigation part of ITN without knowing whether most readers are interested makes ITN look bad compared to mainstream press. Is featuring it well deserved, or shall we remove it? George Ho (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to ongoing per the standing ITN instructions for administrators: "An accepted blurb may be transferred to the Ongoing section if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s)". That's still happening (in fact, rather more than incremental updates are appearing in news agencies e.g. this BBC story from 7 hours ago about flight recorders, so I believe my decision was correct. BencherliteTalk00:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, or at least, rename. The flight is over, the plane is downed, the passengers are dead. The investigation is ongoing, but not the flight. I'll also say that I feel there are items far more worthy of ongoing status, such as the Syrian civil war or the Yemeni civil war. Way more people die in those conflicts than in this flight. I do not see how this flight can be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - The flight downing is a high-profile international incident. It is possibly related to the Russian intervention in the Middle East. The story is in active development. Lastly, I think that many readers would be interested in the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iff it shown that the plane went down due to something hitting it from the area (whether it was ISIS or something else), then that would make for an Ongoing story due to the strength of being an international incident, similar to the plane that was shot down in Ukraine. But right now, the reports all seem to point to a major engine failure. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the news tonight they said that a satellite detected two flashes: one when it exploded, and another when it crashed. No indication of a missile launch. That doesn't rule out a bomb, of course. But it seems likely that it will be a number of days before anything new is officially known. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled from ongoing. As mentioned, there was no discussion to place it within ongoing in the first place (with respect to Bencherlite's initial, good faith decision to place it there) and there's consensus here to remove it already. Leaving discussion open for further comments from other users to determine if restoring it is warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough with removal. But is there a view that items cannot be moved from blurb to ongoing without there being a discussion at ITNC, and if so should we discuss removing that sentence from the administrator instructions? BencherliteTalk10:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the instruction should be amended. Maybe they should state that items should be referred back to ITN/C if it is felt that they should be moved to "ongoing". Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the only thing that might be clear is that the OP was unaware that an admin could move an item that was still considered "live" to ongoing without seeking a consensus. Perhaps George Ho could comment on his original post. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead if no one objects; I don't mind changing the rules. We shall propose whatever looks like ongoing and interesting to readers. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CREEP, WP:BURO, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. etc. The objections above are not "The item is not being updated regularly and there is no coverage in the news." The objections seem to amount to "I didn't get to vote on this" or "This isn't in the rules". No one has yet demonstrated that the move to ongoing was counter to the objectives of ITN or the ongoing section. When Wikipedia becomes more about the process than the results, it isn't working right. This should not have been pulled; Bencherlite's rationale in green above is spot on, and has not been shown to be incorrect by any evidence presented by anyone. Where rules exist, they exist to promote the smooth operation of the organization. If the organization does something correctly without the rules, the rule didn't need to be followed in that case. The rules do not exist just to be followed for their own sake. That doesn't mean we intentionally go against the rules, or ignore them. But Bencherlite's posting of this item on ongoing neither was against the purpose of ITN, nor did it create a problem for the main page readers. --Jayron3218:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all rules doesn't apply; adding it without consensus doesn't improve Wikipedia. The majority already agreed to pull it out of "Ongoing" ticker. As for the event, investigation would, as said, take a long time (days or weeks). Yes, Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy. However, people operate Wikipedia and should stick together in Wikipedia, not throw each other's throats meaninglessly. Enough about Wikipedia generally, the majority also demonstrated that... well, let's rather pull it out and make readers search for the airplane crash page themselves. