**[[Japanese battleship Musashi]] follows [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes]], like lots of others in [[:Category:Ships built in Japan]]. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
**[[Japanese battleship Musashi]] follows [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes]], like lots of others in [[:Category:Ships built in Japan]]. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this really doesn't seem to have been a mystery, just a necessary bit of drudgery. Haf it been founf off the Azores we'd have a different story. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (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).
A knife-wielding assailant injures the American ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lippert, in the South Korean capital city of Seoul. Authorities report that the injuries on his face and wrist are not life-threatening. (Yonhap News)(BBC)
Dublin-based generic drugmaker, specialty drug supplier, and medical imaging agent producer Mallinckrodt Plc increases its presence in U.S. hospitals by buying privately held Ikaria Inc, a maker of a respiratory drug and its delivery system, for $2.3 billion from a group of investors led by private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners LLC. The deal includes INOmax, which is the only approved product to treat hypoxic respiratory failure in infants through nitric oxide. (Reuters)
Energy-rich Kazakhstan suspends Russian fuel and gas imports to protect its domestic market from a surplus due to a weakened ruble which has sent ripples of economic uncertainty through Central Asia. (The Times of Central Asia)
Liberia's last known ebola patient is discharged from a treatment center in Monrovia. The country now needs 42 days without a subsequent diagnosed infection to be declared disease free. (The New York Times)
A Phoenix, Arizona jury deadlocks in a second trial allowing convicted murderer American Jodi Arias to be spared the death penalty. She will be sent to prison for life for killing her lover in 2008. (AP)
A mob storms the central jail in Dimapur, India, and kills Farid Khan, an undocumented migrant from Bangladesh in custody as a rape suspect. The mob ransacks and destroys over 20 shops and torches ten vehicles including a police jeep. (The Hindu)
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.
South of Sicily, Italy's Coast Guard saves 941 trafficked migrants aboard five motorized dinghies and two larger vessels near southern Italian ports. Authorities cannot account for ten people. (AP)
Turkish Airlines Flight TK726, landing in dense fog in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu, skids off a slippery runway, however, there are no serious injuries. (ABC News)
A toxic chemical fire forces the closure of the Port of Vancouver (Canada's largest and North America's fourth largest port). Authorities later manage to contain the fire, and identify the chemical as trichloroisocyanuric acid. (CBC)
Science and technology
Scientists report the finding of a 2.8-million-year-old jawbone (the "Ledi jaw") forming a potential link between the 3.2-million-year-old hominin (human-like primate) Lucy (Australopithecus) found in the same area, and the 2.35-million-year-old remains of Homo habilis found at nearby Hadar. If assigned to the genus Homo, the new remains represent the oldest known human, some 400,000 years older than previously found. (BBC)
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and his team of researchers find the Musashi, one of Japan's biggest and most famous battleships which was sunk by American forces in 1944, on the floor of the Sibuyan Sea. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Coverage from numerous news agencies. The ship itself was, before it sank, considered to be "the largest battleship in naval history." [1]Everymorningtalk 19:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Highly tempted yet weak support a really interesting story and an excellent, high quality subject article. It could use more than just two sentences on the discovery, but otherwise this is good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant story that is a break from all the sports events, deaths, disasters and elections. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A notable finding. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A notable finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would like the article to be a bit more updated. For instance, why was the wreck hard to find all these years? Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick inspection of the geolocation coordinates suggests that this is nowhere near the Philippines, but rather inside it. –HTD 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if it was found more than 12 miles off the coast. The Philippines is one of the archipelagic states so any waters inside its baselines are territorial waters. –HTD 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though it would be nice to expand the article a bit more. --Jayron32 00:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a comment: This is probably the wrong place to raise this, but wouldn't Musashi (battleship) be a more appropriate name for the article? I can't see anywhere in the article's talk page where it has been discussed before. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this really doesn't seem to have been a mystery, just a necessary bit of drudgery. Haf it been founf off the Azores we'd have a different story. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Mining disaster in conflict-ridden region of Ukraine, in mine with history of accidents. Event marked by a minute's silence in Parliament. News reports from reliable sources across the world. One confirmed death, but total not confirmed yet. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support - important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is stub quality and inadequate for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the event is not important enough, and the article is just a stub that hinges on a single source. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not even sure this merits a page, let alone posting to ITN. Doesn't seem significant; the slight relation to the crisis there can be covered by the ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New official death toll of 17. Can't say that doesn't merit an article. I admit however the article is too stubby. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my merits comment was based on the initial one-death information. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based solely on article quality. Too stubby, and based entirely on a single source. If the article is expanded and improved, consider this equivalent to a full support. --Jayron32 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Target Corporation, a major U.S. retail chain, announces cuts that will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, part of a revival plan adopted by CEO Brian Cornell. (Target press release)
China detains Jing Chunhua, a senior official from Hebei province of China, for investigation by the Communist Party's anti-graft agency for violating party discipline and breaking the law. Jing is the second provincial-ranked official from Hebei province to undergo investigation since the wider anti-corruption campaign began in 2013. (CRI)
An archaeological expedition claims to have found the legendary White City in northeastern Honduras, with artifacts that range in dates from the 11th to 14th century. (National Geographic)
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:FREAK (talk·history·tag) Blurb: FREAK, a new attack on web security, affects threatens millions of Internet users worldwide (Post) News source(s):Forbes Credits:
OK, "threatens" might be better: but with online banking and other high-risk sites vulnerable when accessed from two of the world's most common web access platforms, historical experience suggests we can be sure it's either being exploited right now, or will be very soon. And "millions" puts it very mildly: Android has hundreds of millions of users. -- The Anome (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Potentially" isn't good enough; has this caused any actual damages that can be quantified monetarily? SpencerT♦C 02:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This might turn into a significant story, but right now, it isn't one according to any criterion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this vulnerability isn't as widespread as previous ones. Nakon 04:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems over-hyped. The weakness is that some browsers allow 512-bit encryption, but that still takes a month to break with even high-end consumer electronics. (Compare this to entirely unencrypted cell-phone SMS & calls). Mamyles (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe you're mistaken on this in several ways, as follows: (a) no, you no longer need a month of elapsed time to perform the computation -- cloud computing services let you use vast numbers of CPUs concurrently, and the cost of breaking a key is only about $100; (b) no, you only need to factor the key once for each site, and you can do that off-line; thereafter, the exploit is instantaneous, and you don't need to attack millions of sites, attackers will select a few high-profile sites (eg. banks) and attack them selectively (c) cell-phone SMS and calls are at least partially protected by encryption: they're typically encrypted over-the-air, but with a weak (in several ways) cryptosystem, and SMSCs should in general run either on private networks via encrypted links. However, the whole system is exploitable in many ways for state-level actors with the technical/legal resources to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that because of cloud computing, it is relatively easy for amateurs to gain access to supercomputing tier resources that could shorten exploitation. Though, modern websites generate a new key for every session, so such factoring will only break a single individual at a time. I also agree that state-level actors can exploit many, if not all, other methods of communication. Cell-phone's broken encryption is an example to show that this weakness does not particularly stand out. Mamyles (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not to do with up-to-date protocols: it's old cipher suites still being supported by sites that shouldn't really be using this older stuff, but can be forced to use it by a cipher suite downgrade attack. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a "potential" threat. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 4 March 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] Thorbjørn Jagland demoted
Snowclose, not even close to a haed of state, or third in line for head of state, and no death. Feel fre o reverse me, but this seems obvious. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 March 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: Unprecedented in the 114-year history of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Everymorningtalk 19:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Thorbjørn Jagland, not Thorbjoern Jagland.
He has not been demoted at all. The committee elects its chairman for each term.
The main story is the election of the new chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Kaci Kullmann Five. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close if what Bjerrebæk is saying is correct, it's a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The election of the new chairman of the world's most important prize committee would however be a reasonable story, especially compared to the story concerning an obscure British soldier getting an obscure award (at least compared to the Nobel Peace Prize). This is merely a question of emphasis and wording. I would rather suggest: "Kaci Kullmann Five is elected chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, replacing Thorbjørn Jagland". Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first four Kaci Kullmen were't even nominated. I think it may be be a bit late to start now. Formerip (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man: Guardian headline "Nobel peace prize committee chairman Thorbjørn Jagland demoted", and talks about it being an "unprecedented move" following right-wing parties gaining a majority of appointees on the committee. Reuters also uses "demoted" in its headline, saying "No serving chair has ever been ousted since the awards were first made in 1901, even with shifting political majorities." It is thought to be retaliation for Thorbjørn Jagland presiding over awards of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama and the EU. This is the story. BencherliteTalk 19:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Bjerrebæk isn't telling us the truth here. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The committee elects its own chairman and has not commented on its reasons for electing Five rather than Jagland, and the new chairman was involved in all those previous decisions cited as much as Jagland. Everything else is speculation, and speculation from foreign tabloids with little knowledge and understanding of the process is not really relevant. And why would the conservative members oust Jagland over the EU prize, something they are entirely in agreement with Jagland on? In fact the new chairman has praised Jagland's leadership of the committee. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowclose per above and lack of international import or coverage. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 March 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.
