*'''Pulled''' per TRM. I would not condone his use of belittling tone directed at specific users, but the article cannot be posted with the quality issues, regardless of significance. Two fixes are needed before posting. The purple prose describing the death needs to be neutralized a bit, and the entire death paragraph is unreferenced. We cannot post someone died without any references to the fact, that would be a major BLP issue. No prejudice to this being returned immediately upon those two fixes. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Pulled''' per TRM. I would not condone his use of belittling tone directed at specific users, but the article cannot be posted with the quality issues, regardless of significance. Two fixes are needed before posting. The purple prose describing the death needs to be neutralized a bit, and the entire death paragraph is unreferenced. We cannot post someone died without any references to the fact, that would be a major BLP issue. No prejudice to this being returned immediately upon those two fixes. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:This is all about one admin who has made two poor errors of judgement in posting at ITN in the past 24 hours. The sooner we rid our process of such failings the better. And for the love of God, on an RD posting, there's like ONE THING you need to check. NOBODY here who supported this or posted this checked it. Sad face. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:This is all about one admin who has made two poor errors of judgement in posting at ITN in the past 24 hours. The sooner we rid our process of such failings the better. And for the love of God, on an RD posting, there's like ONE THING you need to check. NOBODY here who supported this or posted this checked it. Sad face. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*::It's not like he castrated a baby. It's reversible. Calm down. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*::<s>It's not like he castrated a baby.</s> ''[Description of something that admins' actions on ITN are not that TRM can handle]'' It's reversible. Calm down. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:::What the hell are you talking about? Your comparison is disgusting and completely unnecessary. Think again "Tariq", before posting such crap. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:::What the hell are you talking about? Your comparison is disgusting and completely unnecessary. Think again "Tariq", before posting such crap. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:The issue appears to now be resolved. -[[User:Kudzu1|Kudzu1]] ([[User talk:Kudzu1|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:The issue appears to now be resolved. -[[User:Kudzu1|Kudzu1]] ([[User talk:Kudzu1|talk]]) 21:21, 27 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).
Air Canada Flight 624 skids off the runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, after arriving from Toronto shortly past midnight. All 133 passengers and 5 crews on board survive, with 23 treated for minor injuries. (BBC)
Nigeria extends voting in its general election for a second day due to delays and malfunctioning equipment. So far, Boko Haram attacks have killed 43 people. (Bloomberg)
According to an interview with Germany's Bild newspaper, the former girlfriend of co-pilot Andreas Lubitz was told by him that "One day I'm going to do something that will change the whole system, and everyone will know my name and remember." (BBC)
A mourning religious service is held at Digne-les-Bains in the French Alps near the site of the downed passenger jet. (Guardian)
Law and crime
The Congolese bar owner whom Amanda Knox falsely accused of killing Meredith Kercher criticises a lack of justice in the surprise decision by Italy to quash her conviction yesterday, citing diplomatic pressure coupled with Knox's wealth and status as American, as opposed to his being African. (Guardian)
Voters in Nigeria go to the polls for a general election. Gunmen kill at least 15 voters including an opposition house of assembly candidate for Dukku in Gombe. (CNN)(Reuters via MSN)
Nominator's comments: Attack occurred at a hotel, which is popular and has significant security setup and UN diplomat also killed. (Note: Article will be expanded.) AntonTalk16:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Mass-casualty event, apparent act of terrorism, international incident. Checks a lot of boxes for ITN and should be a no-brainer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose number is not that high, terrorism is an OVERLY-represented topic at ITN, terrorism in Somalia is common. The only remotely noteworthy fact is that a UN representative died, but that is not very shocking when you realize it is Somalia after all. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split decision A lot of terror attacks are posted to ITN, whether in the Western World or elsewhere. However, shipwrecks in Bangladesh and Burma have been opposed on the justification that it happens all the time there. Terrorism is frequent in Somalia. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split decision There probably is too much terrorism coverage at ITN, but 20 casualties (especially when one is a diplomat) is a high enough amount to leave me on the fence. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Investigators, searching one of the two residences of the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, find a torn doctor's note granting Lubitz medical leave—deeming him unfit for work—for a period including the day of the crash. (CNN)