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what question we're asking here "Should we have a discussion on substantive points, and then decide to pull it if we come to an agreement". Sure. However, that's a different question than "Did Bencherlite do anything wrong in moving it to ongoing, and did it need to be pulled solely because it wasn't discussed". No, we shouldn't. Decide which issue needs addressing, so we can be sure that we're disagreeing on the same points. --Jayron3200:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return it to ongoing: The article has received substantive updates one, two, three, four times in the past 24 hours and has received more than 500 total edits in less than 3 days. The article is certainly still being updated more or less continuously with information which is itself coming just as fast from reliable news sources. This is exactly the sort of story Ongoing is designed for. If everyone wants to have a discussion on this, and feels the need to force a vote on the evidence that this deserves to be in Ongoing, there is your evidence that it belongs. What is the evidence that it doesn't belong? --Jayron3200:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting news but not "ground breaking" news; there appear to be several theories all being advanced at the same time, with some theories that involve malicious intent that would be ground breaking news if proven true. However, it's not yet proven to that yet. Like nearly all other commercial airplane disasters there is a long tail of news as the investigation into causes continues, but that's not the cut we need for ITN (we're not just a news ticker). If the reason for the plane's crash does turn out to be from an external attack, validated by appropriate sources, I can pretty much guarantee that would make for a brand new ITN news item here; if it was just an unfortunate engine failure, not so much. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remain removed - As nominator, I don't like featuring "Ongoing" investigations on this tragic event to our or their advantage similar to mainstream press. We don't want to attract readers immorally; otherwise, we would be no better than a sleazy editor. Of course, that's news for ya! In the meantime, we have already featured this as a blurb, so let's not bother featuring it as just the name again as "Ongoing" until something major comes up. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Ongoing a possible bomb on board, up to 15,000 British tourists to be "evacuated" while security is examined at the airport, this is all over the news, and on top of all of that, we have space at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS claims responsibility for the deaths of two Syrian refugee activists who fled to Sanliurfa, Turkey, raising concerns about the group’s reach in countries outside of Syria and Iraq. Ibrahim Abdel Qader, a founder of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, and Fares Hammadi are said to have been killed by an acquaintance posing as a defector from ISIS. (New York Times)
At least four people are killed and 15 injured in an ISIL attack in the Kurdish section of northern Iraq. (Al-Arabiyah)
Honda, Takata's biggest customer, announces it will not use airbag inflaters made by Takata Corp. for the driver or front passenger side in new Honda and Acura vehicles for any market, worldwide. (USA Today)(NASDAQ)
At least seven people are dead and 35 others are injured as a bus overturns near Tula, Russia. (RT)
At least 30 people are killed and 35 injured after an overcrowded bus carrying passengers inside and on its roof veered off a mountain road in northwest Nepal. (USA Today)
"Ravaged by months of war, Yemen now gets battered by the first tropical storm on record to make landfall." Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm Chapala slams into Yemen's central coast, with maximum sustained winds of around 140 kph (85 mph) -- the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane. The storm floods coastal areas, brings down electricity lines and destroys houses, with severe threat of mudslides. Chapala is expected to pour over two or three years worth of rain, up to 300 millimeters (12 inches), in a single day. (CNN)(Abu Dhabi Media)
Japan has delivered two more ships to Vietnam that will be refurbished into patrol boats. The ships, which arrived in the port city of Da Nang, are the second delivery of a 2014 deal in which Tokyo is to provide Vietnam with six used fishing vessels that will be converted into patrol boats for Vietnam's coast guard in the South China Sea. (Voice of America)
Former five-term Bridgeport mayor Joe Ganim wins election to a sixth term as mayor of Connecticut's largest city, topping the six other candidates in the poll. Ganim is, in American parlance, an "ex-con;" i.e., a convicted felon. In 2003, he was convicted by a federal jury on 16 felony counts for racketeering, bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion in an operation that also led to convictions of 10 of his associates. Ganim served seven years in federal prison; he was released from a Hartford halfway house in 2010. (Hartford Courant)(AP via CBSLocal.com)
Newcomer, businesswoman, and clinical psychologist Karen Weaver tops incumbent Dayne Walling in the non-partisan, Flint, Michigan, Mayor's election. Flint, which is dealing with lead in drinking water, has been under State financial management for close to four full years, and is in the final stage where control will be returned to city officials. (AP)(Detroit News)(MLive Media)
