****{{U|GoldenRing}} you said it yourself perfectly (perfectly and 100% incorrect that is) "{{xt|...If someone's significance depends on your taste in music...}}". No. Exactly not that. We are here to judge significance ''regardless'' of personal preference. Bowie's influence over the past 40-odd years is indisputable with luminaries of the music industry from five decades telling us how influential he was. It's nothing to do with whether you liked Let's Dance or Under Pressure or any of his other oeuvre, it's that the world generally ''was'' moved by him. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
****{{U|GoldenRing}} you said it yourself perfectly (perfectly and 100% incorrect that is) "{{xt|...If someone's significance depends on your taste in music...}}". No. Exactly not that. We are here to judge significance ''regardless'' of personal preference. Bowie's influence over the past 40-odd years is indisputable with luminaries of the music industry from five decades telling us how influential he was. It's nothing to do with whether you liked Let's Dance or Under Pressure or any of his other oeuvre, it's that the world generally ''was'' moved by him. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
*****This might be something to explore more on the talk page, but this idea "the world being moved by his/her death" is really a good metric to determine the difference between blurb or RD. It applies rather well to many of the recent blurbs that I can think of (including Mandela, Thatcher, Robin Williams, and Christopher Lee), and distinguishing them from good RD candidates (Lemmy, Leonard Nimoy, etc.). The reaction to Bowie's death some 24hr later is still pouring in, so it was definitely affirming the blurb by this metric. But I also think the fact we had a quality article to start with was a clear factor too.--[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
*****This might be something to explore more on the talk page, but this idea "the world being moved by his/her death" is really a good metric to determine the difference between blurb or RD. It applies rather well to many of the recent blurbs that I can think of (including Mandela, Thatcher, Robin Williams, and Christopher Lee), and distinguishing them from good RD candidates (Lemmy, Leonard Nimoy, etc.). The reaction to Bowie's death some 24hr later is still pouring in, so it was definitely affirming the blurb by this metric. But I also think the fact we had a quality article to start with was a clear factor too.--[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
******I'm clearly in a minority (of approximately one, it seems). I'll let it go here, I think. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 10:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
**'''Post-posting support for blurb'''. Bencherlite puts it better than I could have hoped to. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
**'''Post-posting support for blurb'''. Bencherlite puts it better than I could have hoped to. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
***Too kind, but WaltCip put it even better. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
***Too kind, but WaltCip put it even better. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 13:07, 11 January 2016 (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).
Armed militiamen, also known as the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, who are occupying the USFWS administered Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, tear down a part of a fence that they claim was erected by the federal government in order to allow privately owned cattle to graze on the adjacent public land. USFWS condemns the actions through a written statement which states that, "Removing fences, damaging any refuge property, or unauthorized use of equipment would be additional unlawful actions by the illegal occupiers. Any movement of cattle onto the refuge or other activities that are not specifically authorized by [the Fish and Wildlife Service] constitutes trespassing." (The Guardian)(The Oregonian)
Thousands of protesters in Leipzig demonstrate against a record refugee influx they blame for mass sexual violence at New Year's Eve events in Cologne and other German cities. Many chanted 'We are the people', 'Resistance!' and 'Deport them!'. The rally was organized by a local chapter of PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident). Six Pakistani men and one Syrian man were also attacked by so-called vigilantes in Cologne, following calls on social media for "revenge" in the wake of the New Year's Eve assaults. (Daily Mail)
Nominator's comments: Championship game for the second highest level of American Football play in the United States. Andise1 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating - still written in the future, "the game will" etc etc. MurielMary (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if it's the second highest level of American Football play in the United States, then there's a tier above it and it's not even a national championship (which are themselves hard to justify for ITN). Hard to see this as sufficiently noteworthy for ITN then. Banedon (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of it's significance in the U.S. Various non-Americans who don't understand this will now pile on opposes. My support is pending expansion though. The article isn't ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on notability but oppose article equality – College football is big news in the States, but still second highest level. No other US-centric stories up at present either. In regards to the quality of the article, there's very little prose at present, and almost none about the game itself. 2014 BCS National Championship Game shows that there's a lot to be desired. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose National competition for young amateurs in a professional sports. (And Super Bowl LI is in less than a month, so American Football will anyway soon be at ITN.) LoveToLondon (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I live in the USA. College football does not deserve attention in the Main Page. Same for Professional Development League and other youth leagues in other sports. Someone should write articles about such youth leagues in Wikinews. George Ho (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ah it's this time of year again? Amateur competition, not notable. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics are an amateur competition. At least hammer out "parochial" like everyone else. - OldManNeptune⚓ 08:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but this doesn't evidence such, only that professionals may compete. The Olympics are, and to the best of my knowledge remain, an amateur competition - or has that changed? But to get right to the point, are you arguing that the Olympics were non-notable prior to more broadly permitting professionals to compete? If not, then this is a pointless sidebar of semantics, as you would then agree that amateur competitions suffer no particular notability handicap if other conditions are met, no? - OldManNeptune⚓ 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best of your knowledge is outdated by a quarter century. You did argue in favour of posting that the Olympics would be an amateur competition like college sports, and that argument of yours is complete nonsense. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The highest tournament of pro football is Super Bowl, but it doesn't reach the same level as Olympics, which is very global and international. College football playoffs ... is just American and not in the same league as Super Bowl. Of course, Olympics was supposed to be for only amateurs, but IOC decided to allow pro athletes into such tournaments. Actually, the athletics, including track and field, is the onlyanother amateur-only sport on Olympics. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, athletics is not an amateur-only sports at the Olympics. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; boxing and wrestling are amateur-only Olympic sports. --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Per Cyclonebiskit. It is ignorant to push the highest echelon of college football down to the level of youth league sports; the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport, and college football (and basketball, for that matter) enjoys popularity comparable to professional sports, to the point that even if it were mere youth league sports, it would merit attention for the sheer number of people invested in it (this applies outside the US - by all means, if you know of a non-US youth league generating NCAA levels of revenue, nominate it and I would likely support it). However, the article is not fit for the front page at this time, so support is pending updates. - OldManNeptune⚓ 08:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many college athletes end up in pro sports? George Ho (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For most American sports, the majority of professional athletes are recruited from college. I don't know that it's a fair metric to ask what percentage of college athletes go on to professional sports; "college athletes" covers everyone from these guys (of whom many will play professionally) to those who take fencing as an elective and who have no sports ambitions. It may as well be mentioned that it is an ongoing controversy in the US that college football and basketball players generate millions upon millions in revenue yet do not get paid - meaning many people feel they are roughly equivalent to professional atheletes in what they do, they merely do not collect a check for it. - OldManNeptune⚓ 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport" - As you say yourself, they are not now, so oppose remains valid. And yes indeed, parochial. Fgf10 (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two Words - Boat Race. This event is far more popular than that. It's also amateur. Correctron (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Amateur sport, not the highest level of play, negligible global impact, clear oppose. This is not a US sports new service, it's a world wide encyclopedia. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