A coalition of Iraqi Armed Forces and militia numbering around 30,000 launches an offensive against Islamic State positions in Tikrit. Troops seize control of the district of al-Tin and al-Abeid. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Demonstration of a key theory of quantum mechanics. MASEM (t) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without much stronger rationale. We are able to look at population ecology by the cycles of predators and prey and how air pollution drives the evolution of spotted moths, but no one would make a claim that the secret of ecology or evolution itself had been observed on these bases. I don't oppose the subject per se, but let's have a much clearer explanation of the importance of this press release. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well first it is a paper that just has been published by a peer-reviewed journal (the usual metric for scientific stories). The importance is that until now, the duality of light photons (and other subatomic particles) has been a theory that matches with experiment but not observed directly. This shows more directed evidence the theory holds (within the scope of scientific principles). The importance is that much of quantum mechanics - which is the driver behind advanced computing, power, and material applications - is based on duality being a property of sub-atomic particles. It's not ground-breaking, but it is comparable to finding the Higgs boson particle via direct experiment rather than just theory. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Appears to this layman to be a significant scientific discovery. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A paper has just released a press release is not a strong rationale. We've been doing difraction grating experiments in high school in the US for the better part of the last century. Let's have an actual rationale for the importance of the new experiment, not just the fact that it has been pressreleasen. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you point to academic commentary/editorials that assess the significance of this work? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much though I like airing science items on ITN, I think I'm going to have to oppose. Most of the news sources appear to be based on the same press release, I've failed to find independent editorials/commentaries/news items in major journals explaining the significance of this experiment, and as Modest Genius points out, Nat Commun is not Nature. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm always pleased to see science in the news, and this is an impressive experiment, but it's not a scientific breakthrough. Note that the paper was not published in Nature itself, but Nature Communications, an offshoot journal which handles results which do 'not necessarily have the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals'. It's a cool image of something which scientists have known - and had ample experimental evidence for - for over a century. It's also hardly the first image to demonstrate wave-particle duality (this is the most famous one). Edit: upon further investigation, I'm not even sure that this result demonstrates light exhibiting wave-particle duality at the same time any more than low-illumination double slit experiments. That rather undermines the premise of the item, so I've dropped the 'weak' part of my opposition. Modest Geniustalk 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the blurb would actually be accurate with a "for the first time" at the end this would not end up anywhere below Science (yes, even the Nature is below Science). Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They excited and then "photographed" a microscopic standing wave. (Whereby "photographed" means measured electron transmission.) It is a difficult technical achievement, but I can't figure out how to get from there to "first-ever observation of the wave-particle duality of light". There are lots of studies that show wave-particle duality, and I can't figure out why this study is THE ONE that finally makes the case, except to assume that the authors enjoy hyping their own work. Also, there is nothing particularly unexpected here. The experiment behaved just as well-accepted theory said that it should, so it isn't like we gained a new scientific understanding. Technically impressive work, but I don't see it as an ITN-type discovery. Dragons flight (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The news is that they devised a new experiment to verify a phenomenon that had already been verified before. Though, this experiment is more technical and harder to understand than the double-slit experiment, as Modest Genius mentions. Mamyles (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not that that the duality of light hasn't been shown before, but the experiments have always been showing one or the other (eg the double-slit experiment). This experiment proposes it is the first that captures both at the same time by the same experiment. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discrete particle version of the double slit experiment also shows both wave and particle behavior happening at the same time. The new experiment shows that energy is absorbed in discrete amounts (particle behavior) and the spatial distribution is determined by wave-like interference. Despite the claims, I don't see that as especially unique or something you can't infer from other experiments. Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support - per a unqiue experiment.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like it's far from a new demonstration. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, clickbait, not a real result. Abductive (reasoning) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The methodology may be novel, but the result is well-known and there's already a massively famous standard experiment to demonstrate it. So this isn't news of the scale that's being implied by the headline, or really news at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 4 March 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.
Notable Scottish footballer Dave Mackay dies. A writer's association Player of the Year in England and a notable playing career.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who are you referring to, 72? Dave Mackey is an American runner. Did you spell his name wrong? Some sources would also be nice. Everymorningtalk 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
think I got it right now. I'm editing on a tablet so it's a little difficult.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support variously referred to as a "legend" and "one of Spurs greatest players" (and, in fact, as the greatest Tottenham player by Brian Clough), won The Double with Spurs, won leagues and cups in Scotland and England as a player, and successful as a manager too. The BBC article summarises it nicely: "He won 10 major honours as a player in British and European football. The Edinburgh-born player also won 22 caps for his country and was named 'Footballer of the Year' in both Scotland and England." Article could use a few more references in the career section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Apart from the team honours (full set of Scottish trophies with Hearts, three FA Cups and a double with Spurs), Mackay earned individual honours which cement his legacy. 1969 Footballer of the Year and a member of the Football League 100 Legends, as well as an inaugural inductee of the English Football Hall of Fame. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given his honors he seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He meets the criteria for notability in his field - once the references issue is taken care of, should be good to go. Challenger l (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much better referenced, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immense figure in English and Scottish football. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the opinion a broader "terrorism" category might be better, but that can be revisited at talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 3 March 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: The current top story at Fox is the beheading of a Nigerian man by Boko Haram and their connection with ISIS. I have never seen an item deleted without discussion before, and don't see any reason this should be deleted, unless we are going to put up an umbrella "Islamist Terrorism" link. When people are beheaded on video, shot, or blown up on every continent in the name of a single movement we are doing our readers a disservice by telling them it is only happening in northern Iraq. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now at least. The admin was correct to remove it, since the article hadn't been updated in at least a week. It can't qualify for ongoing unless it's been updated. It still hasn't been either. -- Calidum 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably not have argued against a removal, except for the current beheading, which was reported after the closure. But there was no discussion, and black's lives do matter. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with strawman arguments is that they can easily look like back-handed insults. I'm almost sure you didn't mean to accuse anyone here of saying or insinuating that such lives don't matter, but clarification would put minds at rest. BencherliteTalk 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From WP:ITNAn accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article listed as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness.One sentence of new information has been added to the article since 5 February 2015 - this, on 6 February, nearly a month ago! To judge from our article (which fits with the news that I've seen, or rather not seen, about it) it's not "newsworthy" at present and if it's not in the news, it doesn't belong in "In the news". If Boko Haram comes back into the news, sure, let's have a discussion about re-adding it, but there's no need for strawman arguments like "we are doing our readers a disservice by telling them it is only happening in northern Iraq." BencherliteTalk 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what this is, a discussion based on an update, see the sources. Is your oppose, Bencherlite, based on the fact that only one Nigerian was beheaded, or that I posted this before there was news to support reinstating the item? There's nothing formally wrong with my nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bencherlite. The ITN policies were followed to the letter, no issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bencherlite. Regular constructive editing is not continuing on the relevant article, and the last updates concern events from early February. This should be closed once the accusations of racism are rescinded. Stephen 22:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bencherlite. I await an apology from Medeis for her unfortunate off-hand comment. --WaltCip (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without prejudice to User:Medeis. I understand and sympathize with her perspective, but right or wrong, Boko Haram has not been generating the amount of press and frequent updating to warrant ongoing status as of right now. I would note that a number of other ongoing events that I, personally, have been following more closely (the civil war in Libya, the political standoff in Yemen, etc.) are also not listed for the same reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On a quick skim through the websites of Nigeria's main national newspapers (The Sun, The Punch, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, The Guardian), only one of them (The Guardian) even mentions the Boko Haram conflict on their main page at present. If the people on the ground no longer consider this newsworthy, neither should Wikipedia. That isn't to belittle the casualties or those affected by the conflict, but just a recognition that this isn't currently in the news. Conflicts like this can run for decades, and it's not reasonable for Wikipedia to keep them permanently highlighted on the main page unless they're being covered elsewhere—ITN is intended to demonstrate that Wikipedia is covering topics which are currently in the news, not to highlight topics Wikipedia considers newsworthy. – iridescent 13:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this myself. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 3 March 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.