Ballot initiatives, referendums
In Ohio, a ballot initiative that would have established a legal oligopoly for the sale of recreational and medicinal marijuana is resoundingly defeated by voters, according to AP. (Los Angeles Times)
Voters in Denver's suburban Jefferson County recall, by 64 to 36 percent, three conservative school board members who worked to weaken the local teachers union while boosting funding for charter schools and pushing through other market-driven policy changes. In Fall 2014, the conservative-led majority drew national attention when they wanted the APU.S. history course to focus on citizenship and patriotism, while condemning civil disobedience and strike actions. (Washington Post)(AP via Huffington Post)
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: One of England's leading cricketers, Graveney played international cricket between 1951 and 1969 (79 test matches), and scored 122 first-class centuries, putting him 13th on the all-time international list (only 25 on the list – scoring a century of centuries is described here as "one of cricket's great milestones"). One of the 55 inaugural members of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame and also served as MCC President, the first former professional cricketer to do so. The leading cricket journalist Christopher Martin-Jenkinswrote in 1997 that "in [Graveney']s long career [1948 to 1972], I believe truly that there was no more elegant or charming batsman." Meets RD criteria for being "widely regarded as very important in his field". BencherliteTalk17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Support on notability but oppose on article quality. An actual cricketing legend, but an actual article which lacks in pretty much every department. We need to bulk out the article to ensure there are no foul cries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements Per TRM. Our article is woefully weak given what the news reports are saying about his death. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits; seems to meet the criteria as "very important" to cricket(which is wildly popular in many places, including India, the second most populous nation). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (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: Iraqi exile who was highly prominent in the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Was seen as a favourite of the war-supporting faction in the United States. Became an Iraqi government minister after the war (Oil minister twice and Deputy Prime minister) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the other day, RD criteria doesn't say "top" of the field is a criteria. It says "very important", and he was very important as an architect of a war fought on false pretenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (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.
Wikipedia article, opening paragraph, states numerous reasons why the team is notable (winning three World Cups for example). Also the President has given a ceremony honoring their achievement, which I guess means that the White House considers the team notable. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:SNOW and propose speedy closure. The welcoming of sport teams for their accomplishments by the authorities of the country they represent is nothing but a routine act with no significance at all. There are several hundreds international sport competitions every year and at least that much sport teams or athletes are welcomed. If we are going to post each of them, nobody knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2015 (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.
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.
Comment see below, this is unnecessary, there's already plenty of support for a blurb which includes Payne linked, just not as the target (i.e. in bold). Requiring both articles to be up to scratch, as I have already said, will only delay this nomination. I understand you're trying to promote the female aspect here, but it's already been agreed to include it in the blurb, just not in bold. This multiple/parallel nomination will doubtless delay the posting and reduce the exposure the female jockey deserves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I made this new nomination because you recommended it below, quote from your post "We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey". I am trying to follow the rules and suggestions here, which, TBH, aren't always that clear to a newbie! MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's because you're bucking the trend and forcing the pace on female exposure, when ITNR is all about the items we've traditionally posted. We will post the Melbourne Cup as long as it is up to scratch and it will be the bold article. We could (and probably will) also include the jockey in the blurb. But for the link to her to article to be bold, it needs to be of sufficient quality. I guess, in summary, we'll go with posting the MC with a blurb including a non-bolded female jockey, then you and others can work on the jockey bio to make it fit for purpose for the main page, then request it be bolded too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (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.