In imitation of current U.S. policy, Lufthansa, together with other German airlines announce plans to mandate that two people (either two pilots or a pilot and a flight attendant) must be inside the cockpit at all times. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Loads of news coverage, has been a high-profile case for some time now, and now this story has been definitively brought to an end. Everymorningtalk15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just a murder case at the end of the day. But, if it does get posted, please note that there were two defendants acquitted, albeit one less pretty and more foreign than the other. Formerip (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Knox is not herself notable except in relation to the murder, and we don't post acquittals, only convictions. I think the fact we are only mentioning the pretty girl in the nomination makes clear the sensationalist bias of the story, no offense to Everymorning. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We post both acquittals and convictions when at the very end of the criminal court cycle, which this certainly is. It is a high profile, international case. I do agree both persons should be named in the blurb, it is unfortunate the press tends to only focus on the "pretty" one. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an altblurb that mentions Sollecito. I haven't been paying too much attention to this case so I didn't know he had been acquitted as well. Everymorningtalk17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I affirm my opposition based on the fact that this is "pretty American" media-pics get clicks-bias and that none of the parties involved was notable. Were this an acquittal in the trial of someone accused of the Olaf Palme assassination, it might be different. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Light Oppose. Sure, its generated lots of controversy, but like Formerip said, it's still just a murder case, or lack thereof. The blurb basically would just mean that a court has found that an American didn't kill an Italian on Italian soil. Joshua Garner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was a highly controversial case with a lot of media coverage during every stage of the process. One can argue that this was just another murder case, but what matters here is whether or not this story is sufficiently "in the news", not if the level of media attention it is getting is justified or not. Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What really matters is neither of those things, but whether or not a consensus to post emerges, or else why do we bother voting at all? Formerip (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The media have decided that it is in fact not "just a murder case", by giving the case the amount of coverage they gave. But suppose that one can successfully argue here that the media were wrong to do that. But then, we are not allowed to make that determination, we have to stick to discussing whether or not a subject matter is actually in the news or not, we are not here to determine whether or not by our standards, a subject matter should have been in the news or not. That's why even if one can argue that this is just another murder case, that is still an irrelevant determination. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that's how it works. We don't post everything that's in the news or, say, the top ten most reported stories of the week. We do discriminate, and there are various valid reasons for opposing nominations, one of which is that you don't think a story is all that significant. "But it's on page two of the Guardian" or whatever is also a vaild counter-argument, but a fairly weak one, I'd say. Formerip (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more politicking and nothing of substance to report. If a Colombian woman and her boyfriend were accused of killing a Peruvian woman, and then it transpired, according to the courts, they didn't, would we be posting it? Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how things work around here. This is not a tabloid news feeder that just relinks whatever the media decides to sensationalize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is not immune to sensationalized news coverage. And with respect, I don't think it's your call where I can or cannot comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How utterly and completely absurd, and contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, to attempt to claim that we should be reporting whatever gains "media attention". Competence here is at an all-time low. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Consensus around here seems to set a very high bar for legal cases getting mention on ITN. I think a strong argument could be made that this has much lower relevance and legal implications than the Bowe Bergdahl case that was also recently shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm sure if our readers are interested in this case, they can read all about it in The Daily Mail or The New York Post, right next to the coverage of Jeremy Clarkson being fired by the BBC and Zayn Malik leaving One Direction. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Don't get the above comparison to Clarkson and Zayn, which were single recent events, and also simple entertainment stories without crime and law. This is the end of the legal case on a murder which had been making news for seven years or so since it happened. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a definite ending to one of the worlds most covered murder trials in the last decade. Ofcourse it should be featured on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support purely because it is the end of a legal matter involving three countries(US, UK, and Italy) and has much wider interest than "just a murder case". 331dot (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a subjectively dumb story, but for good or ill it is in the news and this is the definitive end. I am also motivated by the fact that Wikipedia has quite extensive coverage of this topic, so it offers a chance to highlight more information than one would get from most news accounts. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This case, while perhaps fascinating, really is just a murder trial. The fact that American infotainment networks sought to convert it into an international incident because one of the now-acquitted is a pretty, white, American girl is great for the tabloids, but that is about it. Resolute23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose obviously media coverage does matter to a certain extent, but I think that this specific case was overblown and does not rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This entire story has received considerable and extended international coverage over a long time frame. This is, hopefully, the final chapter is this sad story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to this, the murder case has more substantial details and this would make it less about this specific person and instead the case overall. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 28 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.