Just as an FYI, I have removed Boko Haram from ongoing - there have been no additions of substance to the article for a few weeks now, and the story has dropped out of the news. The latest event mentioned in the 2015 section is from early February. BencherliteTalk 16:38, 2 March 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.
Nominator's comments: World-famous Turkish novelist often mentioned as a possible Nobel laureate. How could this possibly have been missed? Hegvald (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am having a hard time seeing how notable Mr. Kemal actually is or was. The biggest claims to fame were that he collected folklore and stories? As for accolades - for all his claim to fame in Turkey, the awards listed are from Sweden, Germany and Norway, and not his own country, which seems more than a little bizarre to me. It also doesn't help that the whole first paragraph about his works is lifted directly from the man's official website - couldn't a secondary source be found? It makes me think that the article needs attention from someone more directly familiar with Turkish history and literature than I am. Challenger l (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A possible explanation for a lack of awards in Turkey is that he appears to have been in conflict with the government throughout much of his career. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm surprised that anybody can question his notability. --Hegvald (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - as I said, he is from an unfamiliar field. My remaining objection is the lack of references for his accolades and his works. Challenger l (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The UK press is clear as to his importance: "ground-breaking Marxist Turkish author and activist" (Independent), "one of Turkey’s greatest writers" (Guardian), "one of Turkey's best-known writers" (BBC). The article could be improved and requires some work on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Maybe a borderline case to some, but that's likely a product of anglocentrism (this being the English-language Wikipedia). He's clearly quite renowned and well-known in Turkey and among the Turkish-speaking diaspora. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to meet DC2 for Turkish writers. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tagged one section which has a number of claims of accolades, most of which are unreferenced. Most of his works are unreferenced. Needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be one of the best in his field (Turkish writing). Mellowed Fillmore, I'll try to become a regular again, if I don't get nauseous. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, extremely important figure for Turkish literature. Fixed the issue with his works, will work on the accolades shortly. --GGT (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Should be more or less OK now. --GGT (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a Nobel nomination is not a grounds for posting--can we have a better explained rationale? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that he satisfies WP:ITND, #2: as a Turkish speaker, he would have been one of the first 2-3 authors that I would think of if asked about living Turkish-language authors, very well-known and acclaimed. Arguably the country's most important author. Hürriyet, one of the country's most popular newspapers, wrote a lengthy eulogy detailing how he is a symbolic figure in the country and was one of its most prominent authors: [2]. He was also world-known, I reckon, from the worldwide recognition he got and per Espresso Addict's comment. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - he died on 28th Feb, so posting in that position in the RD list. BencherliteTalk 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NASA astronauts perform the third of three ISS spacewalks completing the cabling reroutings needed in preparation for the 2017 arrival of the first commercial spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts. (AP)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment. Can you post some news sources? 331dot (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is not ready. The lead is not updated and there is no commentary on the results whatsoever. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article has been updated and that full results are included. Will post it now, and am sure further improvements will be made soon. JehochmanTalk 14:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the past, ITN consensus has required a paragraph of discussion of the electoral results prior to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Ongoing: Replace "War in Ukraine" with "Minsk II"
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.
Hi, since the current Minsk II protocol and its realisation is the dominating topic as opposed to the conflict in general we had up there for ages, could you replace "War in Ukraine" with "Minsk II" please? Thanks and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a peace summit presupposes a war. The war is ongoing. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The war has continued despite the ceasefire agreement, which fell short of a permanent settlement as it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I disagree with the premise of this nomination; the conflict itself is still the major story. The peace is tenuous at best. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously oppose the idea expressed by the proposer. However, I'd argue that, even though low-level skirmishes continue, this event can be removed from ongoing. Nothing significant is happening, to the point where updates have been very slow (I'm the chief writer of both articles). If high-level conflict starts up again, it can be re-added. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing significant is happening"? Such as Boris Nemtsov's assassination not happening, him being Putin's most outspoken critic and an opponent of Russia's war against Ukraine? Even Nixon didn't have McGovern shot, and Nixon ended the war against Vietnam, as well as the draft. Еще Рас...Пүтинμηδείς (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know why Mr Nemstov was killed, or whether that has anything to do with Ukraine. You are making inferences not supported by reliable sources, i.e. WP:OR. Are you sure you are capable of contributing to this project? WP:V is essential, as is WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but only because I think even if Minsk II is the most active thing, more people will recognize this as part of the ongoing Ukraine war. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 2 March 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.
Support as highly notable sports figure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article has swathes of unreferenced claims, I've tagged the worst offending sections. Perhaps some of the keen supporters who overlooked this issue can help fix the article. Otherwise, no doubting that this is a decent RD shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding sources throughout the day, and will let you know when those sections are addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
56 total cites now. No major passages uncited. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle on the merits as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but if you've read the article, you'll see an unreferenced BLP issue in this sentence, "The earlier extensions to his career with the Sox were publicity stunts orchestrated respectively by one-time Sox owner Bill Veeck and his son Mike, who at the time owned partial or controlling interest in the team." Please either remove the claim or cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of articles refer to it as publicity stunts.[3][4] Veeck was the master of the publicity stunt. I'll make sure it's cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course, personal anecdotes are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia so claims like that should be referenced with reliable sources, or removed. I appreciate your work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To those of us following the White Sox at the time, there was absolutely no question it was a publicity stunt. The various milestones are connected with it: Oldest player to get a base hit, only player to bat in five, six, etc. different decades. He was closely associated with Veeck for many years anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding citations is desirable, but it is obvious that when a long-retired ballplayer is given a single at-bat at age 55, this is not because he is the best available player. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well be speaking Mongolian, that your assertion is "obvious" is clearly out of step with many English speakers, particularly those who have not the foggiest idea about baseball. Don't forget, this isn't American Wikipedia, and importantly that when you assume ....... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better cited than not, especially for those who don't understand enough about baseball to know what that means. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I know this is way after the fact but I think MM is way below our notablilty standards. He doesn't meet DC2. He was never considered one of the best baseball players. He wasn't recognized as such (he never won an MPV). His career stats don't put him among the very best. He's not even a MLB hall of famer. His latin origins maybe boost his case, but it's way short for me. This is not a 'pull' vote, merely an observation. (but i'd be fine with it being pulled).--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a counterargument, there are nonquantifiable intangibles that make someone noteworthy enough to be considered for RD. Counting awards or positions held is a fine metric for people when they have no experience with the person in question, but ultimately there are some people who don't have any tangible or quantifiable way to express their importance to some field or endeavor. For a recent example, I remember recently we posted the death of a politician which had fairly widespread support even though they had never been a head of state or similar position (I can't remember which country it was from, forgive me), but because they were the leader of a vocal opposition party, and had been for such a long time, and had become a cultural touchstone within that country. One does not need to actually win an award or hold a position to be considered newsworthy enough for people to notice your death. Cultural relevance is really the thing we should be judging here, and while many people with cultural relevance would also have lots of awards, some times a person is clearly relevant enough for their death to be noteworthy, but no one gave them any awards for doing anything. --Jayron32 19:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a countercounterargument, these particular individuals are promoted through clear systemic bias. The "cultural relevance" is usually US-dominated here which is of no surprise since most editors are from the US. Hence why we have had non-entity college basketball coaches posted at RD recently. As a project, it's great that we try to promote a diverse set of RDs, but when we falsely lower the bar, as we seem to have done more and more often for these minor US sports personalities, it undermines the process. The problem with claiming "cultural relevance" is that it is often mistaken around these parts as an opportunity to wax lyrical about how individual editors remember the nominated people, how much of an impact the nominated people made in their individual lives; when pressed on how those nominated people actually meet the RD criteria, we get a hand-wavy "cultural relevance" argument and not much more. Sure, every nomination is subjective, but the more we encourage and allow this overt systemic bias, the less likely this section of the main page will be taken seriously from an encyclopaedic perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand how posting Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, which is the person I note in the argument above, represents a pro-US bias. --Jayron32 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The municipal intermediate people’s court for the eastern city of Dongying convicts Ni Fake, former Vice-Governor of Anhui province in China, on charges of bribery and "amassing wealth of unclear origin", and sentences him to seventeen years in prison. (The Guardian)
No consensus to post; if eligible, can be nominated for DYK. SpencerT♦C 03:07, 4 March 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: Unusual for Chinese censors to allow and welcome criticism of China FunkyCanute (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this has a lot of views and is indeed unusual, I'd prefer to post reforms that result from the attention rather than the release of a freelance documentary. Though, this may be a good candidate for WP:DYK. Mamyles (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mamyles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support later if this gets awards. In the meantime, nominate it for DYK. That's a twofer! μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Contrary to popular belief, China does allow some limited criticism, so long as it's the sort of criticism that the party agrees with (as here). Pollution is not a subject mentioned in the article on censorship in China. The fact that a film has used that is hardly earth-shattering. I agree with those above that this would be a better story for WP:DYK if eligible. Modest Geniustalk 00:40, 4 March 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.