THERE IS NOTHING 'AMATEUR' ABOUT U.S. COLLEGE FOOTBALL, at least at the top division. Those claiming otherwise are ignorant of the subject. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to Nature, this shifts the earliest known physical evidence of tea from Northern Song Dynasty to 2nd century BC. Update is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? ... Sorry, I couldn't resist. Support if this claim can be backed up by other reliable sources.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need a bit more evidence that this is a significant change. According to our article, "荼" (tu, bitter vegetable) appears in records as early as the 10th century BC and seems to refer to tea. This discovery just seems to be backing up what archives already told us. Smurrayinchester 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per article, "the first unambiguous textual reference to the consumption of tea as a beverage can be dated to 59 BCE during the Western Han Dynasty". So that 荼 seems to be ambiguous, unless some reliable source states otherwise. PS: Since The Independent broke the story several hours ago, I placed it here, but wouldn't mind moving it to January 7, when Nature published the related article. Brandmeistertalk 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A significant finding on a popular beverage. STSC (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, marginally pushes the unequivocal date of tea use back from 59 BCE to 2100 BP which means either 84 BCE or 150 BCE depending on how the authors mean BP. Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting discovery and something readers would probably like to read more about. MurielMary (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting and significant finding, readers will indeed find it interesting. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose target article commences with "An early credible record of tea drinking dates to the 3rd century AD". Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Not really in the news (solid scientific research picked up by one newspaper) and an expected result. Even the researchers don't consider the (expected) finding in China a huge discovery, and their paper instead emphasizes the finding in Tibet and makes conclusions on the history of the silk road based on that. LoveToLondon (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed] Remove Syrian Civil War from Ongoing?
Syrian Civil War is still on the news and ongoing. However, I have yet to see substantial updates of key events from this month. Also, the section that was linked in the Main Page hasn't had one update since 18 December 2015. George Ho (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of this article, or replacement with a different suitable target article. Target article, if this or otherwise, needs to be receiving consistent updates. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of what is out of this is tied to the migrant crisis. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean keep or remove? --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the war is clearly still ongoing, and it has had a history of generating news, many of which have international consequences (e.g. the Sukhoi shootdown incident). I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing is not meant for slow-moving but continuing stories. If it does change that suddenly there's day-to-day violence we can readd it but it should not languish in a slow period. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section: "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article...". Therefore, "I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor." doesn't make much sense. If you prefer Ongoing items don't have this requirement, that's something that you should probably bring up at WT:ITN. SpencerT♦C 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did that before but it didn't gain consensus. Which is fine - consensus after all does not mean every editor agrees with the consensus. With that said, first half of what I wrote is not related to this. Banedon (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poland summons the German ambassador in Warsaw over "anti-Polish" remarks made by German politicians. (BBC)
Law and crime
U.S. Army officials set August 8 as the start date for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s court-martial. Bergdahl, charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, was held captive by the Taliban for five years after he left his base in Afghanistan. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for early this week. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Award-winning Canadian Jewish author, who wrote Vengeance, a novel later adapted into the film, Munich. Article probably decent. George Ho (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing among the awards or other accomplishments indicating he was important enough for RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on the merits given the recognition he got, but the article does not go into much detail about it(like what exactly the awards were for) so I'm not sure it's ready for posting. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His obit reads as an interesting person but doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria of "important/significant" in his field. MurielMary (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose moderate sprinkling of middling awards but not enough to push him above the bar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2016 (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.
Nominator's comments: Importance to music should be clear, hence the possibility for a blurb. RD is no question. MASEM (t) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Household name, music pioneer, pop culture icon, legend. The world is that much darker tonight. He'd just released his latest album to critical acclaim, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Major 1970s musician, article is FA class. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – iconic musician and doesn't hurt at all that the article is FA class. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb one of the best known of his time and top of his field. RIP. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Very well known and influential internationally. - Kollision (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add support for a blurb: as Kudzu points out he just released an album 2 days prior, on his 69th birthday, and this day (the 10th) there was an announcement of a big Carnegie Hall tribute event for him, before the world knew of his death. While he was getting up there and his medical condition known, this falls into the "surprising" aspect that we do consider blurbs for, but that's atop his significance to music. --MASEM (t) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Need some more update ...but twitter, etc reactions should followLihaas (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Top of his profession, internationally known.LM2000 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted blurb - This is an obvious one, and the article looks fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious RD, but a blurb? Really? Isn't this opening the floodgates rather? Not sure I'm arguing for it to be pulled as yet, but how many aging rockers are we going to post blurbs for? Since his death was, AFAICT, entirely expected, I'm guessing the support for the blurb must be on the grounds that he was of similar stature to Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher. Really? GoldenRing (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is not in fact "is the person of similar stature to Mandela and Thatcher?", as the history of RD-vs-blurb shows. Was Bowie at least as important to music as Maya Angelou was to literature or Christopher Lee to acting (to give two names that I remember having appeared in full blurbs)? Yes. And the ITN crew seems capable of distinguishing between "aging rockers" - compare Lemmy getting a RD with this. Post-posting support blurb. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, the "Mandela and Thatcher" standard is bupkis. We have posted swathes and swathes of people to a blurb that arguably would not compare to these two individuals. Besides which, if any artist or musician deserves the blurb posting, that artist is Bowie simply because of his undeniable international recognition and the fact that he is at the pinnacle of his field. Post-posting support blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want that to be the case, you need to start a discussion at WP:ITN. The criteria currently include: For deaths where the person's life is the main story ... the "recent deaths" section is usually used, and In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. Is the argument then that David Bowie was a "major transformative world leader" in music? I can't see it. Maybe it's just my taste in music, but doesn't that tell you something? If someone's significance depends on your taste in music, I'm not seeing the case for a blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing you said it yourself perfectly (perfectly and 100% incorrect that is) "...If someone's significance depends on your taste in music...". No. Exactly not that. We are here to judge significance regardless of personal preference. Bowie's influence over the past 40-odd years is indisputable with luminaries of the music industry from five decades telling us how influential he was. It's nothing to do with whether you liked Let's Dance or Under Pressure or any of his other oeuvre, it's that the world generally was moved by him. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This might be something to explore more on the talk page, but this idea "the world being moved by his/her death" is really a good metric to determine the difference between blurb or RD. It applies rather well to many of the recent blurbs that I can think of (including Mandela, Thatcher, Robin Williams, and Christopher Lee), and distinguishing them from good RD candidates (Lemmy, Leonard Nimoy, etc.). The reaction to Bowie's death some 24hr later is still pouring in, so it was definitely affirming the blurb by this metric. But I also think the fact we had a quality article to start with was a clear factor too.--MASEM (t) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly in a minority (of approximately one, it seems). I'll let it go here, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb. Bencherlite puts it better than I could have hoped to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind, but WaltCip put it even better. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't going to say anything but we had an e/c as he wrote what he did. You're both better at describing this than I could hope to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! :)--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb per WaltCip and Bencherlite. They both put it well, and Bowie is definitely the kind of person who passes a blurb threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb Without David Bowie the modern pop-music landscape would be very, very different (I can't imagine MTV having happened the way it did without Bowie having been one of the trailblazers, one of the first to put as much thought into his look as his sound). It's easier to say who wasn't influenced by Bowie over the past four decades than who was (Or maybe not, since the former might not have been so successful). Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb - Thousands of people out in London, Berlin, New York. Tributes from everybody, including the PM and the archbishop of Canterbury, SEVENTEEN minutes on the BBC news, ahead of doctor strikes etc. I think blurb may be appropriate. Fgf10 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb - Going to add to the list of support for blurb even though I'm late. Also, as a Lemmy and Bowie fan, I will add that I support the way we handled both listings. Lemmy, as great as he was, is at the level of an RD listing and Bowie rises to the level of blurb. Great job, all, but so sorry to see to icons gone in such a short time! Rhodesisland (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Serbian protesters set fire to the government's headquarters in Kosovo's capital, Pristina, over an EU-brokered deal that will give Kosovo's ethnic Serb minority greater local powers. (RT)
Law and crime
Sian Blake's partner Arthur Simpson-Kent is arrested in Ghana in connection with the murder of Blake and her two children. (The Guardian)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose doesn't appear to be any more significant than any other TV presenter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would not be any more significant than any other TV presenter, as he was mainly a radio presenter. At least actually read the nom before you oppose. Fgf10 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or radio presenter. I read the article and was not impressed. The "TV" at the end of the nom stuck with me when I wrote my oppose. Assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone compare this guy to Mr. Rogers? Was he the host or the star? μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The host. The program wasn't built around him and he didn't have Roger's iconic status. Stephen 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not that big a name really. Fgf10 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evergreen figure in UK broadcasting, of particular interest to those who grew up with him. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor figure in broadcasting, not a Tony Blackburn, Terry Wogan etc, and just because he was on Crackerjack, moderate popularity with a particular generation of British children hardly qualifies him at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Crackerjack!" (ok, that will only make sense to fellow-members of that particular generation of British children that TRM mentions...) He was one of the original Radio 1 DJs as well, but was not as important to broadcasting as some of his colleagues, so oppose as well. BencherliteTalk 10:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nostalgic, but not that significant. Stephen 22:22, 10 January 2016 (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] Remove European migrant crisis from Ongoing?
No consensus to remove, as probably evidenced by the lead story on the BBC just today. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2016 (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.
Checking updates, the editing of "European migrant crisis" has mellowed (or slowed down). Updates seem to involve Finland and Sweden, but they do not majorly affect the crisis. Ongoing or not, it might no longer qualify for Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a main news event many countries. Mind the -purported- relationship with the Cologne events on new year's eve, which are marked as a turning point in the public acceptance in Germany; besides legal challenges of the migrant distribution regulation by Hungary; closure of more borders (Denmark-Sweden last week) and the start of the rapid response border guard... L.tak (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – still a major news story all over the world basically.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (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.
Three people are unaccounted for and at least 135 structures are destroyed, including the historic Yarloop Workshops, following a bushfire in the small Western Australian town of Yarloop. Reports coming out of the area suggest the town of Yarloop has been almost completely destroyed with one local official, Murray Cowper, saying, "A big fireball came through and there was no way they were going to stop it. This could well be the end of the town". (SBS)(BBC)
The chief of Cologne's police force, Wolfgang Albers, is relieved of his duties following criticism of his handling of violent clashes and sexual assaults by migrant gangs in the city on New Year's Eve. (The Independent)
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: Pioneering Italian motor racing driver. First woman to start and one of five to have competed in the male-dominated sport that is Formula 1 racing (Spa, 1958). Fuebaey (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable, leading in her field; article seems thoroughly cited. MurielMary (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, in particular as F1 is a worldwide sport and females compete alongside male drivers. - OldManNeptune⚓ 11:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Being the first female in F1; also, article in good shape. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RDStephen 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] El Chapo is recaptured
I disagree with the posting, but the item has been posted, and further comment is unhelpful μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2016 (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.