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 - article has only five references and many unsourced paragraphs. Also not convinced he's 'big' enough in basketball player - he's a 2× NBA All-Star but many players have had that over 10×. He might have been 'big' as an announcer though - not sure, but the article's shape must still be taken into account. starship.paint~ ¡Olé!03:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. We can't list every sports figure on RD when they die. He doesn't appear to be at the top of his field or anything like that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 28 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] Scott Kelly, Mikhail Korniyenko and Gennady Padalka launch
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: Described as "history-making" by the Guardian; this is significant because it will, if successful, break the record for the longest mission on the ISS (see CNN). Everymorningtalk20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as it breaks my heart to oppose a spaceflight story, this will only be the longest stay on the ISS, there were several year plus stays on Mir. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The launch is a routine ISS launch, the mission will not be, but we should wait until they complete it and safely return. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the year long mission has never been done before, and the twin study with Kelly's brother is a first - and it has implications for future long-term space missions. Kelly was on the front cover of Time based on this mission. Padalka will have spent the longest in space of any human at the end of the mission. If this isn't ITN worthy I'd propose it for DYK. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Key language is "will be". We hardly post of a potential aspect, but instead wait until that aspect is verified. Assuming all goes well, their return from the ISS will get comparable coverage, as well as now assurance they have spent the most time there, and that's the point where ITN makes sense. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It may merit posting when Padalka breaks the cumulative time in space record during the mission, aside from completion of the mission. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 28 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.
I'm not going to refactor your comment, but just to be clear, this isn't a "support per nominator", but "support as nominator". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nit though that there's only the date of death in the article, there should be at least a sentence or so for a better update. The rest is reasonably sources and okay for posting. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I support RD but Oppose blurb. Routine death of age, and this was not a person of the likes of Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but oppose blurb. I don't see this story being "significant" enough for a blurb, but a Nobel winner meets the death criteria clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb RD – Nobel prize winning poet. Influential in his field and active until recently. (Would be a given here if he was from the English speaking world) P. S. Burton (talk)17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but oppose blurb. Being awarded with the Nobel Prize should not be taken as decisive criterion for posting a blurb at any price, as there have been many controversies in the past over the recognition that the prize gives its recipients. Tranströmer was surely a good writer for his time but not one of his contemporaries whose works have influenced different generations. I doubt that most of us here have ever even heard of him before winning the Nobel Prize.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A rough measure of when we would use a blurb to highlight the recent death of a notable person in which the death was by natural cause/old age would be someone of the ilk like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. These two people had significant influence on an international level in politics and the like, and its clear the reaction across the world from their passing was a big deal. A poet is very much unlikely to have this type of influence, much less any other Nobel prize winner, off hand. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTChave
P. S. Burton, all the prizes that you mention are on the top of the field but they simply don't present an automatic qualifier for a blurb, especially after introducing the RD section. The main goal of introducing the RD section is to replace the massive posting of blurbs documenting deaths with a simple line of showing their names only, while blurbs are not completely excluded and allowed in case the person has made major impact in the world and influenced millions of people and whole generations. Frankly, I do think that we've been very concessive in the last couple of years; the number of deaths posted in the RD section has been heavily inflated and some people have undeservedly received blurbs, thus lowering the death criteria. So, if this had been nominated before applying the change, it would have deserved blurb on the grounds of winning the prizes or even solely the Nobel Prize (Note that the Nobel Prize laureates generally received blurbs before RD came into existence.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I have not been active in this part of Wikipedia since the introduction of the Recent deaths section. Thanks for taking the time to explain. P. S. Burton (talk)19:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "Ready" as the article is far from ready. There is no update that he died apart from the first line and the article has to be fixed in several places to reflect that. --Tone19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb His death is not one with the exceptional level of global impact and coverage that would warrant a blurb. This is not to dispute that he was a very important writer, but blurbs are rightly rare these days. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD A Nobel Prize winner is obviously a leading figure in writing. I thought I was aware that RD blurbs are for ones which make an event (death of a reigning monarch, assassination of popular figure) rather than the passing at the end of a long and successful life. Terry Pratchett, whose work sold millions (but won no Nobel prize), had no blurb '''tAD''' (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After the recent March 17 DOS attack on Chinese website GreatFire (See March 19), a massive distributed denial-of-service attack from China occurs against GitHub, a leading online coding platform, with the Github-hosted GreatFire contents being the main target. (The Verge)
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.