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 I'm a Knicks fan, I grew up watching Mason and Oakley and Starks and Ewing. I have more nostalgia towards Mason than most, but even if the Knicks had won in 1994, this wouldn't meet RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 1 March 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.
Nominator's comments: Developing story, but it's being reported that Russian (former) opposition politician and Putin critic Boris Nemtsov has been assassinated in Moscow. Connormah (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a BBC source too. RT has picked it up too it seems. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Grey Lady has it also. [9] I suggest waiting a bit for the news to come out, and for the target article(s) to be updated. Unclear at this time whether he was assassinated or merely shot, and we should discuss whether to call him an opposition politician or opponent of Vladimir Putin, or both. JehochmanTalk 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggest this as well. I think a blurb is worth consideration however - a murder is unexpected, and makes nature of his death a notable subject. He was active up until recently too (I see some articles from up to 10 days ago of him criticizing the government). From what I'm reading it seems that he was one of the more prominent and outspoken critics of the government. His previous political experience helps out in this case too (he's not merely notable for his opposing views). Connormah (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD as he is top of his field as Russian opposition. I would oppose a blurb at this point. RD is sufficient, unless something more is here than a single murder. Mamyles (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He was one of the best known opposition politicians in Russia for many years. --Երևանցիtalk 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD as notable, oppose blurb as undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. Support blurb, as this seems to be a big story in Russian politics and it is fairly unusual for a Russian politician to be assassinated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as blurb only this is an assassination of one of Putin's biggest rivals, I am not sure what more can be said. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Medeis. The article needs work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - another Putin supported murder.... --BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only – It seems some of the above users are making political inferences that are not supported by RS in order to lend gravity to their position. This cannot be tolerated. This is certainly a notable fellow, and he deserves RD. That's all he deserves. RGloucester — ☎ 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about that. I think that his notability, plus the fact that he was shot to death are warranting of a blurb, independent of any political speculation (though I suppose it's difficult not to speculate on that). Connormah (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb this is an assasination of fairly important political figure. SeraV (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source cited above says nothing about "assassination". We follow RS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons." It is highly unlikely that this was an run of a mill murder. SeraV (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but it is also highly likely and it is my personal view. Nevertheless the fact that he was indeed murdered makes him worthy of blurb instead of rd, our blurb doesn't say anything about assasination nor should it before we know more. SeraV (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the reports, it was a deliberate killing, but seemingly gangland style, so his murder might have nothing to do with politics. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibility is there certainly. I just find it a bit unlikely. SeraV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. High-profile murder of major political figure, very likely to be politically motivated. I'm not saying we should claim that in the blurb but it's a relevant consideration when deciding a blurb. The top story in most tested news media, and the top foreign story in all of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Murder of leading opposition figure in Russian politics. Added a cropped image from 2008. Bruzaholm (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note according to al jazeera [11] Putins spokesman says that "The murder bears the hallmarks of a contract killing". SeraV (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The usual hallmark of a contract killing being, of course, that you have a copy of the contract folded inside your breast pocket. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! SeraV (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. The murder of a prominent opposition leader and former top politician in a major country like Russia is highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some help would be appreciated at the article. There is a user edit warring over the lede length among other things. Connormah (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD unless the murder article and the Bio article are merged. It will be too confusing for people to have to go to both to get the full story. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note: Once again we have an overwhelming consensus to post this to the main page, but the article is currently tagged with having referencing issues. Until that's fixed, this can't be posted to the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article in general is kind of a nightmare. It needs a lot of work, IMO, before it can go up for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tag seems to have been removed already. JehochmanTalk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. He was a high-profile politician and his murder is one of the notable assassinations in the country. --Egeymi (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I don't think that we should assess his biography to see whether he meets any of the death criteria for inclusion. The main news here is the act of his assassination, its worldwide coverage and its implications on the Russian and world politics. That said, Boris Nemtsov would have probably not merited inclusion for a blurb if he had died peacefully but this is a different story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NYTimes - " Boris Y. Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader and former first deputy prime minister, was shot dead Friday evening in central Moscow in the highest-profile assassination in Russia during the tenure of President Vladimir V. Putin." Connormah (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of evidence, NYT seems to have jumped to a conclusion. I don't think Wikipedia should perpetuate that jump. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not take a genius to figure out that it is not a claim but a fact that it is an assassination. It follows in line with Putins standard cowardly strategies. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also does not take a genius to realize that no one has been arrested and nothing about the motive is known at this time. If it was a mob hit, for example, would that still count as an "assassination"? How does the NYT or you know who's enemies' lists he's on? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here with BB: "murdered", yes, no question, but "assassination" is assuming that there is a political motive here. No question there's a chance there was a political motivation here due to Russian politics, but without an investigation it is improper to call this an assassination. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several people jumped out of a van and shot Nemtsov four times in the back before fleeing. Not an attempted robbery, or a random shot. I suppose we could say gang-syle hit, but assassination is what all the sources are saying. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question it was a deliberate killing, but the motive is unknown at this time. The sources are jumping to conclusions without evidence, and Wikipedia shouldn't allow itself to get sucked into that. (And by the way, I would be surprised if Putin's not behind it, but that's strictly OR.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC doesn't say "assassination" at all (and says it was only one person from a car, shooting four times) - the article does postulate that there was an intentional political goal here but the strongest language used is "brutally murdered". --MASEM (t) 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the coverage from ABC News, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN and USA Today. Of these, only the Washington Post declared that it was an "assassination". ABC News and LA Times said it could be an "assassination", but hedged rather than being definitive. CNN never used the term "assassination", choosing instead to mention "political murder" as one possible motivation. USA Today was probably the least explicit in its terminology, avoiding the term "assassination" and other obvious synonyms, though it does mention that Nemtsov feared being killed by Putin or his supporters for his politics. From that sample, I'd say the sources are not yet saying this was an assassination, though they generally acknowledge it could be. Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before posting the blurb I checked and found multiple reliable sources using the word "assassination". What happened fits the definition of the word. "Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons," according to our article's sourced lede. This killing was deliberate. Nemtsov was a prominent political figure, and the conditions in the "usually" clause are not requirements, though they do appear likely given what is known. JehochmanTalk 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to post exactly this as well (but got edit conflicted). Connormah (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still speculation. No one has identified who the gunman was. That it was likely politically motivated is true, but we should be more careful than the press when the evidence is clearly not established yet. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of assassinations where the gunman has never been identified. For example, Grandpa Hassan was assassinated in Moscow not too long ago. And a political motivation is not required. Essentially, any killing of a prominent person that isn't an accident or street crime is considered to be an assassination and there are multiple reliable sources using that word. JehochmanTalk 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are we sure this wasn't a street crime? In time, I'm sure that the authorities will come down and say "we don't know who shot him, but we are treating this as an assassination" which at that point, we can follow suit. But the quotes from the authorities right now are only saying "brutal murder". It's engaging in speculation, even if all the signs point to a assassination. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionaries I perused seem a bit divided about whether to label all murders of prominent political figures as "assassination" (which seems the be the definition you are espousing), or only to use the term for murders explicitly motivated by political (or religious) considerations. Given that the definition seems at least a bit fiddly, I would tend to give the deciding vote to the presentation offered by reliable sources, which in the majority don't seem be describing this as an "assassination" just yet. Personally, I suspect it was a politically motivated assassination; however, I would still probably stick with "murdered" for ITN. Dragons flight (talk)