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Strongly support with alternative blurb 1 Also, re The Rambling Man's comment, it is permitted for ITN items to link to stubs. It may be a way of getting editors to update/expand them. MurielMary (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for the record that this is ITNR, so if it does get expanded it will be posted. At the moment though, I agree with TRM's assessment of the article – a fair bit of work will be required to get it ready for posting. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We mostly concern ourselves with the quality of the target link, that's the bold one. Curiously we seldom pay much attention to the other linked items in the blurb. We need to expand the Melbourne Cup article to a point where it's considered of sufficient quality for the main page, not just a couple of lines of prose and a table of results. P.S. I'd go for alt blurb 1 as well, once the target article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Actually I would think that the target link ought to be Michelle Payne as she is the part of the story that's all over the news today, with her press conference about being a woman in racing etc etc. If her page is the target link (as in Alt Blurb II) then do the other linked items (the horse and the cup) have to be updated further?? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Melbourne Cup is WP:ITNR which means that, by default, it will be the target article. There's no reason we couldn't feature two targets, in which case we would need to ensure the quality of both are up to scratch, not just the ITNR target. Which is good for the encyclopedia, but bad for getting this expediently onto the main page. You pays your money ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you dislike any specific item or category of items that are on the ITNR list, please propose the removal of whatever it is you don't like. Also understand that ITN is not a "ticker" or source of news, but a way to feature articles that have been improved. If you want to see other items posted, please put the time into improving the article of whatever it is you want to see posted. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, it's about the Melbourne Cup which is listed at ITN every year as long as the quality of the article is sufficient. It could be won by a woman, a dog, a horse, an alien, it'd still get listed as long as the article quality was sufficient. If you change the target article, you nullify the votes that go before. Please think twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, the current link in the blurb goes to the page for the 2015 Melbourne Cup, which is a brief article, yes. Can the target instead be the generic page for the Melbourne Cup, which is a much more developed page? If so, this would expedite getting this item onto the main page. The article on Michelle Payne has been substantially updated in the last 24 hours and it seems a shame not to be able to highlight this asap. The Rambling ManMurielMary (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the ITNR target is the Melbourne Cup. If you want the Payne article to be highlighted then ideally both articles need to be fixed up. I'm not voting here, other than to say that when I looked, the 2015 Melbourne Cup article was weak. The Payne article is pretty crap too, but could probably just about get away with being a target article. I think we have a strange scenario here where the ITNR target may be superseded by a subsidiary article. We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey. Right now, votes above relate to the ITNR, not the jockey target. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the abundance of drive-by commentators and dearth of editors here at ITN, the last thing we need is to split !votes. Why not add a paragraph race summary so we can post both? I'd hate to think we'd rather highlight her gender rather than detail her accomplishment. Fuebaey (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not sure what you mean by a paragraph race summary, and also not sure why it's a problem to highlight her gender as her accomplishment has two parts, one the win and second the first female to do so. It shouldn't be a problem to mention a first in a field?? MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For recurring sporting events, an update usually consists of a paragraph or two covering the event itself. For a horse race, this usually involves describing how the race unfolded (who led out of the gate/field, major falls/overtakes, was it a close finish?). I don't have a problem with the blurb, just that it seems like we're itching to get this posted because of her gender instead of adding more information about her win. Melbourne Cup is well-developed but doesn't have a sufficient update about the 2015 race. Adding a race summary in 2015 Melbourne Cup would get this posted more quickly. Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Yes there is an "itch" to get it posted because of her gender. There's been an ongoing discussion about the lack of exposure of women and women's achievements/issues on the main page and this seems like an ideal opportunity to "do something" about this. MurielMary (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, let's keep it to ITNR and go with blurb 2 which most are supporting. We don't need to overplay our hand here, the female aspect should and will get prominence, we don't need to mandate that the article is up to snuff by attempting to make it a second bold link. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ok, so it's weak and needs a proper prose race summary, but it's a significant sporting event to see a woman riding to victory, thus posted and we'll cope with the fallout (well, I will). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to post with Payne as the bold link, as per your comment (and a couple of others) that that was the favoured blurb and also as the 2015 race article has an orange tag, so I've swapped the bolding. If the race article is improved it can be bolded but I agree there's no point in waiting to get something up. BencherliteTalk21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still refute that the bold link should be the jockey, her article is mediocre while the ITNR is the Melbourne Cup, I've adjust accordingly right now, perhaps the next hour or two will provide some levelling off. Either way I'm not coming back to this particular nomination, attempting to appease the equality lobby here seems to have resulted in chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the race article bolded and don't bold the jockey. That it's a female jockey is nice, but the story that is ITN/R is the race. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REWORD POSTED VERSION: "In horse racing, Michelle Payne becomes the first female winner ofwoman jockey to win the Melbourne Cup, riding Prince of Penzance to victory." She is not the first "female" winner, she is the first woman jockey to win - the female horse Makybe Diva won the race three times and the woman trainer Gai Waterhouse won in 2013. Concise is nice, but precision is betterMontanabw(talk)22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here (at the bottom) under May 1, Kentucky Derby. ITN/R was relatively new at the time. Both the Grand National and the Melbourne Cup were added. Fuebaey (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Historic cyclone for Yemen, a country that has never seen a hurricane-force storm make landfall in their mainland. The island of Socotra, situated near Somalia, last saw a hurricane-force system nearly 100 years ago in 1922. Records in the Northern Indian Ocean are questionable at best prior to 1970, but landfalls of this magnitude would have some sort of mention if they occurred. Given such, it's safe to say this is an unprecedented event in the modern history of Yemen. The last hurricane-force storm to make landfall in the Arabian Peninsula as a whole was Cyclone Phet in 2010, just for reference.