Yet more sterling work. I see that his death isn't even referenced. Does anyone read these articles? Does anyone care about quality and referencing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled per TRM. I would not condone his use of belittling tone directed at specific users, but the article cannot be posted with the quality issues, regardless of significance. Two fixes are needed before posting. The purple prose describing the death needs to be neutralized a bit, and the entire death paragraph is unreferenced. We cannot post someone died without any references to the fact, that would be a major BLP issue. No prejudice to this being returned immediately upon those two fixes. --Jayron3221:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about one admin who has made two poor errors of judgement in posting at ITN in the past 24 hours. The sooner we rid our process of such failings the better. And for the love of God, on an RD posting, there's like ONE THING you need to check. NOBODY here who supported this or posted this checked it. Sad face. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like he castrated a baby.[Description of something that admins' actions on ITN are not that TRM can handle] It's reversible. Calm down. -- tariqabjotu21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are multiple references on the death of this subject. Any objection to posting this to RD at this time? Nakon02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I admit, I had to do some research to fully understand who this person was and what significance he actually held. There are now a couple of sources properly cited concerning his death, though none of them directly state the cause of death. Inline citations seem present throughout the article. It looks as it should. Challenger l (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, TRM's remarks have tainted yet another nomination. It's surprising we even have admins still willing to post stuff around here with TRM berating anyone whose actions he disagrees with, and then perpetually holding those actions against them. -- tariqabjotu05:33, 28 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.
Oppose We just featured this as the main page featured article just yesterday. It's already on the main page in the "recently featured" list. I'd say the story has had enough exposure. --Jayron3200:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most TFAs are randomly picked from a pool, but there are about 5-10 a month that people ask for a TFA to run on a specific day - this was done specifically to correlate with the reburial that happened on the 26th. It was not coincidence. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. I don't think anyone thought it was a coincidence. This event was mentioned in the TFA blurb with the March 26 date. -- tariqabjotu03:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there was anything particularly notable about his exhumation, I might be inclined to vote in support, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Baseball Bugs that this is a one-of-a-kind event, but the man was a murderer, and the reburial seems to be of no importance in itself compared to the discovery of the body. Did Elizabeth II attend? Was there a funeral mass by the Archbishop of Canterbury or a high-ranking Catholic prelate? This seems stale. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 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.
Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi flees Yemen in a boat after Houthi rebels besiege the government's temporary capital of Aden in the southern part of the country. (AP)
Tornadoes hit the American city of Tulsa and the surrounding region of eastern Oklahoma leaving one person dead and several others injured. (News on 6)(BBC)
Nominator's comments: Headline-grabbing developments in the ongoing Yemeni crisis that affect potentially millions of residents of Yemen and its neighbors. I would suggest holding off on mentioning the rumors about the president fleeing ITN until the situation is clearer, but suffice to say there's been a lot that has happened in Yemen over the past 24 hours or so, more significant than the capital declaration we listed a few days ago. Kudzu1 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking, but it would have to be shoehorned into the blurb. If you think of a good alt, go ahead and add one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too early to tell how significant this is. They have intervened in Yemen before. Either way, I believe that an ongoing mention of the Yemeni Crisis would be much more sufficient than a single blurb. There are many notable events going on in Yemen, and I'm not sure why this should be singled out. Support ongoing. RGloucester — ☎05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Intervening" and supporting a regime about to be toppled are very different things. It's like saying doctors are treating a patient for a respiratory ilness, and the patient has been placed in critical care with intravenous antibiotics. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that, the important question is why we would single out this one development for a blurb, when many such developments are presently occurring. Ongoing is the only sensible solution. RGloucester — ☎05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain you mean "irregardless", thou foul, revertory, murthersome hunchback. In any case, an Ongoing blurb wouldn't bother me. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is deserved to be on the main page. We can find a proposal which cover both subjects at the same time.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support, major event with over 10 countries participating in airstrikes and 150,000 Saudis on the verge of crossing the border. If a mini-world war ensues, which is not unlikely, this could be the starting point.--Kathovotalk06:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but oppose calling the rebel government "temporary". Seems a likely outcome, but Wikipedia is not for ball-gazing. InedibleHulk(talk) 12:48, March 26, 2015 (UTC)