The term "assassin" is derived from Arabic for "hashish user(s)", but from the beginning it was about murdering political opponents.[12] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The front page still reads "assassination", and it still is over-strong. What's wrong with just calling it murder anyway, which is indisputably accurate? (Obligatory note that yes it probably was an assassination, but it was *definitely* a murder.) SnowFire (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Tariqabjotu now. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cares not one whit about any disinformation spread by the Russian government that this was a crime of passion or related to Charlie Hebdo, or any other nonsense theories that are being laughed at around the world.[13] Nemtsov was (more than 50% likely) killed for his politics. As such, this was an assassination. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but there is no evidence that this was street crime or anything other than a political hit. As such, Wikipedia will go with the preponderance of reliable sources and avoid whitewashing or weaseling.[14][15][16][17] Feel free to discuss and we'll see if a new consensus emerges. If some weaseling has invaded the target article, we should fix it, not propagate the error to ITN. JehochmanTalk 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that the preponderance of the reliable sources declare this an "assassination"? The other day, I pulled five articles from the top of Google News and only got one to declare it as such. But for the sake of argument, let's try again. Stories currently highly ranked for "Boris Nemtsov" on Google News: The Guardian, CNN, NYTimes, Euronews, ABC News, Telegraph, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. Of those eight, I find that three (Guardian, CNN, Washington Post) say "assassination"/"assassin" as a definitive statement, one (Telegraph) says "assassination" as a likely but not certain characterization, and four (NY Times, Euronews, ABC News, Wall Street Journal) says only "murder"/"killer"/"killing". Not exactly overwhelming. Personally, I think he almost certainly was assassinated, but with less than a majority of reliable sources definitively labeling it that way, I would still prefer to say "murder" in ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a bit of editorial liberty to use the English language according to its plain meaning. Sources might choose "murder", a synonym for "assassination", because it's shorter or more alliterative with the other words in the headline. Our blurb is short, and Boris Nemtsov has an s sound in each word, so the blurb reads better with "assassination" than "murder". Given the level of prevalence you have identified (thanks!), I think we could use it or not. Another interesting statistic would be to make a list of the top 10 reliable sources and see if they have ever used the word "assassination" to describe the Nemtsov killing. You have NYT as a "no", but one of my links [18] shows them using the word "assassination" in the headline of a different article. If after considering what I've said here you still think it should be changed, please feel free to do so, because I know Tariq also wanted to change it. JehochmanTalk 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest someone just close this, but when a politician is shot in the back by assailants who didn't rob or rape him, and who had no sexual or financial connection with him, and there are a list of over a dozen opponents, like him, of Putin, who've ben poisoned, shot or killed, it's deliberate obfuscation to delete the word assassinate. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: My objection to the word "assassination" in the blurb had nothing to do with whether I, or even sources, called it one. Our article was titled "Murder of...", even multiple days after the incident. As my edit summary said, it made no sense to use "assassination" on the Main Page, but only "murder" in the title of the article. The article name, of course, has been changed now, so I no longer have an objection. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I'm the one who moved the article, so that's kind of circular. I suggest that if the article moves, we update the ITN item to match. So far the discussion on the talk page is unanimously in favor of "assassination". What I don't want to do is inflict my opinion if others don't agree or aren't convinced by my reasons. JehochmanTalk 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was you who moved the article, but I saw the talk page thread and it didn't seem like you were shoving your position down anyone's throat. I realize it's often faster to just enforce an obvious consensus yourself rather than go through the process of finding someone else to do the exact same thing. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Martínez is (was?) the leader of the Knights Templar, which once controlled all of Michoacan, in addition to being the most wanted drug lord in Mexico. Thus his detainment seems significant. Everymorningtalk 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support - as significant in the fight against drugs.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - was looking into this before the Nimoy news broke, appears to be significant. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this isn't a conviction, the arrest is notable because he was Most Wanted. SpencerT♦C 21:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is this being phrased as a 'detention' and not an 'arrest'? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be changed to an arrest before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNN says detained (see above link). Everymorningtalk 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question is, what is the difference (in Mexico) between being detained and being arrested? Or is there none? 331dot (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we have the same story every three months, biggest druglord.... and he's not been convicted of anything. Meanwhile, in Russia... μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should stick to our usual practice of waiting for convictions before posting. There are sound BLP reasons for this - we shouldn't be branding someone as a "drug lord" on the front page of Wikipedia before they've been convicted. Note that the article refers to him as a "suspected drug lord", which is more appropriate. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but I tend to reduce my "presumption of innocence" when the person is in the habit of distributing recorded videos that aim to explain how their admittedly illegal drug enterprise is actually a benefit for the people of Mexico. Mexico, the US, and most of the news reports label him as a drug lord without trying to couch it as a mere suspicion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could split the difference and call him a "quite strongly suspected drug lord". Formerip (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Quite strongly suspected drug lord"? Seems a bit like saying Osama bin Laden was quite strongly suspected of being a terrorist. (Osama was never convicted either.) Or we could just call him a "most-wanted drug lord" with a link to Mexico's official list of most-wanted drug lords. With his capture, only five such individuals remain free. Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, consensus is only to post convictions. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While that is generally the case, occasionally notable arrests or captures of notable fugitives make it through (like this one and this one). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there'll always be a "most wanted drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 February 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 One of the most iconic modern cultural figures in modern society. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An internationally recognized and beloved figure in popular culture. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Obviously. Canuck89 (talk to me) 17:26, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
Support. He has been - and always shall be - our friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support including blurb (Like Tom Baker, truly a huge icon in his field) The article still needs to be checked for tense, I have fixed some verbs. Opinions expressed in that article need citations. I would remind editors that citations are not needed for specifically named roles for which he was credited in a film or TV episode, but his appearance on the Jon Stewart show, for example has to be dated to a specific episode. Given that, I think this should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of case I'd be really careful for a blurb just to maintain integrity of the ITN system. His death was not a surprise (he announced he had COPD last year, and was in the hospital last week for issues relating to it), and while he is a pop culture icon, he was just that - great actor, great person, but hard to argue - beyond the level of RD criteria - of importance to include a blurb, as that would set a precedence for others. This is the type of case RD is perfect for. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue his long career, the fact that he worked until his death, and his hugely iconic status, without which English-speaking culture of the last 5 decades would be a little bit poorer, justiies it. He was at the top of the field in sci-fi. Looking at the number of cameos, spinoffs, parodies, his own vital input to the role of Spock, he wasn't just that guy who played Robin with Michael Keaton. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I'd love a blurb, but I can see this case biting us down the road when any 'beloved' person from a field died from old age or other similar complications, arging blurb over RD. He's not Nelson Mandala, Margaret Thatcher, and his death wasn't the shocker that Robin Williams was (what I internally use for death blurb worthiness). I mean, take Joan Rivers, who was an RD posting despite having a huge fanbase and importance to entertainment (equal or surpassing Nimoy's). --MASEM (t) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted RD, might be eligible for a blurb later on. Nakon 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article , as pointed out, is not yet in shape for posting. There's several CN tags that need to be dealt with. Please pull until ready. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than pull, I have hidden those comments. (Someone should still read the entire article for tense, although I think I caught much of it) I will be busy but can get back to it tonight if someone doesn't fix it in the meantime. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support after posting - obviously good enough for RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs)
Post-posting support for RD. Support blurb, though it's obviously less clear-cut. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. He's an obvious candidate for RD, but beloved 80+ year old actor dies after prolonged fight with COPD doesn't feel like much of a justification for a blurb to me. Is there a story here that needs a blurb for elaboration? Can anyone even suggest a blurb they'd like to see? Right now I don't see that any specific suggestions have been offered, and story of his death (as I understand it) doesn't seem to rise to the level of justifying a blurb, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious post-posting support for RD. Oppose a blurb; that should be reserved for when secondary effects of a death are themselves news (a major state funeral, for example). If folks are concerned that he'll scroll out of RD too quickly, then please be more selective about adding individuals like amateur sports coaches (from whichever side of the pond). —Cryptic 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is 40 minutes a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC) .... "Insufficient facts always invite danger."[reply]
Agree that a blurb would be highly illogical. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD and possibly blurb - He was definitely a huge cultural icon, but I don't know if he is big enough for an actual blurb, although I would not be opposed if this were bumped to a blurb. Andise1 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD; the Star Trek fan in me would like a blurb, but I'm not sure it's warranted. If it's done, though, it wouldn't bother me. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The eyebrow alone deserves its own blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Let's not get carried away here. Wikipedians are probably much more likely to be Trekkies than the general population. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Nimoy was a prominent and gifted actor, but not a figure of worldwide importance. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeh, right. That must be why BBC.com international has a front page article: "Star Trek legend Nimoy dies at 83." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of stories appear on the BBC front page - dozens per day. They don't all get ITN blurbs. Modest Geniustalk 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: The "Michael Jackson" or "Whitney Houston" of his field. I doubt even Shatner is as revered in sci-fi. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... even if his records were almost as good. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. "Revered in sci-fi" is perhaps not sufficient a justification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb. Important in his field (acting), but not a major figure in world history and there are no major ramifications from his death. This is exactly what RD is for. Modest Geniustalk 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RD for Nimoy, blurb for Spock? Except, of course, thankfully he's not dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS posts a video showing the destruction of Mosul Museum, the second largest in Iraq and rich in artifacts from thousands of years of Iraqi history. (National Post)
Norwegian police raid the offices of the Catholic Church’s diocese in Oslo, charging the church administration with serious fraud under the suspicion of wrongfully claiming as much as NOK 50 million in state support by presenting fraudulent membership statistics. (NewsInEnglish)