First blurb specifies mainland Yemen, which would exclude the island of Socotra, to emphasize the unprecedented landfall. The other two include Socotra, which was hit extremely hard. Given the nation's ongoing civil war there could be some issues with obtaining information, but it seems decent so far. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - The impact on human life is expected but not yet known. While being a meterological oddity - if that's all that happens, that's a great DYK. But if this does a lot of damage, then it will be a good ITN. Give it about 24 hrs. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - It is uncertain if it will make landfall over Yemen as a very severe cyclonic storm or a Category 1 equivalent tropical cyclone, as Chapala is still offshore now. If the intensity is below hurricane-force during landfall, the sentence should be changed to ‘the strongest’. -- Meow03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is indeed the first ever hurricane to travel inland in Yemen (or the Arabian peninsula generally), then I think that is enough. It is genuinely in the news, it is encyclopedic and the first reports of material impact are trickling in. However, it seems most others want a larger material impact and/or loss of life to consider this ITN-worthy. I disagree, but if that's the case then I suggest nominator close and re-nominate when appropriate. Otherwise, this will get buried under other nominations, and edits and new altblurbs will clutter the nom.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb or ongoing - I'm convinced by the IP that, as usual cyclones are, the cyclone is more than just a typical cyclone. This may either end or worsen the civil war, but its arrival is huge. Even when three is a tiny number, this ain't murder, mass shooting, or battle. It could be either mother nature... or a man-made weather-controlling machine, but I shall not foresee. George Ho (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nepali police shoot dead an Indian citizen at a border checkpoint as they attempt to clear protesters whose blockade has crippled Nepal's fuel supplies and badly damaged relations between the neighboring countries. (Reuters)
At least one person is killed after Cyclone Chapala hits Yemen's Socotra island in the Indian Ocean with flooding reported in Hadibu, the provincial capital. The severe cyclone is expected to cause considerable damage when it makes landfall on Yemeni mainland. (BBC)
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: Polish art historian and philanthropist. Judging from the article's mostly unreferenced text, he would appear to easily meet ITN:RD#2. Poor referencing is an issue, and the best sources will be in a language I don't understand. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!04:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the language speaks to something you'd find on a CV or similar, however, I'm not getting hits on obvious phrasing. Regardless this needs major sourcing (the polish WP article is in as bad shape so difficult to pull from there). --MASEM (t) 04:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A well-intentioned nomination, no doubt, but ITN isn't the place for us to stroke our own ego. We already have this covered via a site-wide notice and a commemorative banner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:13, 3 November 2015 (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: A significant milestone for one of the most commonly visited websites in the world by Alexa ranking (#7 at time of posting). Banedon (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose completely unnecessary self-promotion of dubious newsworthiness (as the less-than-stellar sources show). Anyone reading WP's main page at present has the statistic shoved down their throat anyway, so an ITN entry would add nothing. BencherliteTalk01:11, 3 November 2015 (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: Summary is now fully referenced. Article is in fine shape. This is breaking news. Let's post it earlier rather than later, for once. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull posting and delete article. All mention of this series' result should be obliterated from Wikipedia, if not the entire Internet. (If you're unsure why, please note my username.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (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 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.
Oppose Three tiny sentences. 322 B. Some recent election noms haven't been updated sufficiently to post, so ping me if this one turns out differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when update - If this was a good article it should of course be posted. As it stands however, it's barely a stub. Fgf10 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (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.
