*'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#002244; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#002244; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' anything against Israel will be rejected by the US etc, and even if it isn't, Israel pay no heed to UN mandates. Disappointingly, this is a non-starter. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' anything against Israel will be rejected by the US etc, and even if it isn't, Israel pay no heed to UN mandates. Disappointingly, this is a non-starter. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' any support for rights-respecting classically liberal countries instead of fascist/leftist resolutions is so rare nowadays as to be worth noting as encyclopedic and simply amazing. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Comment - In a time of year that's intended for leisure and festivities, this seems like an awfully grim story to post onto en.wiki's front page. Perhaps some discretion should be used?--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's grim. But it's news. Are we now looking to censor the front page to avoid upsetting people at Christmas? How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any support for the article & blurb to be renamed to stampede (as used in the NY Times article I just linked)? 'Crush' used in this context is unique to British English, while 'stampede' is more well-understood. (honestly, as an american, I didn't even know exactly what 'crush' meant at first). Mamyles (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's not really that important what it's called, the issue at hand is whether the item itself is significant enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the updated content is a criteria for posting. While I think this event is significant enough to post, the article still needs a lot of work before I would give my support. Mamyles (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any doubt that we won't post a stub to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete nonsense, as evidenced by dozens of RS, but if it makes you personally feel happier to see "stampede" rather than "crush" then all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a stampede, not a "crush". I cringed when I saw "Shanghai crush", and it isn't used most of the time. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the people weren't killed by "stampeding", they were killed by being "crushed". That's what many RS have said. In any case, it matters not a jot. The article has been moved so let's focus on deciding whether it should go onto ITN or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Fox News is the answer to all things. Listen, get over it (e.g. this report uses "crush" eight times). As I said before, time to work out if it's worth posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sadness of a story is no reason to overlook it, even during the festive season. The Boxing Day tsunami was extremely sad, but I don't think we would have served our readers well by declining to feature it for the that reason. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, getting back to the suitability for ITN this has, this is a very sad incident with many deaths, probably to be reported on much more. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once it becomes official. -- Calidum 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, that's at 10 pm UTC. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A country changing its currency seems notable to me, but I wonder if we have posted any other steps in the process(such as them being approved to do so) or other countries doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find out the answer to this if you can be bothered to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that this seems notable, and it is also receiving significant coverage around the world. I think that given both of these criteria, whether or not we posted other countries entering the eurozone is of little relevance. Mamyles (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support article isn't brilliant but sufficient enough to carry an ITN story. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Happy New Year to them too (oppose). As far as I know, we don't post knightings, just like many other recognitions. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are dozens of these, on two occasions each year. Far too commonplace, I'm afraid. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certain oppose dozens, if not hundreds are honoured every year. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Plenty of countries award similar honors; we don't post them. -- Calidum 19:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above comments. Thank you for the nomination though - we often don't get enough here. Mamyles (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Voice actress who voiced Babe, Chuckie Finster in Rugrats, and Dexter in Dexter's Laboratory among numerous other roles. Andise1 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While as an animation fan, she will be missed, I don't think she meets RD here; if it was someone like June Foray, that might be different. (Also note, she passed away on Dec 22, the news is only just being picked up on). --MASEM (t) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no evidence this individual meets the criteria for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian draft resolution fails in U.N. council
Articles:United Nations Security Council (talk·history·tag) and United Nations resolution (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The United Nations Security Council rejects a Palestinian resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories by late 2017. (Post) Alternative blurb: Australia and the United States vote against a Palestinian resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories by late 2017 in the UN Security Council. News source(s):[2], [3], [4] Credits:
Nominator's comments: UN votes down statehood for Palestine. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was a Jordanian resolution, not a Palestinian one. And I think we should talk in terms of it "failing" rather than being "rejected" or "voted against" - these expression may not be technically wrong, but they are a bit misleading given that more members voted in favour than against. Since no-one at all expected this to pass, I'm not sure it's really significant enough, in itself, for ITN (although I'm not quite unsure enough to vote oppose). Formerip (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is approximately the 42nd time in roughly forty years that the US has vetoed a resolution dealing with the Palestinians. There is no surprise here, including the fact that US told everyone that they were going to veto this one as well. If the US had actually agreed to pass something, then that might have been news, but the failure to pass anything just perpetuates the status quo and I don't really see how the failure to change is at the level of significance required for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An unsurprising result of pure political theater, as the US was certain to veto it. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dragons flight. -- Calidum 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anything against Israel will be rejected by the US etc, and even if it isn't, Israel pay no heed to UN mandates. Disappointingly, this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support any support for rights-respecting classically liberal countries instead of fascist/leftist resolutions is so rare nowadays as to be worth noting as encyclopedic and simply amazing. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support notable actress, article in decent shape. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have actually nominated her myself - definitely notable, article is in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD and article is in fine shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable enough for RD. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - deserves a blurb for being the first person to win back-to-back Academy Awards...--Stemoc 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typically blurbs are only posted for deaths where the death itself is an event, usually (but not always) a surprising death, or when the person was essentially at the tip-top of their field. I don't think either applies in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cameroon launches its first airstrikes against Boko Haram in a successful operation to reclaim several villages and a military base briefly seized by the militant group in the Far North Region. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
The MS Norman Atlantic ferry fire death toll rises to at least ten as the evacuation ends. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: An escalation of Boko Haram incursions into Cameroon, threatening to further destabilize the region. --Catlemur (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - escalation of Boko haram terrorism.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in light of the death toll and potential for destabilisation. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a quick read it appears that this is an ongoing issue, should this really be an "ongoing" nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were pushed out of Cameroon.The issue is ongoing only in Nigeria, with occasional small scale raids into Cameroon (this one is probably the biggest so far).--Catlemur (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant death toll and implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is an clear escalation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Strike Eagle. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've un-marked this as ready for the time being. I think more discussion is needed. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more support since you unmarked it. Just to re-mark ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and I've linked the December 2014 Cameroon clashes article as bolded "83 people are killed" to properly feature the "Updated article" nominated. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update:An estimated 1,000 militants took part in the clashes.--Catlemur (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — a very significant development that warrants being on the main page. Kurtis(talk) 05:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The militant organisation Boko Haram attacks a village in Northern Cameroon, leaving an estimated 30 dead. (News24)Archived 2019-04-07 at the Wayback Machine
Traveling through thunderstorms over the Java Sea, Flight 8501 loses contact with air traffic control after the plane departed from the Indonesian city of Surabaya en route to Singapore with 162 people on board. (BBC)
The Italian-owned MS Norman Atlantic catches fire on a ferry run from Greece to Italy 44 nautical miles northwest of Corfu, with 222 vehicles, 411 passengers and 5 crew on board. Greek and Italian officials report at least one person is dead. (The Independent),(BBC)
Nominator's comments: 48 new metro stations opened on a single day is extremely rare anywhere in the world. We normally do not cover infrastructure articles, particularly positive ones that do not have to do with disasters, so this would be a welcome change to ITN. We posted a similar story about the Beijing Subway in December 2009 (or was it 2010) so there is precedent. --Colipon+(Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we posted the BS story some time ago. "Large expansion" doesn't warrant an ITN blurb. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Existing public infrastructure is quite often expanded; even more so with this subway which has been constantly expanded for the last 10-12 years and will be for many more. I'm not seeing a great deal of news coverage of this which might persuade me to weak support it. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 48 metro stations in a day. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when mentioned properly in the blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Nergaal and 311dot's reasoning - infrastructure expansion is a routine event. We have posted about train lines opening before, but we focused on their groundbreaking high-speed train technolog,y which is not the case here. Mamyles (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love trains, but this is just not notable enough for ITN. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hasn't generated enough coverage to be on ITN. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Historical event, just one orange-tagged section needs fixing. Brandmeistertalk 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements per Brandmeister. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Big story, truly in the news, and international importance. Article needs that fix up and tag pull. Jusdafax 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the end of a war is truly of international significance. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The war hasn't ended yet. It says that ISAF ended its war cooperation in Afghanistan. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"President Obama Marks Formal End of War in Afghanistan" [5]; it's being phrased that way. The Korean War is considered over even though the US still has troops there. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who takes his word seriously? George Ho (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you or anyone take him seriously is irrelevant; it is what it is. Most RS are phrasing this as the war being over. The troops remaining are not there to conduct a war. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 1, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld declares the end of "major combat operations" in Afghanistan. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about combat operations- in fact, most troops are actually gone now. Again, whether you believe those saying this is over or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a big event with immense strategic implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the longest war coalitions in modern history officially drawing to a close. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. This is modern history.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jenda H., are you nominating one or both articles? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ISAF article is more accurate. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb two. Notable, very notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no treaty, armistice or other relevant development, just an announcement. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb doesn't imply any truce or ceasefire, it's just that ISAF has been a combatant in this war for 13 years and is now withdrawing. Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't complaining about the blurb, but about the non-story. The Taliban is strong and resurgent, with the recent attack on the Pakistani school, Posting this would be like posting a superbowl headline, in overtime, loosing team takes ball and goes home. Of course that would probably be more newsworthy than an "end" of operations in Afghanistan. There's also the fact that other than here I haven't even seen the headline. Then look at our end of operations in Iraq. This is a policy announcement, not an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Truly an international story. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a few dead links could be fixed up, but clear consensus to post and an impressive article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more information. Hard to judge its worthiness without some details. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bobtalk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bobtalk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official death toll has now risen to 10, but still some discrepancy between passenger manifest and survivor count. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - With thanks to the nominator, but this does not appear to be developing into a major disaster worthy of coverage with a blurb here. Jusdafax 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be a "major disaster"? Surely the successful rescue of around 480 people is just as newsworthy? Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a more just world, it would be. Sadly the reality is that this is out of the headlines pretty much already, whereas if it had sunk with mass loss of life it would dominate the news for weeks as did the Costa Concordia, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting, but not ITN-worthy, as usual it's a good candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it's good many people were rescued, that also means it dropped out of the news. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The last major ferry disaster, the one in Korea, appeared benign in the first few hours but soon turned very deadly as they could not mount an effective rescue effort. Here, while the numbers of affected people are about the same, the rescue efforts are much more organized/larger in scale, and so far out from the initial event, only one affirmed death, and it doesn't seem likely that the death toll will go much higher. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At least in the UK, this was quite heavily featured in the news, and rescuing 480 people from a burning ship in very bad weather seems quite an achievement. Not sure why only events causing x amount of deaths would only be considered of interest to Wikipedia readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bobtalk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might have been a major fire, but at the end of the day, one person died after jumping off, while others are said to be safe. Unless the rescue efforts had some daredevil stunts, I'd say this is as non-newsworthy as last weeks Sydney incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that almost all the passengers have been rescued makes it rather trivial. And as Rsrikanth05 points out, can be posted if the rescuers perform some Rajini style stunts.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas|(talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING seems to be more relevant to the existence of the article, which isn't what is being discussed here. People can also have good faith differences about what constitutes "encyclopedic impact"; obviously the nominator feels it does. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't have an article on a news story per NOTNEWS, LASTING, whatever, ITN should not be including that stor just because it is otherwise in the news. (Please note: I'm not saying this necessarily applies to the article here in this case - as most major mass transit/transportation accidents with death tolls get articles on WP). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a crystal ball to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and unless the manner of sinking is significant, or the people onboard are significant, or the ship itself is significant, the sinking is not significant. None of those apply here. Fire breaks out on run-of-the-mill ferry in rough seas. Again, what else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I oppose posting it to ITN, but I think the article has merit. As I said, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you feel it does not merit an article. As Mjroots said it is far too early to know if LASTING applies here. Neither one of us knows. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are talking about deletion. I never used the word "deletion". I merely took advantage of one of the event criteria, as a way of demonstrating my reasons for opposing posting it to ITN. It isn't too early at all. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about deletion because WP:LASTING or any other notability issues are issues to be dealt with in a deletion discussion discussing the existence of the article. If a deletion discussion is open, that is certainly an issue here. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one even suggested an AfD nomination, so I don't understand why this is being discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am saying you should suggest one as the proper venue for your views. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want the page deleted, so how is that my "view"? I merely don't want it posted to ITN. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cited notability issues like WP:LASTING with this subject and said it had no "encyclopedic impact", which I presume means that you don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. If that is wrong, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't exactly call this minor, but I understand the hesitation. It's not as significant as an airplane crash (which we normally post), but it's more significant than a bus crash (which we usually don't). Death toll in the (low) double-digits, plus a sizable and mostly successful rescue operation. I say post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I say post. Per the sizable rescue efforts, media attention and still a few deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been very much in the news, and it's a sizable rescue operation. We've btw posted a similar story (burning ship in that area) a few years ago, though that rescue operation had greater success. Narayanese (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm boldly marking this as ready. I think that there is enough support to override the objectors (reasons, not quantity). The article itself is in a good shape. Needs an independent review and a decision. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. This should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Although it's been a dramatic story, I have to agree with those who oppose this as lacking sufficient significance on the global scale of events. (Anyhow, it's all over but the shouting.) Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think the death of two salvage workers, after all the surviving passengers had been rescued, increases the notability of this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it seems like they carried a high number of illegal immigrants that are still uncounted for. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I agree that the support overcomes the opposition by strength of argument even if not numerical superiority. I note that several of the opposes were made while the story was still breaking, and that the story has—possibly against expectations—continued to develop since then, which appears to be the reason that the majority of the more recent comments are in support of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull obviously no consensus, and 10 deaths in a ferry accident is rather small, considering their frequency and number of passengers. Very similar to the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment which was rightfully not posted. There's no indication of any log term effects beyond the deaths, like a criminal prosecution or bankruptcy. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I did post support of this above, I agree with Medeis that (in the future) it is preferable to wait for stronger consensus, even if that means a blurb does not get posted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a full two days of discussion, story development, and article development. I marked the story as "ready" to give indicate that it eas time for a decision to be made. Consensus is not merely a !vote count. The strength of the arguments for and against posting should be taken in to account. The first comment was "Wait", I had no problem with that. Waiting was the correct thing to do in this case. We waited, the situation became clearer, the article made it to the MP. Had HJ Mitchell said the the article was not to be posted, then I would have accepted his decision without whining about it. Editors must realise that there are some you win, some you lose; and move on whichever way the result goes. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support, this seems like an event notable enough for ITN. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support, reported all round the world and certainly notable enough for ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Major story that has garnered international interest. There is no minimum death threshold for ITN postings. -- Calidum 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support after expansion, surprised I haven't heard about this yet here in the US. Very likely to be a big story, but wait for a bit of expansion before posting. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion. We don't need to rush to post this, but once we get enough information I think this merits posting. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the article is better updated/expanded. Note I also proposed the altblurb, which states how many are aboard the plane. Also, the blurb proposed here says the destination was Malaysia, but the article and sources say Singapore. -- Calidum 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, as I accidentally wrote the wrong nation in the hook, and was unsure of whether passengers should be added. Thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that's the origin airport (in Indonesia), not the destination airport. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're waiting for the plane to be found, and the article looks ready to me. Anyone agree/disagree? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It has gone missing. My concern earlier was the length of the article. It was only 1000 odd characters, but now it looks ready to hit the main page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this will be re-blurbed and bumped to the top when the plane is found. Hopefully this won't turn out to be another Flight 370 scenario. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Debris and a body have been sighted [6]; once confirmed as being from the plane this will need to be updated. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesia's search and rescue agency head has said they are 95% sure the debris is from the plane. [7]331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this should be posted. It is an ongoing event.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the substantial impact, I would support posting this in the ongoing events section. Mamyles (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the ongoing section. Significant evacuations and coverage. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the ongoing section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we normally link to articles written almost entirely in broken English? I've done my best to tidy this one, but some of it was barely decipherable. —David Levy 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements, David Levy. I've added your name to the updater list above. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I apologize for not noticing those issues. I did see that the article was well referenced, and I was a little blinded by that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, and especially to David Levy for making copy-edit to the article. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 00:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article reasonably filled out. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not a field I'm familiar with nor a culture, but the article is reasonably complete and the external links helpful. One major failing as of this posting: no death section or information of any kind. Jusdafax 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading the article he seems to meet DC2, but as Jusdafax says some information on the passing would help(if possible). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are no reports on the reason of death, I checked several sources. I don't think more information will appear. --Tone 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with what is there now, especially if it seems unlikely more information will come out. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but simply because the person in question isn't really "in the news", perhaps telling that we have no sources in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[9] This is from the Slovakian equivalent of the US's NPR. Not getting any English hits but should not be a show stopper as long as we can write it in English. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, if that's the best we can do for RS, then forget this nomination altogether. That link has about a hundred adverts and a few words on the subject matter. Poor work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the international media have picked up the news now. Huffington post, among others. Some sources added above, both in Slovene and English. Ready? --Tone 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clearlt notable enough for RD mention. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the criteria for inclusion in RD. This is ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We didn't post the original crisis that this is the resolution to. As I understand it the head of government and most of the participating parties will remain the same. So I don't see this really going anywhere. However, if it is posted, the grammar of the blurb should be fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I thank the nominator for this suggestion but even if the blurb was acceptable, this falls short of an ITN-worthy news event in my view. Jusdafax 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Something not happening (the snap election) due to standard political negotiating doesn't seem to meet the bar for me. 331dot (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this similar to the debt ceiling issue a few months back which ITN had refused to post? –HTD 13:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokesman Alexander Lukashevich says that "the mere idea of the film is aggressively scandalous and that the reaction of the North Korean side is very understandable." (TASS)
A report says that even before the American Christmas Eve release of The Interview, thousands of Chinese citizens were downloading pirated versions of the movie on domestic video-sharing websites. By midday on December 26, more than 300,000 people had seen the film. (The New York Times)
The Interview grosses US$1 million on Christmas Day at the box office despite being released only to small theaters. (CNN)
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 on the merits, though the article could use more detail. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no major problems with article. Notable enough person for RD. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - took a look at this article when I heard of his death and there wasn't a reference in sight. Much improved now. Notability clear. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable enough for RD. definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: More than 80 people selectively killed makes it a very significant event. Widely reported in India and internationally as well. Please note that the blurb can be modified if it seems badly written. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely significant event, with an unfortunate number of casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable, The massacre got significant coverage. Both blurbs OK. Faizan 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as government of India intensified counterattack and large number of casualties. And please link the article in blurb, there is no link to December 2014 Assam violence article. -Nizil (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This meets the threshold for a newsworthy event. I'm leaning more toward the second blurb, but either is fine. I agree with Nizil Shah that the December 2014 Assam violence article should be linked. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is linked. Millitant attack in 1, and are killed by Bodo millitants in 2. --17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rsrikanth05 I've linked the article after they raised it! :) Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable ongoing attack with many casualties. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is a widely-reported event. But agree with Strike Eagle that the blurb needs fixing. In particular, can we replace 'native tribals' with the name of the actual tribe affected, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Newsworthy event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted main blurb as the second is factually inaccurate (not all dead are tribal people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabab militants attack AMISOM's headquarters in Mogadishu, leaving three peacekeeping soldiers and a civilian contractor dead. Five of the attackers are also killed. (Al Jazeera)
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.
Opposefor now, article with unreferenced personal life section going to RD? I don't think so. per TRM. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply as he doesn't appear to be top of his field. The BBC had to tell us that he was in a Harry Potter movie, just to make sure we knew who he was. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's a TV actor from the BBC - no accolades, no awards, and an orange maintenance tag up top. Nope. Challenger l (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
"Support major dissident, reformer and politician, but article needs more reference work. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I believe that he is of great significance in Russia. However, after reading both his article and the cited news source, I am not confident that he has significant recognition abroad. Nonetheless, his achievements/contributions are interesting and could be interpreted as being on-par with other recent names in the RD space. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: Just FYI, though often helpful, there doesn't have to be recognition from abroad as long as the person meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to criticize you, but just to make it clear, the guidelines above address this: "please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post..." Your statement was obviously in good faith, and you were not complaining, but the spirit of the guideline is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Fair point, thank you. I will keep that in mind when considering future RD nominations. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the limited number of submissions for RD given the liberal criteria.) Mamyles (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon article work per Medeis. Seems important to Russia. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1. He may be of importance in Russia, but I doubt he has any elsewhere. 2. His death was not a surprise (the article states that he suffered from an illness for a while before his death at 80 years old). 3. The article is not in a very good state, it doesn't have enough inline citations for verifying things like his early life and his wife and children. All of this combined tells me he shouldn't have a place at RD. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaryllisGardener: Please read my and Medeis' posts above; the fact that this relates only to Russia is immaterial to the nomination. Also, RD is for deaths that are not surprises. 331dot (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I read your discussion, and I said he "may" be of importance in Russia, I'm not sure of that, even. The not-surprising death is not a big thing, it just adds to my list. The most important one is number three. The article needs a bit of expanding also, IMO. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The not surprising death is why we have RD. Surprising deaths get full blurbs. Yakunin, a well known cleric, dissident, and reform politician certainly meets the prima facie requirements for an RD listing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're right. But like I just said above, not the biggest concern of mine. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - after improved article work by Medeis. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. Per Medeis or by Medeis? JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин, among others, are fluent in proper Russian, I am not, and it is close to bedtime for me. I can look at English sources tomorrow if I am not busy in the real world. My Christmas guests are arriving Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article sourcing is very weak (roughly 80% unsourced). I would need to see a lot better sourcing than that to consider supporting or posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me emphasize that (1) I am at my parents' in the New Jersey Pine Barrens for the week, and the DSL has been off 80% of the time, and (2) I am babysitting three children under 10 years of age, so I am quite busy, too busy to get to this article myself before it will be stale. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is inadequately sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see next to no sources for the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua reports that on December 21 Chinese police in Guangxi shot dead one person and detained 21 others. China considers the group to be "religious extremists" who were trying to cross the border into Vietnam. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: The recipients would be conferred the award in-person in a customary Presidential ceremony in January/February next year. They have been awarded officially by the President of India. [1]Regards, theTigerKing 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reason- Rarely awarded + Prominent people (Not necessarily Indians) awarded/conferred with the title. Regards, theTigerKing 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be better to post it in January/February when they are awarded by the President. Mere announcement doesn't merit a ITN..Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support Since they have been already awarded. The Indian Government rarely awards them...so they are pretty covered. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually post other countries' highest civilian awards, do we? I'm too lazy to check the archives, but I don't remember any off the top of my head. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was in discussion last time also. But it made to ITN :) Regards, theTigerKing 18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they are very scarcely awarded...45 in 60 years.....so they are extensively covered whenever awarded.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would move this suggestion to an ITNR thread as we have seen such arguments coming up while taking up the case of Bharat Ratna for ITN-R.Regards, theTigerKing 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - While it's true that we do not often post other country's awards, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, it is a good point that this award is significantly less awarded and therefore is deserving of special attention. Mamyles (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even though singular countries' awards are rarely reported, this is an award rarely bestowed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the nom nor the blurb explains what for. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the blurb should have a brief summary of this. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit patronising to ask the blurb to explain the significance of a linked article, after all if you don't know what the Sakharov Prize or Crafoord Prize is, then norm is to click on the link. The blurb is supposed to be snappy, and usually doesn't include a "brief summary" of the news item in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those other two awards have a more narrow consideration of what might be selected, while a "civilian award" is far too broad. Irregardless, I do think any award given to a person or group of persons, even the Nobel, should try to briefly explain the reason for the award at ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant and notable award.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE wtf? Why is a civilian award notable? 2 people got it last year. Why is a NATIONAL civilian award notable? The article doesn't even explain what did these 2 dudes get it for, nor deos the blurb. Why not post China's awards? Russia's? USA's? Absolutely nobody outside of India is reporting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these two dudes. WTF. However, I still don't know what that Obama dude or Bush dude did to get a Nobel, or be Time POTY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a civilian award in any way less notable than a military one? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm afraid I am a bit suspicious of the motive behind this award. The lead of the award's article sayas that the Prime Minister nominates recipients. Looking at the two recipients, the first died in 1946, so he won't be attending the ceremony in February. But based on his wikipedia article he seems to be a worthy recipient. The second recipient however is the founder of the party that was elected to power this year. He was also the Prime Minister until the party lost power in 2004. It is very convenient that he be nominated for this award just a few months after one of his proteges comes to power. To give an American equivalent, imagine if a Republican president is elected in 2016. Then imagine that president awarding Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush with "America's highest civilian award" in December 2017. Sure the first guy is probably a worthy recipient, but is not here to actually receive it. So that just leaves us with the other guy... Would we put that on the front page of Wikipedia? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose self-congratulatory partisan action per Athomeinkobe. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVajpayee is a living former PM who is being awarded a Bharat Ratna when he is NOT the PM as in the case of Indira Gandhi/Jawaharlal Nehru. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a bona fide civilian award, which has been presented only a handful of times in a country with a population of over a billion. I don't really see any justification in the opposition who make basically no argument other than either straw man arguments ("suspicion over motives"? Your personal opinion regarding the motivations of the awarding panel is fascinating but entirely irrelevant in this case...) or plain nonsense (e.g. "wtf"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After taking your comments on board, I thought that perhaps I read too much into the circumstances of the award based on my own preliminary research. So I just tried a google search of "Bharat Ratna" to see what has been said about the decision, and the first two news results were:
Granted these are opinion pieces, but it appears that at least some people who are interested in Indian politics (I am not) have concluded that this is a political move. There is no meniton of an "awarding panel" that I can find; this appears to be a decision taken solely by PM Modi. The first article listed above says "Prime Minister Modi is on a mission to carve an alternative iconography.", and the second says "Those who wanted Vajpayee honoured invariably belonged to the BJP, which, now heading the Central government, has conferred the Bharat Ratna on him."