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 caveats: While there are lots of other deaths on this day, Hesburgh was both prominent in his prime and popular in his later years. He had been considered as George McGovern's running mate, served on the Civil Rights Commission for 15 years until his dismissal for political reasons, and was involved in developing policy to curb violence on college campuses. The latter two are actually very topical again. My caveats, though, are that the article needs some improvement. Some refs are dead links, for instance. But I want to make clear that Hesburgh isn't just a recently deceased university president. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a story circulating at the time of all that 1970s activity. Q: What's the difference between God and Father Hesburgh? A: God is everywhere. Father Hesburgh is everywhere except Notre Dame. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's completely unclear what field this individual was significant in, sure he was popular and all that, but hardly RD-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to clarify for you. First there's Hesburgh's contributions as President of the University of Notre Dame: During his tenure, the University's budget increased eighteen-fold, enrollment doubled, and endowment increased by nearly 39 times, and the University first admitted women. But his contributions go far beyond a humble Catholic university in Indiana. He held some sixteen presidential appointments, including the Civil Rights Commission (which he chaired from 1969 to 1972). He was considered as a running mate by McGovern. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal. He received over 150 honorary degrees (supposedly the most of any person). He was on the February 9, 1962 cover of Time. He was the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1956 to 1970. He was at one time the chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation;. He served as an ambassador to the 1979 U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development (held by the U.N. CSTD). He was the first priest elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers, of which he was president in 1994 and 1995. He co-chaired the Knight Commission for thirteen years. These are only a few selections of the substantial influence Hesburgh had during his life. Much as Bugs says above, Hesburgh was just about everywhere during the prime of his life. That he did fade into relative obscurity in his retirement shouldn't be counted against him here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds like he did a lot of stuff, but none of it so notable that, in my opinion, he qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Notable to Notre Dame does not qualify him for ITN. This gentleman seems to have lived a very full and distinguished life, but it seems fate and circumstances conspired to keep him below the leading edge of celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. The nominator's statement regrettably overstresses Hesburgh's contributions as attached to Notre Dame, when his work went far beyond. Especially in the 70s, but into the 80s and 90s, Hesburgh was a mover and shaker in national policy. His contributions and involvement in education and civil rights were substantial (as briefly noted in my comment above). I admit, I'm not a regular here, but I don't see why this doesn't obviously meet criterion 2 in WP:ITND. Hesburgh's role in higher education, at the very least, cannot be overstated. That he held the most honorary degrees of any person pretty clearly attests to that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you are saying -- I just disagree. I don't see that any one of Mr. Hesburgh's accomplishments elevate him to the status of someone we would list as an ITN death. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd point out that being on the leading edge of celebrity is not a relevant criterion, but neither is sitting in a lot of seats an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Clearly a polymath, but equally clearly not a leading figure in any specific field. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: His murder is the 5th story on the front page of the UK version of the BBC news page, suggesting a high degree of importance. Murder being reported worldwide. Doesn't seem to fit RD as the story is the killing itself, and it might be difficult to say that he was widely regarded as very important in his field. Alt blurb suggestions welcome. BencherliteTalk 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, his story moved to the number 1 spot on the front page of the BBC. Also on the front cover of NBCnews.com "U.S. Blogger Hacked to Death by 'Islamist Radicals'" and independent.co.uk below the fold. Interesting because people are campaigning for the release of Raif Badawi, and the ability of bloggers to use modern technology to challenge conservative ideas is of global interest. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC positioning as first story must be for people outside the UK - the UK version is still a Labour Party pledge on tuition fees. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The story is on the front of bbc.com, and bbc.com/news, and using Hola unblocker's UK VPN, I see it's the second story on bbc.co.uk under the "news" tab, after "germany votes to extend financial aid to Greece". -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a desk in London. It is still the fifth story on the website and it is also the fifth story on the BBC iPhone news app, but the fact that elsewhere in the world it's shown as the top story shows its importance worldwide as opposed to the domestic stories that take the first four places (Labour tuition fees, Gary Glitter, Jihadi John and Lloyds Bank dividends). BencherliteTalk 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this if he were a notable figure before the assassination, but his article was only just created after his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Got worldwide coverage. Google news search results 15,000 news articles. - Rahat (Message) 06:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems to have recieved plenty of coverage worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lots of coverage, good article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not just a terrible crime but an example of a trend of violent suppression of atheist opinion, and associated with significant protests. This is continuing to receive lots of coverage in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters without Borders have condemned his killing, comes during rising repression against journalists and bloggers across the world. The article should now be in better shape. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is certain that the event is not an ordinary murder. --Egeymi (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support has received worldwide attention (yesterday it was the most read article on Guardian), is an important issue relating to freedom of speech and the article is in decent shape. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:47, 28 February 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.
Nominator's comments: First Black player in the NBA as well as the first to be on a championship team, and the first Black assistant coach in the NBA. Described as "One of the NBA's most important -- and least recognized" players [19]; "Although Lloyd may not be considered the greatest player to have ever stepped onto a basketball court, he was one of the most influential". Inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame, and a few other honors. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heard this in the sports bulletin on BBC Radio 5 this morning (the British national news and sports radio station, for those of you unfamiliar with it!) - and can't remember the last time I heard the death of a retired American (or indeed any nationality) sportsman being mentioned in this way, so leaning towards thinking that this indicates a high level of importance in his field even if his career was less than outstanding (I note he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a contributor not a player). BencherliteTalk 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the recently RD posted Charlie Sifford could be considered a comparable? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit confusing. The NBL integrated in 1942. In 1949, after the BAA and NBL merged, they played one season under a color barrier. Lloyd was the first to play a game after that, when the joint organization was known as the NBA, but he was not the first to be signed or drafted. Instead, his team's schedule started ahead of the other three black NBA players at the beginning of that season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it's just a death of another American arsehole. Do you really think that we should post this because he was the first Black player in the NBA as well as on the championship team? No indication that he was one of the greatest players in the game implies no chance to consider this to go on the main page.--Droneanddrone (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like two-thirds of your contributions consist of griping about "American shit" or an "American arsehole". Please reconsider your language. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no requirement that only the greatest players are posted; it is those who are very important to their fields. You don't have to be a great player to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pioneer, Hall of Famer - and also, to counter the extremely offensive comment immediately above. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support He'll always have a place in the history books, and his death has received a decent amount of media attention. That said, his debut really wasn't comparable to Jackie Robinson in baseball (something Lloyd himself emphasized in pretty much every interview I read). Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perhaps the "supporters" have failed to read the article, but it has (and has had) a bright orange maintenance tag at the top of it for OVER SIX YEARS. E.g. the "NBA career" section has one citation referencing just a single fact. On top of that, it has unreferenced quotations and it has nothing of his death other than the fact that he's dead. In short, the article is crap and way off the quality we should be posting to the main page. As for the notability of the individual, it seems borderline (as an outsider who doesn't hold individuals like this in any affection). He won very little in his career as a basketball player and it's notable that his induction to the over-hyped HOF was not as a player. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article quality is severely lacking. His college career looks like it was excellent, his professional career significantly less so - and there's nearly no references or citations in the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said he should be posted as a great player(he is not in the Hall of Fame as a player) but that doesn't mean he isn't important, as the sources I posted state. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::* Fair enough - but this leaves me completely mystified as to what the man actually did that makes him notable - if it wasn't as a player, than the opening section should be re-written to reflect just what he was most known for in his career, I would think Challenger l (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I really did miss something - first black player in the NBA - that makes him notable enough - but the article still needs a TON of work. Challenger l (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: While this is US-centric, as this is an Internet-related issue, it was expected that the impact will filter through the rest of the world. Also, nearly everyone is expecting that this will be challenged in court but the when and how is unsure at this time. MASEM (t) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't been following this too closely, but it looks like big news and a landmark decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An important decision. SwarmX 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a huge victory. Forbes says it's bigger than when Wikipedia (and others) went dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia going to be blacked out in protest against this as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before we have a rush to post this, where's the update in the article? Would it be the one-sentence sixth and final paragraph in the lead of the article? What about the fifth paragraph of the lead, which talks about this vote in the future tense? Where's the material in the body of the article about this? BencherliteTalk 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we shouldn't rush to post this. It needs an update. The section "Proposed 2014 US FCC policy" has an expansion tag, but that looks like it might be removable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards supporting, but first: is anyone able to give an answer as to whether this is the first net neutrality law to be passed anywhere? Formerip (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with condition that it is noted that net neutrality is not the sole rule applied to broadband service. There are, at least allegedly, hundreds of other regulations that shouldn't be glazed over with the blurb. Joshua Garner (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of other things the FCC voted on today that are aligned with the idea of NN (such as this also applying to mobile data plans, that providers can't block local municipalities from installing their own services, etc.) and these should be included in the NN in US article, but I don't think there's room to cover all that in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the lines of "...as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules..."