Islamic State fighters seize control of Mahin, a town in Syria's central Homs province, following clashes with government forces which left about 50 dead. Fighting was also reported to be taking place on the outskirts of Sadad, a nearby town mostly populated by Christians. (Reuters)
One Palestinian is killed and three Israeli soldiers injured in two attacks in the West Bank. According to the Israeli army, the Palestinian was shot dead after attempting to stab soldiers at a military checkpoint near the Beit Einun village in Hebron. In a second incident in the same area, a driver rammed and injured three Israeli paramilitary border policemen with his car before fleeing the scene. None of the three were injured seriously. (The Daily Star)(Al Jazeera)
Since the beginning of October, nine Israeli citizens, 67 Palestinian and an Arab Israeli have been killed in this wave of violence. (AFP via Yahoo News)
The fate of slain Palestinians is fueling a new feud with Israeli authorities. The Israeli defense minister says Israel is refusing to return the bodies of Palestinian terrorists killed during this month-old surge of violence unless the Palestinian side agrees to keep their funerals "modest." (Reuters)
An Israel Defense Forces inquiry concludes the death of a Palestinian woman at a checkpoint in Hebron last month was unnecessary, finding the teenager could have been detained and not killed. (Haaretz)
Disasters and accidents
The United States Navy sends a remotely operated underwater craft to investigate a wreck which they believe is the remains of the SS El Faro which disappeared on October 1 near the Bahamas during Hurricane Joaquin with 33 people on board. (CNN)
Teachers, writers and students lead a protest rally in Dhaka against the recent killings and attacks on secular authors and publishers in Bangladesh. (AFP via Straits Times)
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: Well-known actor who also had a career in politics, culminating with an unsuccessful run for the U.S. presidency in 2008. Kudzu1 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm having difficulty seeing how he meets the criteria. Being well known does not equate with importance in a field, such as acting. Running for President isn't 'very important' on its own, and as a Senator he didn't really do anything remarkable(AFAIK). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: United States Senator, presidential candidate alone are pretty significant. To combine this with being a film/TV actor is not real common, the last person to pull that off was Ronald Reagan, and Reagan didn't try to do both at once the way Thompson did. (Well, there's also Al Franken, but sort of proves my point) All reports were that he was also a fairly decent human being, imperfect, as are we all, but deserving of main page recognition. Montanabw(talk)00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of this nom. Beyond R.I.P., of course. They drafted him into the 2012 presidential race, so it's surprising he didn't survive the next presidential term (oops it was 2008). He's dabbled in different fields, which makes him more important than if he was only in one, but I don't know if we should post it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I keep thinking "jack of all trades, master of none". He's unique compared to your typical actor and your typical politician, but does that meet muster? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. I see a handful of a couple handful of unsourced paragraphs but it is far from a problem for ITN (95% is ready to go). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable as both a politician and actor. Maybe we need to ask the US Congress to create more fanciful titles to make more people support RD noms here. CalidumT|C01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a HUGE fan of L&O Prime, I am sorry to hear that Thompson has passed, but he doesn't reach the RD criteria in either of his career fields. Those who support because he was a US Senator, remember there are A LOT of those they can't all be significant enough to post; ditto regarding his presidential bid. As an actor his career doesn't reach the RD criteria either. When the two careers are combined, that doesn't raise either to the RD, but would make a great DYK entry. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose fail to see how hes top of his career in anything, be it screen or politics. "notable" as bo th is inadequate because by virtue of having a WP page theyre notable...we cant list every seneator or failed candidate. (nowhere near winning either).Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say he has to be "top of his career in anything". DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Thanks for helping me make up my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu:If youre minds made up, how was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"...considering theres no shortage of senators who LED committees or "actors" who won some recognition?Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support He was regarded as important enough to draft into the 2008 Presidential race by conservatives to run against Obama. He fizzled, but he's the guy they turned to. Important enough in both politics and acting to merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable in multiple fields, death received very wide coverage. RD was made for precisely this. "He didn't get elected president" seems like a dubious reason not to post this. - OldManNeptune⚓13:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A key figure in the Watergate investigation, a former presidential candidate and a highly popular actor. Way more well-known than Schabowski who is currently posted to RD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable as lawyer in Watergate and other cases, well-known actor, senator who replaced Al Gore, as well as 2008 presidential candidate; long-standing preference to post people notable in several fields; article is in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The test is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". He does not appear to have a significant reputation or