Comment – People need to think, here. We've already got one Yemen blurb in the ITN box. Now we're going to add another one. This is exactly the type of situation where ongoing is used, to prevent a constant stream of blurbs about the same events. This blurb should not be posted. Yemen should go to ongoing, or else we'll keep doing this every few days. RGloucester — ☎15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing the other blurb to make way for this one. This is an evolving situation we're dealing with, but a foreign military intervention beginning is undoubtedly a noteworthy development, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to the common sense approach which says we have ONGOING for such things? "Point me to the rule..."? Really? Grow up. And answer the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, rude much, Rambling? I would think that warrants an immediate apology. And for the record, two distinctly separate but highly significant in a regionally important conflict, so two blurbs make perfect sense. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, stop it. Consensus was for a blurb. There was nothing technically wrong with this posting. "Grow up"? Seriously???--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Civility aside, you're missing the point. There's no question that there was consensus for a blurb. The question is whether this item should replace the existing blurb related to the Yemen conflict. I see at least half a dozen people who think it should, including the nominator. And that's normally what happens with stories like this. -- tariqabjotu13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find your answer in the alternate question: when has this ever happened in Yemen before? Both news items are incredibly important internationally, and are very ITN worthy. - If this were to happen in the US there wouldn't even be a debate about it. - Their "relation" of being in the same geographical area, does not invalidate them, nor make them the same thing. (Note: This doesn't mean I disagree with eventually posting this crisis as an "ongoing" item; it's just that these are currently independently hot items.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to happen in the US there wouldn't even be a debate about it. Actually, with The Rambling Man, there probably would be.
And, much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. I thought this would replace the other blurb. People were even saying just that in the nomination. I can dig through the history if you want, but I'm sure we do this all the time. The two events are related enough -- we could have almost linked to the same article -- that this is pretty much an update on the events in the conflict. This blurb even references the Aden move by calling it the "provisional capital". And note that removing the blurb regarding Aden would cause another Yemen-related article, 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings, to appear back on the Main Page, so don't act like this is something about Yemen. Those bombings and this campaign are distinct enough that the latter doesn't constitute an update of the former, so that is OK. -- tariqabjotu02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped out the Aden capital blurb, as Coffee didn't respond to the ping and even the nominator was expecting this to be a bump rather than a new blurb. -- tariqabjotu21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both articles are sufficient quality (although their relative lengths show the PR boost that comes of having a movie made about you...) Unless there are any objections, since this is ITN/R I'll post it in a few hours. Smurrayinchester08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All his awards are now cited, and hopefully now a lay reader can get at least an inkling of why his work's so important (he's probably brought us closer than anyone to an understanding of turbulence). Smurrayinchester09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT a sec isn't Nash the first person to win Nobel+Abel? Abel is kinda the Nobel of math, and very, very few people win two Nobels. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abel becomes the first Nobel recipient to also receive the Abel Prize, which he shares with Nirenberg but with better phrasing. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 27 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.
Comment. The general practice here is to post things like this when the party is convicted, especially when involving a criminal charge. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose absolutely of no consequence whatsoever, a completely overhyped local issue that really demonstrates nothing other than the inability of the US forces to keep their business clean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose Pretty sure I'll oppose if renominated when he's either convicted or exonerated. The prisoner swap was noteworthy, but his particular situation isn't for our purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to your rational that a highly controversial POW swap was ITN worthy but the subject of that swap being charged with desertion is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This will be in the news for the US but it absolutely has little consequence on the larger world political picture. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The overall issue is international, President Obama released five Al Qaeda members to secure his release. But specifically for ITN purposes we don't post charges and even if he is convicted, unless he is executed, the story in the news at that time won't be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 25 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.