Support Hope this time they'll put him behind bars for good. Update may be slightly expanded. Brandmeistertalk 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Newsworthy. Curro2 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clearly newsworthy -- one of the world's most wanted fugitives. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just as the escape was notable enough to post, the capture is as well. Mamyles (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yep, a big deal. And hopefully, we won't be having any more escaped / captured posts for Guzman after this. Dragons flight (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable criminal, notable escape, notable manhunt, notable capture. Proposed image is non-free. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment certainly a rapid and clear consensus, and the article is in very good condition. Posting 64 minutes after nomination, I wonder how many people would crucify me for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, 64 minutes is more than sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks. Not according to some though. Just wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Notable as a criminal and for method of escape. The fact he was captured relatively quickly also adds to it. CrashUnderride 21:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So long as they don't write a norteño mentioning Wikipedia's "Hombre de Senderismo". Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 2 hours? I'm pretty sure we're supposed to spend at least the next two days harassing you about acting rashly. :-) Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question May I know what is so special about this drug lord, compared to other criminals? According to Talk:Joaquín Guzmán this is the third time he's featured on the ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can ask. This report is a good synopsis, from the BBC, about his dramatic escape, his power, his worth and his significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to a typical criminal case, where the person is arrested, put on trial, judgement passed, sentenced, put into prison, and then released/executed, where the only notable point of interest for ITN is the judgement, here we're talking about a criminal that has had a huge impact (due to being a druglord) that was judged and sentenced, put into prison, escaped, and recaptured. I think it's fair that this guy is in ITN more than your typical criminal. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately we are falling into the trap of media frenzy about fascination with crime and criminals. This is very local news nothing international.Marvel Hero (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this is an international story, as Bugs points out, the "Please do not" section above includes "... 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." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2016 (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] Yarloop brushfire
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:19, 9 January 2016 (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: Yarloop workshops is a historical railway & timber mill museum containing the largest timber die patterns collection in the southern Hemisphere. Gnangarra 03:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
either or at the moment the loss of the museum and the town is hopfully the biggest tragedy of this fire. Gnangarra 09:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing the claim made in the nomination note in the article about the workshops. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed die and pattern are the same thing but adjusted my comment here to reflect articles use of pattern, added a second source[2] which was used elsewhere in the article to support the claim Gnangarra 09:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on notability - this doesn't seem to have been the most significant fire of the season; according to the article, the 25 November fire destroyed almost as many houses and resulted in two tragic deaths as well. However, it is being widely reported (UK news has picked up the story) . Perhaps it's worth waiting until the fire burns out and then nominating the story of the bushfire itself with all its devastation? Also, there are some anomalies with the article - The Independent news source states that 95 houses were destroyed out of 300, but the article states that only 30 houses were left standing after the fire (is that a typo?) MurielMary (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
though I've never counted them I doubt that there is even 200 houses in Yarloop, some reports are saying as little as 8 houses survived so yeah the statistical information is rather erratic at the moment as authorities arent releasing accurate counts that wont happen for a few more days. The focus here isnt so much the bushfire but rather the loss of a significant museum and its collection. Gnangarra 09:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whether we take it as the destruction of the town, or the destruction of the museum, either lacks significant importance for ITN. In terms of the village, I'd equate wildfires normally to tornadoes that regularly (in their season) destroy small towns and cause loss of life and its only where the damage is on a massive scale (as the late December system was) where we'd consider ITN posting. In light of the museum, I'm not seeing this as a very significant museum; if may have been important to the locale's forestry industry but we're not talking about something like MOMA or the Hermitage, where invaluable works of art would have been lost. It's a shame it was lost, but it's far from being a premiere collection in the world. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we had some really stellar articles to direct readers to, I think this could make up for the relatively small reach of the story. But the two articles are fairly short and cursory, and while lacking any major errors or problems, I also don't see them as being extensive enough to make up the fact that the story, while both tragic and interesting, is not a major news item. --Jayron32 19:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, unfortunately there has been 2 deaths. Human remains found in Yarloop. There were up to 4 people unaccounted for.[3]. Homes destroyed now 131. More than 80,000 hectares burnt.[4]
• "brushfire"? (surely "bushfire"?) is that a typo or an auto-correct error? 220ofBorg 12:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Brushfire" is normal in the US, if not also Canada. "Bushfire" is what one hears on BBC documentaries about Africa. I can't say what the Australians prefer, but it looks like this nomination won't get posted in any case.
Worth noting that we posted Okanogan Complex Fire last year which had a similar number of fatalities. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article was part of a blurb that highlighted the 2015 Washington wildfires which had overall taken many more homes and at least 8 times more land by acreage. See [5] --MASEM (t) 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -
museum context - it was the last of its kind in western australia, and in all probability australia for its specific contents, not simply forestry, but specifically railway - so in a sense, apart from perhaps a few other places in south africa, and maybe wales - it was the last of the machinery and patterns of its sort, and rarer than hermitage items (at least all Hermitage images are over-photographed and digitalised now), it was the last of its kind material, maybe the problem with encyclopedia articles, they dont do the big promo style of we have the last of this etc.
stellar context - western australia is not the centre of the world, and waroona even less, more in left field, and it is very different from the usa tornado belt which gets wiped out annually, this is a very specific fire that is not up there in the volume issue, it is the quality, not the quantity of the impact on people and the specific environment. it is not where they happen regularly. the nature of the conflagaration, and its going into the heart of mining (alcoa refineries) and traditionally untouched agricultural land on the coastal plain is unusual.
the opposes I see dont necessarily appreciate the context of a different fire somewhere else than the over-reported parts of the planet where big numbers and big bangs all count, it is out of the way, it is smaller in numbers, but from a comntext of a fierce one in an unexpected place, I still see some element of support than oppose for the articles so far JarrahTree 14:38, 9 January 2016 (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.
Gunmen open fire on tourists at a hotel close to the Giza pyramids. There were no casualties in the attack, which caused some damage to the hotel, and the attackers were arrested shortly afterwards. (BBC)
Saudi-led coalition airstrikes today reportedly hit the presidential palace and a mountain military base to the south of Sana'a, causing children and teachers in several schools to flee. There were no immediate reports of casualties. (Reuters)
Tribal chair Charlotte Rodrique of the local Burns Paiute Tribe has joined in asking the occupiers to leave saying "The protesters have no claim to this land". Rodrique further cites a treaty, never ratified by the United States Congress, giving ownership of the land to the tribe. (The Washington Post via MSN)
French police shoot dead a knife-wielding man, who was shouting "Allahu Akbar", outside a police station in Goutte d'Or, located in the 18th arrondissement of Paris. A piece of paper with an Islamic State flag and claim for the attack written in Arabic was found on his body. The incident is noted for taking place on the anniversary of last year's Charlie Hebdo shooting. (BBC)
In the United States, a swarm of 30 (and counting) earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater struck Oklahoma from Wednesday evening through Thursday mid-afternoon. The biggest, a magnitude 4.8, happened yesterday at 10:27 p.m. CST, 32 kilometers (20 miles) northwest of Fairview, Oklahoma. (The Weather Channel)
The bodies of six people are found in a rural village in Guerrero state in southern Mexico. (La Prensa)
Scotland Yard confirms that they are investigating a triple murder in relation to the death of British actress Sian Blake and her two sons after the discovery of their dead bodies on Tuesday. (AAP via News Limited)
Nominator's comments: Article is a very solid article, comprehensive, well referenced, and includes solid information on latest developments in the ongoing Chinese financial crisis. The financial crisis was the top overall story on several major news outlets when it hit (not just financial news, but overall news) so interest in story is likely to be high, it is being well covered by major news organizations. High likely interest + currently happening + solid article = everything we need for an ITN story except consensus to post. Jayron32 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the NBC article, it says this was the second time this week that the market trigger was hit. Why is this time more important that the previous time. I don't question the market volatility issue, just whether is this really a significant point or not to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second time in the week is probably what pushed the story to the top of the news feeds and news broadcasts. TBH, it's not our role to justify or invent reasons why news organizations have found this to be a story worth devoting time, space, and resources to covering in great detail. Since 1) they are doing so making it likely a story familiar to readers and 2) we have a really good article. Inventing reasons why or why not this should or should not be an important story is inconsequential. Importance is assessed by evidence not rationalization, and quality is likewise judged. The story is important, and I know that because major organizations are giving it resources and prominence, and the article is good enough, and I know that because I read it. --Jayron32 20:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are not a news ticker, we do have to evaluate more than just "many sources are reporting it". That's why we have these discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could, in theory, support this. The world's second largest economy suffers serious market hiccup, with frenetic selling triggering a newly implemented shut-off system, designed to prevent the episode we posted six months ago. Is scrapped after going off twice in four days. Compared with other major stock exchanges, where unexpected full-day market closures are rare, this is newsworthy. And it's not an election/sport event/death count. (woo!)