to have received significant recognition for his career as an actor, according to the standards that ITNC has traditionally required of actors. His role in Watergate is too small a field to count for much (and, important though Watergate was, not everyone involved in some way can qualify for RD thereby). Which leaves his political career, which is said in effect to be more than the average senator's (and the average senator would not get onto RD) based on a fairly damp squib run for president. And yet... he was one of the top dozen UK and international stories on my BBC news app this morning, which makes me wonder whether I'm under-appreciating his importance. Hmmm... BencherliteTalk19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to pester, Bencherlite I would suggest you consider the fact that Thompson's legal career, senate career, presidential run, and acting career (many major movies over three decades, as well as his role on Law & Order, which I did not watch,) would each alone have merited him an article--indeed his article is over 72k long, averages over 400 hits a day long-term, and has 123 references as of last count. I would probably be a weak oppose or not vote based on either just his political or just his acting career. But the two of them together and the obvious interest and coverage make this a rather clear "support" for me. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question- are we creating a new criteria here, perhaps 'important in multiple fields'? I don't necessarily object to that, but if we are, we should write it down when we are done, because I don't think(and even some supporters concede) he meets the criteria for each individual field he worked in. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, someone above notes "jack of all trades" (which in this case was two), "master of none". I see nothing remarkable about his career as a politician and I see no indication of any awards or that he was anywhere close to top of the field of acting. Just because he did a couple of reasonably interesting things, it's hardly RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given how subjective (by necessity) the guidelines already are, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts doesn't seem especially radical to me. And frankly, in both politics and acting he makes a not implausible case for sufficient notability; he was, after all, successful enough as a senator that his name is known nationwide (as others have mentioned, there are many senators - not all have household recognition) and was a presidential nominee, and his acting resume includes heavy hitters like Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder, Cape Fear, and Law and Order. If you think he'd make the cut if his accomplishments were assessed as a whole but not individually, then I respectfully submit that the rules should be ignored in favor of good sense, as is our tradition. - OldManNeptune⚓22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he makes the cut individually or combined. He's a popular actor and used to be a politician (would Glenda Jackson be RD material? I don't imagine so for a second because she wasn't in a bunch of endless American television series) but nothing more. No awards, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I've already said my oppose is weak; your further comments don't address the existing RD criteria (though, to be fair, you're not the only one) or make me change my mind. BencherliteTalk21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Looking at the section on Watergate, I see a lot of quotes included, but they add very little meaning to his role as part of the Watergate investigations. He wrote the book about his role, but that's all there is to it. However, he helped a woman win her wrongful termination case and bring some governor down, but the impact of it is too limited. Throughout his acting career, significant or not, his roles are supporting types. He had been never a leading man in entertainment. Being a Senator out of one hundred US Senators is one thing, but he did not lead most of very significant and important events. Usually, he was just a voter or a member of anything. He withdrew the presidential race before the primaries. With one exception, as said before, he was a member or part of a committee. The article emphasizes his role a lot, but information that I read wouldn't make him significant enough to be honorably mentioned. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept that it is legitimate to consider together his achievements in different fields, but even so I don't see how he qualifies. He wasn't a particularly influential senator or a particularly acclaimed actor. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is still ready, with 4 to 3 support in favor (ignoring votes that mention his being American) after 36 hour's vetting. Thompson was important enough in the senate that he was chosen to give the Republican rebuttal to President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address. His article has had over 172,000 hits since his death. In Paris he is being covered as the famed actor who happened to be a US senator, in Berlin he's the presidential candidate who was also a movie star (no insult, but a better one than Reagan) and once again we have opponents who argue that the "American bias is super-strong, it has be combatted fiercely to maintain this as English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps it would serve you and your countrymen better to create an American Wikipedia" removing the ready tag. I somehow doubt that posting the "unwitting" subject of mockery and admitted murderer Günter Schabowski whose 12-source article got 12,000 hits after posting in his stead is the way to show off Wikipedia to its best light. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you're counting, but it's 11-10 against, no consensus. Please take your misplaced persecution complex somewhere else. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - As other Supports have noted, Thompson was notable for multiple achievements. Opposers fail to convince me; I contend he is a fine RD candidate. I call for posting the blurb to RD. NOTE: My post was an edit conflict. The close was way too early.Jusdafax09:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should have been left closed, as it seems unlikely to gain a clear consensus, and further discussion does not seem like it will change any minds. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I didn't say Tone marked it as 'stale'. In fact, I'm not marking it as stale... yet. It is an RD nomination; I'll mark it as "stale" if there's no room for this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just check the article views - over 150K in a single day, which utterly dwarfs all the current RD entries put together. People are reading this article in great numbers because the subject is in the news. Nobody cares what the self-appointed gatekeepers here think. Andrew D. (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: If we went by article views, we would post Kim Kardashian just about every day. I am a "gatekeeper" of nothing; things are posted based on consensus. If you dislike the consensus, please continue to participate(preferably without attacking those who put in time here) 331dot (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Kardashian isn't dead, is she? And there isn't a consensus here, is there? In the meantime, what's actually happening is that the readership is reading the article in question whether you like or not. ITN should reflect what's actually happening rather than what people would like to happen. To try to impose your personal preferences is contrary to corepolicy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here evaluates RD (and all) nominations based on their personal preferences as to how they feel each one meets the deaths criteria. I don't see how people can do otherwise. Here, some people feel that he does not meet the criteria, and some people feel he does, both for varying reasons. No one is trying to censor anything; this is an evaluation. As I indicated, if you don't like what is chosen, please keep participating. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, and as an ITN/C regular, I'm not surprised it hasn't been posted and I have a very good idea as to why it hasn't been despite clearly meeting the relevant criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because a mediocre actor/politician doesn't reach ITN/RD standards one would hope. Alternatively there's some kind of subversive plot against mediocre RD nominations, or worse, something that reminds us that we shouldn't just be posting average US politician/actors? Hmm, I wonder. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as an American who doesn't think this merits posting. He was an average actor and and average Senator; nowhere near "very important" to even his fields individually or combined(which isn't a criteria anyway). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Not going to insult stubs by calling it one, but as of this timestamp there's one sentence and a list of winners. Fuebaey (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's an insult to stubs. What's that template that was created to be put on top of pages like this that are ITN candidates? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. With only one sentence and a list of winners (as of writing), the article is definitely not ready for front page inclusion. I'd support pending article improvements, but as of now, no. Prhdbt[talk]01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible supportThe recently added race summary seems to meet bare minimums of expected prose, and I'd not like to encourage us to stop there as "good enough". This support is so weak, I'd consider it an a mistake to assume it over ruled any opposes based on article quality. Surely, we can do better. --Jayron3203:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree the overall quality of the article isn't great, not being an American marathon follower and all, but the update is pretty much your standard ITN fare. I can see two options: I could import the background from New York City Marathon and we post (mind you, we put this up in 2013), or I could merge this into the main article and we can post that (like in 2011). Fuebaey (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2015 (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.
I can see that "Results" section highly improved, but it still needs one more source. I'm unsure about one paragraph at the top of the "Background" section. It is uncited, but I don't think it affects the nomination, does it? --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the full results to be imported into the results table will take around 11-12 days (the electoral council allows a 10-day period for parties to contest results),[2] so I advise we post this without waiting for these results to come through. Nub Cake (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (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: Probably not really ITN worthy, especially considering that the article could use some more references. But I wanted to nominate it since he - unwittingly - gave our nation one of the happiest days in its history. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when fully referenced. Certainly meets the significant impact on a country criterion - his "simple cockup" effectively ended the existence of East Germany and you don't get much more significant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A briefly pivotal figure in Cold War history. Famous for saying on his own that the Wall would open "sofort, unverzüglich" ("immediately, without delay") – touching off a stampede of East Berliners to the Wall. East Germany was finished. Sca (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RD-worthy, but not a blurb. The Fall of the Wall was such a political earthquake that his significance was wider than domestic. (I still remember Tom Brokaw announcing it on Nov. 9, 1989.) Sca (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Important figure in modern European history, even if by accident. Also an interesting character during the 1990s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