Today, one or more warplanes raided the palace of recently deposed president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, in Aden after his relocation there and cancelling of his resignation following the military coup earlier this year. In addition, special forces loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who led the country during the 2011–12 revolt against his rule and is now loyal to the Houthis who are currently in control of the capital Sanaa, have clashed today with troops loyal to Hadi in Aden, and were eventually expelled from the city. Things are expected to develop further there, so this is why I chose Ongoing rather than a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Right now, I'll support a blurb on this, and if this proves to be the spark of a powder keg, then it can be moved to Ongoing later. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I stand by my decision to nominate this for Ongoing. Yesterday's events were in Aden, while today's events were centered in Sanaa, where bomb attacks killed between 126 and 135 people at a Shiite mosque. The bombings were claimed by ISIL's Yemeni affiliate who warned of an 'upcoming flood' of attacks against Houthi rebels. If you insist that this should be a blurb instead, please feel free to propose one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Houthis, possibly backed by Saleh loyalists, are closing in on Hadi's temporary residence in Aden as we speak.[4] The latter had already fled the city this afternoon.[5] I propose once again pulling all Yemen-related blurbs in favor of an Ongoing link. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This item has been bumped from its initial proposal. This seems out of process to me, presumably if it's allowable, it can be bumped up every day until it becomes boring. Please stop doing this, or at least find a consensus that arbitrarily bumping an item up the nomination page is acceptable for an Ongoing nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Coffee's comment above. This was posted. The only reason it's not currently in Ongoing right now is because it's attached to the Aden item. When that disappears off ITN, this will return to Ongoing. This does not need to be nominated again. -- tariqabjotu21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since both Yemeni items have been on the main page already for some time, it's possible to remove and swap them for Ongoing link. Currently the Aden item is just third most recent, so there will be several days before it disappears, while the situation is getting hotter. Recently, the presidential palace, for instance, has been sacked and we may be risking a delay while waiting. Brandmeistertalk22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Items generally stay on ITN until they reach them bottom and are removed. You want us to remove two items (and, therefore, replace them with two staler items), and to what effect? The link you want under Ongoing is currently higher in the template and bolded. And the story you're referencing -- the president fleeing the presidential palace -- seems directly related to the move of the capital, so it seems like an unsurprising development in the story already posted. What's the problem with leaving things as is? After the Aden item is removed from ITN, the link will return to Ongoing. -- tariqabjotu22:31, 25 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.
Weak support: Top Gear is the most popular factual TV show in the world, with hundreds of millions of viewers, Jeremy Clarkson is its most recognizable figure, and big talent being fired for punching a member of staff is not an every day event. This is about as big as TV news can get. For what it's worth, it's on the front page of the websites of Der Spiegel (even with German news dominated by the Germanwings crash), De Telegraaf, and CNN. As much as it pains me to admit it, Jeremy Clarkson is well-known worldwide. No effect on world events, sure, but it's a story that millions around the world care about. Smurrayinchester16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I worded it in an encyclopedic mamner. I could have said Jeremy Clarkson punched his producer because he didn't get steak, and then sent it to the tabloids, but this is a factual blurb about some really big TV news about a 20+ year show and a supporting 1 million signature petition. Just saying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why was the SNOW close reverted? Seriously, keeping this open serves no purpose other than to allow more editors to pile on. Anyone can see that this nom was DOA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 25 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.