A little disappointed with the update though. While Jan 4 is decent, Jan 7 is quite limp - which stock markets? Shanghai and Shenzhen. It didn't hit Hong Kong for example, though it doesn't differentiate that. It also doesn't fully explain the effect of a RMB devaluation and how it relates to the sell off. Could do with less quotes, more paraphrasing and a good copyedit. Blurb has more than one tense and is not entirely chronological. If I get time, I might take a jab. Fuebaey (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article is fixed and the orange tags are removed. This is an important event but the article needs improvement. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems like a pretty big deal. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no rationale why January 7 is the day that would enter the history books like October 29. Stock markets go up and down all the time, no real news here. Stock indices in Shanghai are still higher than in November 2014, and if you bought stocks there 1.5 years ago you are still well on the plus side. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this crash is not just major financial news. It's major enough to generate coverage in non-financial news outlets. Oppose vote does not convince. Maybe it's not a singular event like the crash of 1929, but so what? From peak to trough the crash has been some 40% of value (note that the crash goes back to June 2015, not November 2015), which is far more significant than the crash of 1929. Furthermore, a 12% crash ala 1929 is not going to happen in the Shanghai index, because circuit breakers halt trading if value falls by 7%. Finally, while stock markets go up and down all the time, it is rare for the general index to move by more than 3% in a day, yet falls of 7% have already happened twice in 2016. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Various not very important news like Google is now worth x billion also generate coverage in non-financial news outlets all the time. What matters about 1929 is not whether the Dow lost 7% or 12%. What matters about 1929 is that this was the start of an economic crisis that also affected the real world. The nominator claims in both the nomination and the blurb worsening financial crisis. Is it actually confirmed beyond any doubt that there is a real financial crisis going on in China (that will surely push tens of millions of people into unemployment in China), and not just a small stock market bubble in one Chinese stock exchange with stock prices going back to normal 2014 levels? ITN claiming that there was a financial crisis in China when there is no clear consensus about that would be very bad for the reputation of WP. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall seeing "Google is now worth x billion" in non-financial news outlets, although Apple becoming the world's largest publicly-traded company by market capitalization I did see (and I think that is worth posting to ITN too). The rest of what you wrote ... I'm sorry for saying this, but I find the underlying assumptions of "it does not affect me" and "I've never heard about it" to be appalling. See:
[6] Clearly a stock market crash is going to have real life impact on the people who have money invested. The people who don't have money invested are going to be insulated from the immediate effects, but it won't be forever: since the people affected by the crash have less disposable income now, the economy contracts, and sooner or later everyone is affected.
[7] Some perspective on exactly how large the crash is. "By early July, $2.8 trillion in value had been wiped out." That's $2.8 trillion, or roughly five time Apple's current market capitalization (Apple is the world's largest publicly-traded company by market capitalization), and some 1/6 of the total US GDP per year (and the US is the largest economy in the world).
[8] Article right from today showing how China's economic slowdown is having global consequences. You might not see the connection between 'economic slowdown' and 'stock market crash'. I'll explain it: China's stock market lists Chinese companies, obviously. The price of a stock is intimately connected to how well the public perceives the company's future to be, so e.g. if a company comes up with a disruptive innovation that's going to be enormously profitable, the company's market capitalization will skyrocket. In this case we have a crash, which implies the public no longer perceives the companies' future to be as rosy. If Chinese companies' futures aren't as rosy, clearly the Chinese economy is slowing down.
[9] It's not "just" a small stock market bubble. In fact the word 'small' is a red flag here. China is the world's 2nd largest economy, and the size of the crash is $2.8 trillion - that's 2,800,000,000,000.
These $2.8 trillion you emphasize so much were half a year ago, that's old news. The only thing that matters for ITN is what happened in January.
But let me repeat the point that really matters: ITN claiming that there is a financial crisis in China when there is no clear consensus about that in RS would be very bad for the reputation of WP. Please show RS confirming the claim in the blurb that China as a whole has without a doubt already before January been in a financial crisis.