So, with respect, I think it is not a straw man argument. But isn't India's population irrelevant? A government award given to a former leader of the ruling party at the first available opportunity looks like a sham to me, regardless of whether the country's population is a thousand or a billion. On the other hand, you could say that finding someone more worthy than your former boss is easier in a country with a population of one billion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it is a political move ? Is there any policy/guidelines/precedent to support this as a reasonable criteria against displaying it on main page?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None at all that I am aware of, but I'm still new here. I'm just giving an alternate view to this whole "one in a billion" story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should have existed when Rajiv Gandhi was given a posthumus BR. If you are going to take that NDTV piece at face value [ehich quite frankly is written by someone who has been anti BJP], then things are just going to go haywire. --12:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Bharat Ratna is awarded not frequently and both persons who received are important persons in history of India. Vajpayee is also well respected in opposition parties too. There would be controversy wherever politics is involved. -Nizil (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big award, given rarely, well reported. WP should not be checking any political motives nor is it our job to check if the recipient deserved the award. Many of the Nobel peace prizes won't find place in ITN going by that criteria. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't post the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor recipients, British/Commonwealth honors, etc. So why post this? -- Calidum 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any more reason to post this than to post awards of other countries' top honours, which we don't tend to post. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question on rarity: There were just awards last year? And every parliamentary term apparently gets at least one: apparently only the parliaments elected on 1967, 1977 and 2004, out of 16 general elections, didn't get to give out awards. I would've been more convinced of its rarity if they were truly sparingly awarded, not at least once by every parliamentary term. –HTD 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing why we should post this top civilian award when we don't post others. It also doesn't seem that rare in terms of how often it is awarded. Further, just because the award is given to people important to India does not mean that the awarding itself is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post other top civilian awards? Perhaps we should, and the fact we haven't ought not to be a stick with which to beat this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am boldly marking this as Ready. Support side has given better rationales for posting and the award is seemingly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another Indians got the nation's highest award, while the article states that the award is given "without distinction of race". Nothing unusual and we don't post other countries' highest civilian awards. Brandmeistertalk 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what's so important about this? We don't usually post stuff like this. I see nothing ITN-worthy here. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 20:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Killing of Antonio Martin
Not going anywhere. Let's move on. Seattle (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:2014 Ferguson unrest#Antonio Martin (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Police in Missouri, USA kill another black teenager, Antonio Martin, provoking community unrest. (Post) News source(s): The Guardian, 24 Dec 2014 Credits:
Nominator's comments: Important to the continuing story of anti-black police brutality in Missouri following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the killing of Eric Garner in New York. -Sumana Harihareswara 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your bias is showing. -- Calidum 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb can be always reworded, it's about the scale of protests. Brandmeistertalk 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scale of the protests? There is video of the man brandishing a gun and accordng to the Independent, "the chief of St Louis County Police, said Mr Martin, the young man who was shot dead, was “known” to the force and had been arrested three times since he was 17. He said the incidents involved armed robbery, assault and the illegal use of a weapon." We're not about narratives here, we're about facts. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Firstly, the blurb is outrageous. Secondly, this is just another parochial crime incident that doesn't belong at ITN. It is yet to be seen whether this will have a WP:LASTING impact. Regardless, information is murky, and the linked section has no information. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and a rather offensive blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So far, this looks like a single police killing with a relatively local response. This may become more newsworthy if more widespread protests or startling circumstances come to light. Mamyles (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose we need to stop this nonsense. Pulling a gun on a cop in the US is likely to end in death, whether you're black, white or blue. This is becoming really tedious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unless there's going to be another 6 months of protests revolving around this kid's death, which resulted because he unwisely pointed a gun at cops, it is not notable. Also, I dislike the suggested blurb; it has a very strong bias. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close as POV - Anti-black police brutality? Said "victim" pulled a gun. Drop the sensationalized narrative! 108.230.212.106 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very obvious bias here - not appropriate for Wikipedia, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
_(5).JPG)