Oppose There has always been a possibility of life on mars (the blurb should be changed if this ends up posted). While this is indeed new information, I don't think it has a significant enough impact on the mission to be posted. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 25 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: Major merger between two of the world's largest food and drink companies, worth around $40bn. Business deals are under-represented on ITN. The blurb is carefully phrased, because this is still subject to shareholder approval. However that is expected to be a formality, and the story is in the news now. Modest Geniustalk13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support You make a good point that business deals are under-represented - we usually dismiss them as routine. But even routine business should be posted occasionally. Mamyles (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements This was valued around $40B if I remember the stories yesterday - I believe this number should be included to provide the necessary scope (As I'm not sure of the international recognition of both brands). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I generally think business stories that don't involve some wort of innovation (like getting cable channels on your smart phone) shouldn't be posted. (Weak support if they go with the name Heinzkraft or Kreinz :D ). μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time. Fifth largest, not largest. If the Comcast & TWC merger is allowed to go through, would that merit coverage? If so, why? If not, why not? And keep in mind that the purpose of these deals is typically to make the wealthy stockholders wealthier, to provide degraded service to customers, and to deprive people of their jobs. So where do you draw the line? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 5 largest in the U.S. as of 2010, according to this article were PepsiCo, Dole, General Mills, Nestle and Kraft. World-wide, the top 5 food companies according to this article in 2013 were Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, ADM, and InBev. But these rankings often depend on how you define words like "largest" "food" and "company". --Jayron3219:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gunmen kill at least thirteen people in an attack on three passing vehicles including a bus in Wardak province's Sayad Abad district. (Al Jazeera)
Arts and culture
A BBC investigation finds that Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson assaulted a producer with reports that he will be sacked from the television program. (The Telegraph)
The Opportunity rover completes a Martian marathon, the first time any vehicle has traveled more than 26.2 miles on the surface of another world. (CNN)
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 At first I thought that said "prime minister". Then I saw it says "prime ministerial advisor". Not top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are times that a cabinet-level advisor might have had significant influence on world politics (for example, Kissinger as Sect. of State comes to mind even ignoring the Nobel prize), but that's more a rarity. Doesn't appear to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article quality is terrible. Mostly unreferenced. We should not put links to such articles on the main page. --Jayron3219:37, 26 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: Seems significant because of the large number of people who have been kidnapped--even more than the Chibok kidnapping. The precise number of people involved, however, is still uncertain, which is why the blurb just says "hundreds" rather than something more precise. Everymorningtalk18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that Boko Haram seems to be aligning with ISIL, perhaps with ongoing we can add "(Boko Haram)" as a sub-point to the current ISIL ongoing? --MASEM (t) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but think we really should just have one Islamist terrorism (not set on the exact wording) ongoing, rather than post every single atrocity daily. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 27 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.
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: Child star who worked with Gene Simmons and died at 24. Regular on British TV from 2006-2010 approx. Sources suggest that he was known in Europe as well. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
one number three hit, no awards. Unless the death turns out to be homicide, it is just tragic young death which does not really contribute to notability. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 24 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.
Support in principle pending more details when and if available; French President Hollande has said they believe there are no survivors. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At some point we may want to update blurb with statement by French prosecutor that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appeared to have crashed plane deliberately.Sca (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Update and have proposed an Altblurb. The essence of the story is a murder-suicide, not a mechanical failure. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although there doesn't seem much doubt, given circumstances, we need to get some element of "apparently" in Altblurb. Sca (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose update I don't think that a blurb change is necessary. Readers who want to find out what the suspected cause of the crash is should simply follow the bolded link to the article. It would be inappropriate (and a BLP violation) to definitively say the co-pilot is a murderer, since an official report has not been released. Mamyles (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Update. We don't need to say that the co-pilot was a murderer, but the plane was clearly intentionally brought down. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Update – "Deliberate" action by (co-) pilot cited by official French sources and is all over int'l. media, including German. Suggest immediate update via Altblurb 1 with following modifications (adding two words, number and comma):
"French officials conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 apparently deliberately crashed plane the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board.
Two things, blurbs should be in the present tense, and I think "apparently" is an unnecessary qualification, as the investigators are reporting it, and the voice recorder confirms the events,and the descent was controlled. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree apparently has been superseded by continued coverage in which big media outlets have dropped that caveat. Don't see where suggested (present-tense) blurb above, minus "apparently," conflicts with article, which appears quite complete. Why wait?Sca (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose update the current blurb is factually 100% correct. Other suggested blurbs, although based on the reports in major news outlets, are still based in speculation. The best an updated blurb could do would be to say that it was concluded from the voice recorder that it was a deliberate act. We're not tabloid, there's nothing wrong at all with sticking with the facts that the plane crashed into the Alps and everybody died. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not apply if we say "Authorities indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately flew into a mountainside, killing all 150 on board." Given this is the unanimous declaration of all authorities involved and in every press source reticence is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Unanimous" is an awkward concept here. There if one investigating body - the French BEA. There is only one black box - the CVR. There has been one analysis of that CVR. Essentially this is what the French prosecutor has decided (although, admittedly, the evidence does look compelling). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support update. We follow the sources. Our job is not to reach our own personal conclusions. The sources are reporting the conclusions of the French authorities, so we report the conclusions of the French authorities. Suggest the blurb say "French authorities conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." There's no need to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but there is a responsibility to match reliable sources on this. --Jayron3223:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose update. The existing blurb is simple, short and factual. Any reader who wants to know why it crashed can click on the link and read the article. We should be very careful about reporting an ongoing investigation, clear as it might seem what the conclusions will be, particularly in a short blurb which cannot capture all the nuances. As for the most recent blurb suggestion: French authorities have provided an update on their current interpretation of the crash - they won't 'conclude' anything until their investigation and final report are complete. Modest Geniustalk00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportJayron's suggestion (if someone can make it fit). Here, from Reuters, is another version of the same idea: "French prosecutors believe Andreas Lubitz, 27, locked himself alone in the cockpit of the Germanwings Airbus A320 ... and deliberately steered it into a mountain, killing all 150 people on board."