If your only problem with the nomination is the blurb, by all means propose an alternative. As for RS about a financial crisis: I'm sorry but you're on your own there. If you feel comfortable with opposing the nomination even if you're unfamiliar with the context and haven't done the research, that's up to you. Banedon (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, my problem with the nomination is that there was no event in January that would warrant an ITN blurb. Once you ignore all the hilarious claims and look at what actually happened in January, there is not much left. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2016 (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: Iranian Princess (sister of last Shah), diplomat, involved in 1953 coup which returned her brother to the throne. Oldest living member of the royal family. MurielMary (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I buy the notability, but the article needs work on referencing, many uncited claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Currently the article's body starts rapidly from the 1960s, without her earlier period. Would support otherwise. Brandmeistertalk 09:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support but the article's contention that the CIA-backed 1953 coup against Mossadergh would have happened whether or not the Shah and his sister were involved is based on 1980s research (and speculation) and predates the declassification of relevant documents illuminating Ashraf's central, persuasive role. She's clearly a key figure. Am not sure this Wiki bio is complete or necessarily balanced/neutral. Hers was one of those lives that awaits a definitive biography but, given the amount of rumor, innuendo, and partisan debate, may never get it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've edited the article to state "some historians believe that ...." to clarify that it's a viewpoint held by some. MurielMary (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready Apparently well updated and clearly relevant. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query - I notice that the article has been re-named Princess Ashraf of Iran by Hebel with the comment that that is her correct title. Should the title on the main page be changed to match? Spencer as an admin, what do you think? MurielMary (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2016 (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: Longest serving Chief Judge in New York history, also the first woman to serve as Chief Judge. Recipient of various awards such as Distinguished Jurist and Gold Medal from the NY Bar Association. MurielMary (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support just about creeps over notability bar for me, all achievements on a very local basis, but article is in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose local/region government positions need to have achieved something larger (for example, I would suspect we'd include Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of NYC, as an RD when that happens due to his leadership that had influence beyond NYC itself.) Kaye does not appear to have that. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example, I think. Bloomberg founded a media empire before he ran for mayor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with Andrew D. Too local, not enough impact as far as I can tell, and this coming from a native New Yorker. – Muboshgu (talk)
Weak support - I agree with TRM (second time this week, what is happening) this one is just above the notability bar. And article is well sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability, support on quality and vacancy. O, Admin, make of that what you will. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. To paraphrase TRM, I find this stays just under the notability bar as all achievements are very local. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2016 (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: Price of Brent crude has gone below $33, which has not be reached since April 2004. That is lower than during the recession. China's economy is at fault. Nergaal (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not really a "record" if I have socks older than the benchmark point being used. And without a record to speak of, the story then becomes "commodity changes in price", which is hardly groundbreaking. GRAPPLEX 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oil is one of the most important cogs in the world's economy. The industry is worth trillions of USD. Furthermore the decline has been incredible - over 50%. I'm not convinced by Grapple X's oppose vote above. 10 years is a long time, certainly long enough to post something to ITN. Also, the only other commodity price that's as closely watched as oil is gold, so even without a record the second part does not convince me. Banedon (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a benchmark I'd consider quite a big deal. It's a watershed moment for the energy sector.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with records like this is that there is often very little story to highlight. Right now price of oil essentially has only a one sentence update for moving below the 2008 lows, and not much more than that in the way of substantive updates during the last six months. Without more of a narrative about what is happening and where we are going, I don't think there is enough of an update to justify ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose so if the price drops further, do we keep bumping this up the ITN section? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose these records don't really mean much. It's meaningless to compare the price today directly with the price 10 years ago, due to inflation. Adjusted, technically the price now is the lowest since March 1999. While staggering, it's not really breaking news. Mamyles (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose $33 is an arbitrary number. There are key numbers associated with oil, namely $100/barrel which is where a lot of alternate energy technology becomes much more financially better than oil-based, but in terms of a low-end, I'm not really aware of one: this is just a record for a sake of a having some measure of its low price. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merely statistical, not an actual event. Should this mean some drastic action, like the Oil Embargo (do you remember that) then we'd have something to post. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The way things have been going this week, it's part of a larger, forbiddingly volatile situation.Sca (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Arbitrary number in an arbitrary time frame. Resolute 20:26, 7 January 2016 (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.
Nominator's comments: Died in office as the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He was committed to dialogue on the Kashmir conflict. The first Muslim to be India's Home Minister '''tAD''' (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable figure in Indian politics. 59.88.207.121 (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose locally prominent but nationally not so, holding an important office for less than a year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not seem to meet the RD criteria. If he had resolved the Kashmir issue, definitely, but merely wishing to talk about it doesn't make him important. As TRM notes he held an important office for a short time, with seemingly little impact. I don't think his being the first Muslim to hold the position is enough on its own(maybe in combination with something else) to make him important to politics. Article also very short. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose basically per TRM, we have on occasion posted US and Canadian Governors and Senators, but we need a strong rationale. Maybe DYK is possible? μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article fits any of the qualifications for DYK '''tAD''' (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can see where this is going. I personally hadn't heard of this gentleman until I saw his name trending on Twitter, and we have good rationale that regional leaders should have a bit more of a global impact than he did: being in charge of a conflict zone doesn't equate to solving that conflict. Any admin can close this discussion down. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2016 (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.
Weak oppos for now based on article content. The current article content on the recent change to the status, and its impact in Germany, is weak (only 2-3 lines of text from one reference). If that could be fleshed out a bit into a more thorough paragraph on the situation, and reactions to it, etc. etc. I would support posting the item. --Jayron32 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose presumably this is because the copyright has expired and therefore its publication is nothing more than what happens to every popular item which becomes copyright-free? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not many books have this notoriety, and not many books get such a coverage when reprinted. And apparently there was a ban on the book, which was reversed as the copyright neared the expiration date. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well reading the article, it seems just as I had thought, the book is free to print now. Just because it's a notorious book, it makes little difference - the copyright has expired and it can be reprinted. This isn't Big Brother. It may be of interest to historians, and it may upset a few people, but we have freedom of speech and all that. I think this is a story looking for people to bandwagon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator is trying to mislead by using the postwar ban quote without the clarification in the source that this was only the copyright holder not allowing new prints. If the nominator wants to imply by writing Nazi symbols are strictly banned that owning or trading copies of "Mein Kampf" was ever illegal in German that's not true - owning, buying and selling the book has always been legal in Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LoveToLondon, you never cease to amaze me with your intricate knowledge of so many things throughout the world. You always deflate the bubble of hype around the non-stories. Keep it up '''tAD''' (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is 21st century there cannot be any Libri Prohibiti since late 90s. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is already stale, since the copyright ran out 7 days ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per μηδείς, and cuz it was planned for a long time. Sca (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support this is the country he ran for 12 years (as long as fdr served). If Audacity of Hope was banned for 80 years and republished it would be notable to.
let the discussion continue at least.Lihaas (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except the book was not banned in Germany. It's unlikely this will succeed and should be re-closed. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2016 (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.
[Posted] 2016 North Korean nuclear test
Discussions are becoming increasingly tangential. There are no factual issues with the current blurb given available information and the naturally questionable nature of North Korean media. If there are any further issues with the blurb, bring it up at WP:ERRORS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:58, 6 January 2016 (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.
Weak oppose NK performing missile or nuclear tests, alone, seems insignificant (given this is the 4th such test since 2006 per source). --MASEM (t) 04:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems special, since it's claimed to have been a "miniaturized hydrogen bomb". SounderBruce 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support While NK may perform nuclear tests this is still significant, given there being increased tension in the area which was only resolved recently. This will escalate tension in the area once again and as such is significant. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because:
A hydrogen bomb, which is more destructive than an atomic bomb, is involved in this test;
It is likely to generate more news items (e.g. sanctions against North Korea);
It does not happen very often. Four tests since 2006 would be about one every 2.5 years, which is definitely rare.