? Joshua Garner (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to the "including" verbage. Adding as alt-blurb for this and Isanae's suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker, but the "including" part sounds rather weird. I'd change it to "...broadband is reclassified as a utility, which includes enforcing net neutrality..." However, this just makes the blurb messier. I'd drop "including" entirely. Isa (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not right. One thing they voted on today was to classify broadband as a utility, which thus allows them to enact NN because that's basically the requirements of a service called a utility. They also voted on several other issues that all align with the approach they were going - that broadband should be treated as a utility, however none of these other votes were on that specific point. So it's not that "including" NN rules, in this manner. It is not that these other issues aren't important, but everyone was on their chair about the broadband classification ruling. Our omission of these other points doesn't mean they aren't important, but this specific decision was the ITN item. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the distinction is relevant to blurb readers. Only part of the utility Title II rules are being applied: from the NYTimes, "...the new rules are an à la carte version of Title II, adopting some provisions and shunning others." The situation is complicated, and stating only one effect of the rules (net neutrality) unjustly ignores the broader impact of this reclassification. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs have limited space and this vote is complex. In this situation, I'd mention the most popular effect of the decision and assume that interested readers will visit the article for more information. I understand your point that this makes the blurb incomplete, but it does not make it inaccurate. Isa (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is important. SeraV (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes it would be big news if this won't be taken down by some judge in a few months. Unless I am missing something, there will be some endless litigation following this 3-2 decision. Until something like Supreme Court decides on this or it actually comes into force, I suggest to wait on posting this. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty much a sure thing that there's going to be a challenge to this. However, it should be noted that the FCC had has attempt to do this a couple times before but had to change their approach here (specifically the reclassification of broadband as a utility, something under their power) as to be able to set the NN rules, and so any challenge is going to likely be a SCOTUS case, and if and when that will happen, we don't know. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not everybody knows what the "Federal Communications Commission" is. Can we get the country name in there somehow? Something like "In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service." Isa (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added US to the FCC part, which should make it clear on the country. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to significance not only within the US, but globally as movement grows to implement this type of regulation. I agree with JoshuaKGarner that it would be preferred that the article mention what Title II regulations apply here, as it looks like they cherry-picked authorities in this decision. However, I don't think that needs to be mentioned within the blurb, and I don't think that it necessarily needs to be included in the article at time of posting. Additionally, please link to the section for the bold link, not just the article.Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is lengthy but the update is a bit skimpy. I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit. But I agree that this ruling is important and worthy of a posting on ITN. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note: There is clear consensus to post this, but there are referencing issues on the article that need to be addressed before this gets posted to the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are sufficient sources in the paragraph now, anything else needed before it's posted? Nakon 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section 5 still has an unreferenced tag on it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the whole thing. It was written in 2008 and has been unreferenced since then. Isa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparently the regime has wasted no time in blocking many overseas websites from access to the US, in violation of the principle of no prior constraint. This is a huge, extralegal power grab. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not the NK regime. The overseas sites being down seems to have been a glitch last night, perhaps due to the internet outage out west, the sites are back up now. That in no way downplays the importance of this huge power grab, the details of which the FCC is keeping secret from Congress. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, @Coffee: thanks for posting. It would be helpful though if the word "utility" could be wikilinked as utility. At the same time, the last three words "for the service" can be omitted to save space. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Joshua Leakey
It's up now, it isn't pushing any other recent item off the main page, and the (admittedly fuzzy) consensus seems to be that next time, more discussion before posting should be allowed, but that pulling it isn't appropriate. Decent article, rare event, a break from the elections, sporting events, natural disasters, and massacres... just leave it there and for God's sake relax. If I didn't think it would degenerate into a dysfunctional argument, I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page about how we can make ITN/C less susceptible to dysfunctional arguments. Today's supervote is brought to you by Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 26 February 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: Highest British/Commonwealth award for valour in the face of the enemy. First living recipient from the Afghanistan War (two posthumous awards, one not nominated, the other nominated but not posted, though Johnson Beharry's VC way back in 2005 was posted) and the 15th award since the Second World War. Not a clear-cut ITN case, I accept, but I thought it was worth a go particularly given the slow news week we're having (oldest ITN story is 9 days old, only one story more recent than last weekend's Oscars). New article that is in good shape for posting. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in decent shape and 15 occurrences in 70 years, ten years since we posted one; hardly means we'll be overrun with nominations in future years. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Stemoc for uploading and adding the picture. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rare event, target article in good shape; Victoria Cross article is very good thus in line with our commitment as an educational resource. Pedro : Chat 14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Handing out 15 medals in 70 years would be interesting and relevant if it was the only medal given out by the British military. There's dozens of similarly "rare" events happening every day. Picking out this one just looks like standard military history bias with a little British slant thrown in. Shame on y'all for not applying a bit more critical thinking. PeterIsotalo 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an odd point of view. The award of the VC is rare as it gets, especially to a breathing human. The fact that other medals are awarded is not really relevant here. Could you provide us with, say, just a dozen of these "similarly "rare" events" that have happened today? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needed more time for discussion from other parts of the world -3hrs is far too short. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been ITN, but we need to avoid this considering the timing and geographical topicality of the story (read: middle of the UK day). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I'm not saying "pull", but it's funny how Brits often complain when an American item is posted quickly at a time when they're not on their computers, and then this happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well what are you saying about this nomination then? Is this just an opportunity to have a make that gulf just a bit wider, or are you actually suggesting this shouldn't be posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c with TRM) I have no problem with more discussion taking place, but please let's not turn this into a Brits-v-Yanks discussion, which would be particularly ironic when Leakey won his VC in part for risking his life to save an injured US Marine Corps captain. BencherliteTalk 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying exactly what I said, which is that it was posted too quickly. I also can't help but notice that it's not receiving any U.S. coverage. Irony re: what Leakey did duly noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What point is Muboshgu missing? This was posted far too hastily and anyone ought to be able to see that, whether they support posting or oppose posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, keep up. The point is that it is a perfectly valid ITN. You don't like it the way it was posted. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up with what? Stop being so patronizing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up with the discussion. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It took you forever to acknowledge that part of the objection is that this was pushed through too quickly. Don't tell us to keep up. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It's amazing that you haven't objected at all to an item that I posted after just four or so hours. Because it didn't relate to anything British. Utter hypocrisy. Do some research, keep up, and stop whinging. Or go to RFA and become an admin and do all this yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Believe what you like. I no longer care. This discussion isn't going anywhere anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull this item'. It is not world news, and it is a political problem as well that wikipedia would choose to rpresent specific countries military medals and not others. Demonstrates worse judgment that usual even for ITN. Posting it with only four supports and after such a short period of nomination is further aggravating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be "world news" to be posted to ITN, as well you know. Which other "specific countries military medals" of this nature have been overlooked? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull even the nominator admitted this was not a clear–cut case, so it certainly should not have been posted after 4 votes and 3-and-a-half hours, especially since no case has really been made for the international significance of this event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above " Please do not ...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." International significance has never been, is not, and never will be a standard for making ITN decisions. It's fine to have a valid reason to oppose; perhaps the article quality is not what you'd expect? Oppose for those reasons. But complaining that this didn't happen in enough countries or "internationally significant" is not an actionable oppose reason that should sway admins to make a decision. --Jayron32 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If what I wrote above qualifies as complaining, then the world has turned upside down. At any rate, I don't think this military award is significant enough for ITN and I certainly don't think it should have been posted so hastily. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who said "no case has really been made for the international significance of this event". That isn't required. Thanks. (P.S. If you fancy it, you could picture this is a Brit risking his life to save an American in Afghanistan... doesn't get much more international than that!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jayron32 already pointed out that international significance is not required. I'm still not convinced that this award is significant enough in the UK for this nomination to be posted. Even if it is worthy for ITN, I still have a major objection to it being posted with such minimal input, considering that the nominator himself said it wasn't a clear-cut ITN case. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. It's the highest award for gallantry available in the UK, and is rarely awarded to living people because usually they die in the course of their duty. Your objection is based on not understanding the significance, that's your problem, not ours. Read Victoria Cross, it may educate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is also based on how hastily this was pushed through, but you keep disregarding that for some reason. If it is significant enough, great! But when it gets pushed through like this, the whole situation smells bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support. Rare and historic achievement. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I've seen the word "parochial" used by many a Brit to oppose an American nomination. I wasn't going to say pull, but then I looked through some sources and I'm surprised that this is only covered by British sources. The New York Times and CNN don't have anything on this. This isn't a WP:ITSLOCAL oppose, since this concerns a British soldier in a war in Asia, but I'll say it's still too "parochial" a story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time magazine (which I think is American) and the Singapore News (which I think is not British) have it - did you find them? Clearly not. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have time to search every single source, no. Google News showed me only British sources, and it's still odd to me that NYT and CNN still have nothing on this. I will revoke my !pull, but still think this should've been an open discussion for longer than it was before it was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. It has no place on ITN. Yes it might be rare, but since when do we post military awards? Also, the posting was far too premature, this is what the Americans normally do, the Brits shouldn't be doing it as well! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your perceived prematurity of posting, why would this have "no place on ITN"? Since when "don't" we post military awards if they're significant enough? Especially when it's in the news internationally and represented a military award that is hardly ever given to a living person who was serving in Afghanistan who saved an American... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not perceived, actual. Apart from that, for one, how is the 'saved an American' relevant. Also, Soldiers get decorations, big deal. Point me out when we last posted a decoration, of any country. The last thing wiki needs to do is cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society, it's getting to dangerously American levels already.... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that "we haven't posted anything like this before, so we shouldn't start now"? Perhaps you'd like to modify the ITNC guidelines to ensure we don't post anything to "cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society" despite the fact this has nothing really to do with UK society, just UK forces in Afghanistan who act so bravely to protect others. You don't like war, we don't like war, who does, but ITN isn't the place to try to right great wrongs. You know that, don't you?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's different and notable. — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given their rarity I would say the award of a VC to a living person is notable enough for inclusion in ITN. Bobtalk 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull This was a) posted far too early. b)It doesn't belong, yes it might be rare, but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway important to us. c) does this now mean that we are going to post other military awards just because they are "rare". SeraV (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, find one that's as rare as the VC with its context and we should consider it. Do you have any examples? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soldier gets military decoration. Big deal? Move on. Seriously though, [21], [22], [23][24][25], indeed most of the highest gallantry awards are just as rare as victoria cross. SeraV (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. By all means tell me when we rejected an ITN for a military honour as significant as the VC to a living individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we never should reject them then? Perhaps we should but it in ITN/R then. SeraV (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. ITNR has nothing to do with this. Are you sure you understand how this process works? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you were the champion againts systemic bias here, obviously that is only when it is in your interest. SeraV (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But he is dead and buried (at least he is not here). We need a new champion! SeraV (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep posted. Significant awarding of a high military honor that is rarely awarded. International angle only adds to the good reasons to post this. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - Clear example of English Wikipedia Systemic Bias. There are dozens of "rare" highest military awards for various countries (see Template:Highest gallantry awards). The awarding of such "rare" medals, however, is not rare in the global context. The only reason English Wikipedia editors are aware of this particular award is because they live in the UK and are no doubt bombarded with it in their local media. It has no significance to the rest of the world, however. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the US equivalent of the VC? I guess there is (less than) zero coverage of this story in the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is systemic bias but I don't usually see it described as a UK bias. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it's usually considered anglophone bias, which includes UK. Martinevans, Medal of Honor is equilevant of vc in US. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. This is a very rare event (a couple per decade), of general interest, and the article is good. If I remember correctly, we have posted recipients of the Medal of Honor (a similar US award) in the past. I agree that the item should have been debated for a while longer before posting, however most of the pull !votes above seem to be objecting purely because this is a British award. Modest Geniustalk 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want to post every single highest gallantry award from every single country from now on. Because that is what we should do to avoid systemic bias here. SeraV (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like these are given out every day or even annually; if they were, we likely wouldn't be here talking about it. If you have another similar medal awarding which gets just as much attention, I would be happy to consider and support it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't get as much attention, not in the west. That's what systemic bias is about. That doesn't mean that they don't get coverage in their country of origins or that they are somehow less valuable. I really just doubt that we would post Nishan-e-Haider here, or even that anyone would bother to nominate it even. SeraV (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's ridiculous. It seems that Nishan-e-Haider has been awarded only a handful of times in half a century. Of course it would be worth nominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well agreed if this nomination is allowed to stand, but I am doubtfull someone actually would. SeraV (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could do it, should it happen. So stop complaining about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily I am not only one who complains about stuff here. But your point is noted. SeraV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Um, no. We aren't purely objecting because it's a British award. Some of us are more than a little put off by how this was rushed through. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, which is why I said so. But that should lead to more caution in the future, not to pulling this item. Modest Geniustalk 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep posted per status quo, as I see no compelling reason why it should be removed. I agree that this was borderline qualified, and that it should have been discussed for a longer period of time; however, at this point it would take a consensus to remove. Admins are allowed to be a bit bold. That does not make this precedent, and that does not mean this short of a discussion should ever be done again for such a low-key, non-ITNR item. Mamyles (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Systematic bias. wctaiwan (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which system... the UK, the English Language, the West, the nominator's, the poster's, or which? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anglophone / western world. The concern has been addressed above; suffice it to say I agree with those who think posting this does contribute to systematic bias, and disagree with those who think it doesn't. wctaiwan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
News stories that appear in the West/ English speaking world often concern English speaking people? Should there be a requirement at ITN for non-English (or even non-Western) news item coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Note - Obviously an important award, but this might set a slippery-slope precedent. From the award's inception in 1856, until now, the average is about 8 or 9 of these per year. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grossly distorted by 627 awards in WW1, 111 in the 2 years of the Crimean War etc - as the fact that it was only awarded three times for Afghanistan and once for Iraq shows, the VC simply isn't handed out in any like the same numbers as it was in the second half of the 19th/early 20th centuries. If they were dished out 8 times a year, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's now such a rarity, especially for someone who lived to receive it, then it seems fine. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave posted. This is probably borderline for posting, but it is certainly acceptable, and this page does not benefit from continued rehashing of decisions already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note part of the significance is that this individual is still alive to receive his VC. When calculating awards per year, it should be modified to calculate awards to live recipients per year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and why does that makes this more significant exactly? I doubt those who died to get this were any less gallant than those who lived. SeraV (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you need this to be explained? The significance is that he survived to be awarded his VC. It's super rare. It's not a comment on the gallantry of those who died, more it's a comment on how super rare it is to do enough to be awarded a VC and still be alive. You're either deliberately missing the point or you haven't read the VC article. Either way, I suggest you stop posting comments like that as it really isn't helping your cause.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, SearaV. The dead soldiers never seem to make the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's going to be lost in transmission....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, super rare? That's sweet. Do you realise how inane you sound like? SeraV (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support I'd certainly expect an American or French medal only given 15/70 years to be posted. Plus, if acts of terrorism are posted, acts of heroism fighting the Taliban should also be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull it. This item is laughable. Or should we take it that we are going to post it each time a Norwegian receives the Order of St. Olav? Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because no one cares about Norway and its Order of St. Quisling. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull it Couldn't agree more. This must be a joke.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 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.
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)
.jpg)