Tentative support pending on forthcoming international reactions. No telling whether it's actually a hydrogen bomb test or not (it produced the same magnitude artificial earthquake as the 2013 test, if that means anything). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, after the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 all nuclear tests are exceptional events important enough and making headlines worldwide. Wait until there is more sourced information available for both article and blurb regarding what exactly has happened (North Korean media claimed that it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb is not enough to confirm it was a hydrogen bomb or a success). LoveToLondon (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support as per Cyclonebiskit.Marvel Hero (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb as written. Does anyone outside North Korea actually believe this is a hydrogen bomb? The detonation was accompanied by the same earthquake magnitude as their 2013 test of a conventional fission bomb, and not the much larger magnitude one would expect if they actually created a hydrogen bomb. All the expert commentary in the news reports I've read are very skeptical that this was actually a hydrogen bomb. Perhaps that is what they attempted but the hydrogen never ignited, or perhaps they are just saying it was a hydrogen bomb to sound scarier. Either way, I don't think their unqualified claim of a successful hydrogen bomb test belongs in the blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sources are not reliable. Recall how WMD in Iraq turned out to be disinformation/misinformation/wishful thinking. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's nothing factually inaccurate about the blurb, that NK claim to detonated an H-bomb. This claim is being widely reported. That the claim may be false is another issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea also claims to have cured AIDS, Ebola, and Cancer [10]. And that their leaders never need to poop [11]. That doesn't mean we should parrot every claim they make with no skepticism. Having created a hydrogen bomb is an extraordinary claim, and absent any corroboration, I do not believe that claim deserves to be on the front page. I'm okay reporting that they conducted a nuclear test, but let's not say they successfully detonated an H-bomb if they almost certainly didn't. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, we're not saying they successfully detonated an H-bomb, the blurb says they claim that. And frankly, if it's good enough for the BBC, The New York Times, El Pais, The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Hindu, Die Zeit and many others to "parrot" the claim at or near the top of their homepages, I don't see why Wikipedia would be different. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers have different objectives and controversy draws eyeballs which is why their headlines are often more eye-catching than ours. Most stories, including the NYTimes, BBC, and The Independent nonetheless include skepticism of their claim when writing the actual story. Others (like the Telegraph) are even placing "successful" in quotes when writing their headlines. We are ultimately an encyclopedia, and I believe our standards for news reporting need not be as sensational as newspapers fighting over every eyeball. Dragons flight (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't reporting the news, but highlighting an article about a subject that is in the news that readers will likely be interested in, that is supported with reliable sources- and the reliable sources are stating the claim in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The alt-blurb also highlights the story without repeating the dubious claim. Or we could write a blurb that repeats both the claim and the well-sourced skepticism about the claim. However, simply repeating the claim while offering no context that most reliable sources view it as dubious is creating an unnecessary POV issue. Dragons flight (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the alt-blurb hasn't been confirmed either, has it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The seismometers prove a 10 kiloton detonation (give or take a factor of two). Sure, the North Koreans could have stuck a lot of TNT down a hole and faked that, but most reporting considers the explosion to have plausibly been an atomic event. So reporting that part seems reasonable. However, 10 kt is ridiculously small for a "successful" thermonuclear test and most observers are understandably expressing skepticism that there was a hydrogen detonation. Dragons flight (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already understand about the scepticism, I accept that, so you don't need to keep repeating it. My point is the blurb is correct and accurate, and the alt blurb is currently unconfirmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think it is much better to post a headline that is probably true but technically unconfirmed than it is to post a headline that is technically true but probably misleading. Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They sound equally bad for an encyclopedia. We should wait until independent confirmation is made before claiming a nuclear bomb has been detonated. As the BBC puts it: "It would be the fourth..." The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as I said below, we can actually do a good thing here by ensuring our article updates provide critical analysis of this "claim". After all, this is news all across the globe right now. Our readers will justifiably want to read about it and learn about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation which found that "The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people." We are an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly some sort of test occurred as an earthquake consistent with prior tests was detected. This is different than them claiming they cured AIDS(which cannot be independently verified and seems unlikely) as we know they have nuclear technology. Whether it is a hydrogen bomb is another story(the size of the quake was the same as the ones from other tests) but as TRM states it is not inaccurate to state that they claim to have done so, and that it what is being reported. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the claim is headline news across the globe. It doesn't get much more "in the news" than this. And this is the sort of thing our readers want to read about, even more so in this case where a critical analysis can be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sad, yet historic development. --bender235 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. An earthquake as registered, therefore some kind of nuclear test did happen. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. I agree with Dragons flight and Andrew Davidson to not sensationalize the headlines of an encyclopedia. Lets post the alt for now and when the article is updated with more info about "claims", "success" and such then we can think of going with the main blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. As the supporters have noted, NK's claim is notable in itself as a claim, even if it turns out not to be true. Thue (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump makes boastful claims too. These appear in the news but we don't repeat them on our front page because they are propaganda. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't repeat them on our front page because they don't have consensus to post. You understand how consensus works here, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be consensus for the current blurb in the comments above. The fact that someone has rushed to post it regardless in less than 8 hours demonstrates that the process doesn't work. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point again. But it clearly does work because it's a global news story so it's important we report it accurately on our main page. Some good arguments either way were made, some absurd non sequiturs were also offered. I only saw three people offering preference to the alt blurb while nine supported the original blurb (or offered no opinion on the alt blurb). That's how consensus works. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is being done in the hasty way described in 24-hour news cycle, "a "journalism of assertion" which de-emphasizes whether a claim is valid and encourages putting a claim into the arena of public discussion as quickly as possible." This is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've missed the point again. We post once an update is adequate and consensus is established, not after some arbitrary delay. In fact, an arbitrary delay to posting has been rejected by the community at least twice. This was not hasty, it was timely. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you complain that the UNSC rotation, which definitely did occur, was posted despite a limited coverage in mainstream news; now a story that is front-page news for major outlets is posted and we're, to paraphrase, letting mainstream news wag our dog? GRAPPLEX 12:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we had a well-verified fact which wasn't in the news. In this case, we have something that is in the news but it's not well-verified. There are commonly stories which are in the news but we don't cover them because they are too speculative and uncertain. Current examples would include the political manouevrings inside the UK political parties, the US presidential primaries, the CES hype, healthcare scares, &c. We're an encyclopedia and so should behave like one rather than echoing ephemeral news media. What's especially bad here is that we're mainly parrotting the North Korean media, which obviously isn't independent or reliable. They described this as a "complete success" and we are endorsing their propaganda by echoing their language — the blurb has successfully detonated as the hook. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your comment demonstrates that you completely misunderstand the Purpose of ITN. You can learn more about that at WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your comment demonstrates your complete pomposity and sickening arrogance. You can learn more about that by actually trying to edit articles, like the rest of us. 217.38.125.150 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the blurb? It contains the language "claims to". How much less of an endorsement can you get without veering into POV territory?--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're doing it again Andrew. To get the best from a sentence, you have to read all the words. Our keyword is "claim". It's evident that you're not quite getting the point, so I'd leave it now if I were you. Once we get definitive confirmation that it was a load of hype, I'm sure we'll get an errors report. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can't just choose two words from a blurb, you have to read the sentence, it provides additional context, sometimes it can be quite important, like in this case where the blurb clearly includes the word "claim". And as I clearly demonstrated, there are dozens of reliable western secondary sources to back up that they "claim" this has happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to clarify the blurb and put it in context, while still including the hydrogen bomb claim.--Pharos (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump is not actually a leader of anything right now. If he were president, and made a claim of the same magnitude as NK's, then I centainly think we would post it ITN. Thue (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support current blurb AS-IS. Let us not forget the classic North Korean modus operandi of sabre-rattling braggadocio that generally does not correlate with the truth of their capabilities. With that being said, this is a serious claim that does deserve serious scrutiny. I hope the Russians love their children too!--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my 2 cents' worth at WP:ERRORS, where I've been advised repeatedly such post-posting discussions are supposed to take place, rather than here. Sca (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was told the opposite recently: discussion on this particular item can be continued at WP:INTC. Anyway, the revised blurb of "North Korea conducts its fourth nuclear test, claiming to have used a hydrogen bomb" is better now. Sca's suggestion that this should be a "first" is imprudent as NK's claims have not been confirmed and are disputed. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which could be handled by two words – if confirmed – and two commas. Sca (talk)
In any case, it would be good if the reigning ITN admins could make up their minds about where post-posting discussions should take place. Sca (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A post-posting discussion is taking place, so I'd say that it's valid to have one here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we don't need to inundate the place with bureaucracy lest Andrew points us to another policy. There's no issue with the blurb now (although the original blurb was more accurate because there is still no independent verification of a nuclear blast) and there was no issue with the posted blurb. The only individual out of the tens of millions of visitors to our site to complain was Andrew D. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stop telling us to post such concerns at WP:ERRORS (where suggestions often have been dismissed as "not an error"). Thanks. Sca (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for every admin, but when I closed the thread Andrew D started at WP:ERRORS a few days ago, it was because he wasn't asking to change an item because it was wrong, or rephrase something for clarity (both of which are legit issues for ERRORS), he was asking for the item to be removed because he didn't think it should have been posted. That is a discussion best had here; we almost never "pull" an ITN item based on requests at ERRORS, but sometimes items are pulled after discussion here. ERRORS acts more like a noticeboard, so such meta-discussions shouldn't be had there. Now, the discussion here about wording of the items would be appropriate for ERRORS (possibly even more appropriate), but if it's already being held here, since this is not a noticeboard, it's not as important to move it there. (Also, expecting hard and fast rigid rules that apply in all circumstances is not a reasonable expectation on Wikipedia).
So in general, errors in fact or problems with clarity generally go to WP:ERRORS; disagreements about whether an item should be posted or pulled go here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 10-4 re "problems with clarity," which would seem to include the absence of the 'first' element I cited. Sca (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islamic State militants continue to besiege the Libyan oil port of Sidra, attacking checkpoints on the road to the port, leaving seven guards dead. The National Oil Corporation (NOC) said an oil storage tank in the port was set on fire by a long-range rocket, and that the oil tank fire started just as firefighters were close to bringing under control another blaze at an oil tank that was hit during fighting in the nearby Ra's Lanuf Refinery on Monday. (Reuters)
California's state climatologist Michael Anderson mentions that the recent El Niño-fueled storms will put a dent in the ongoing drought, but not end the conditions citing larger reservoirs that are still below normal. (USA Today)
The Ground Force is re-organized under the People's Liberation Army Ground Force Command, under commander Li Zuocheng. (SCMP)
Former Beijing Deputy Communist Party SecretaryLu Xiwen is expelled from the Communist Party of China for "interfering with the market economy and law enforcement" and "living a luxurious lifestyle", among other offenses. (SCMP)
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 composer, recipient of no fewer than 26 Grammys. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An obvious RD in my view. No cause of death and article lede is tagged, however. Still. Jusdafax 13:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, internationally renowned musician, 26 Grammys and a substantial and enduring reputation as a performer and composer. Obituaries in France24, The Times, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, BBC News, the Daily Telegraph, Die Zeit, Indian Express - this is undoubtedly a figure of international standing. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Per previous. Sca (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements RD importance met, but several sections lack any inline citations. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Vexing, perhaps, because the citation-free paragraphs are (to my eyes) accurate, detailed, and non-controversial descriptions mainly of his compositional work, and would be easily supported if previous editor(s) had cited sources in the bibliography. The task of footnoting these paragraphs is much more involved than citing obits, unfortunately. I hope this doesn't keep Boulez off the Main Page, as it's a very strong article otherwise. And without question he was among the most influential figures in 20th century music. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope they aren't, but there are paragraphs that clearly contain what we would call OR (eg under Experimentation: "Pli selon pli was not received as well as Le marteau.") that once attached to a source would be fine. Hopefully these can be found under the bios but they need to be found and cited, even if just one inline per paragraph. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are passages that skate OR. Perhaps you could flag the most egregious instances with [citation needed], so that readers (who no doubt are consulting the bio today whether or not it's on the front page) can get a sense of what may not be reliable? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed about 7 cn's on the page, where the language gets rather boostful if not backed by sources. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Undoubtedly a very significant figure in 20th/21st century music. Clearly some problems with citations but User:Vesuvius Dogg's comments are relevant - the article is well-written, neustral and stable and looks well worthy of a main page link. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composer influenced many others. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article needs a bit of tidy-up. 117.192.164.36 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important as both a composer and a conductor. Neljack (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprise to not see it "in the news" yet. Afasmit (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. While there are still some parts that would benefit from citations, the overall quality of the article is sufficient in my opinion. --Tone 07:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I express strong concern that this was posted with the the cn tags I was asked to add still in place. This does not represent our best work in that manner. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