• Prefer "Airbus A320," which adds information, to "Flight 9525," which could be any type of plane.
PS — How about: "French officials indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." – ?? Sca (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Supreme Court strikes down section 66A of IT Act
Oppose: Possibly notable in India, but has little to no bearing on the rest of the world and is getting little play in the media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been under challenge all along? Does it mean that any convictions will be vacated? A rationale on the impact would help. I read the article but it was pretty cut-and-dried. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the law was used in 2012 to arrest two people that posted something critical, which was based on a vague interpretation of the law (as I read it). This would be equivalent to the US's Child Online Protection Act (and various other attempts to regulate speech on the internet). --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources the Hindu, and The India Times, say "many arrests". But no detail is given on convictions, imprisonment, etc. I would be supportive if there were imprisonments, but if it was just abused, randomly enforced, and challenged from the start it's a bit different. We need clarity and more informative sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support See my comment to Medeis above, but this would be the equivalent of the SCOTUS striking down a law used to limit free speech, which while only would affect the US directly, did have worldwide impacts. India is far from tiny and would have a similar impact if the law was upheld. So seems reasonable to post. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Normally this would not get my support, but India is the world's second most populous country with a massive and globalized IT sector. As such the potential ramifications are a bit more noteworthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like a little more information. We didn't post it when the Canadian government Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine#Subsequent_legislative_action repealed its hate speech provisions after the high-profile trial and acquittal of Maclean's, Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant, after several people's lives had been ruined. Basically, if people are being released from jail sentences on this ruling I will support it, but I don't have the sources. Not having seen "India releases dozens after SC overthrows anti-free speech law" I am not inclined to at this point. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing seems a bit problematic. The sources state that the Supreme Court struck down the law because it violated freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution. Saying "which was used to curtail freedom of speech on internet" is both potentially violating NPOV and leaving out critical information that it was struck down because of the Supreme Court's decision that it violated freedom of speech. Also, the sentence should probably begin with "The". --Yair rand (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article to see if there were sources there not mentioned in the nomination that make this clearer. I found the criticism section is still referring to 66a in the present tense. Regardless of merits, the article itself is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 26 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.
Tentative support These reports usually include a peer-reviewed paper to affirm the scientific analysis. I don't see one listed in the BBC article but I assume one can find it, as showing this would clear support then. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nix that, I see the journal listed in the article now (it wasn't a name I quickly recognized). Support. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have proposed an alternative blurb, because the first could be read as "biggest in Australia" (i.e. not the world). I will comment on whether I support the nomination after the article is updated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two years for them to find and validate that 1) it was a meteor impact 2) the timing of the impact and 3) the size of the impact, all through peer-reviewed processes. This is a standard "delay" for scientific process, and the norm when we do post scientific stories that we wait for the peer-reviewed work to appear, not on original claims. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: neither article has been updated to reflect this news, and the one on the crater itself (presumably the one to be bolded) is too short to post. Calidum¯\_(ツ)_/¯14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the impact hasn't been dated yet, that would be a good time to post. Right now we have a preliminary confirmation it's due to an impact, but not much more than that. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless certain issues are addressed. The current news seems to be a re-estimate of the size, correct? But also the article says there were two 10 km impactors, so is this crater really one 400 km crater or two overlapping craters? Why is the age estimate so shoddy, and can it be improved? Finally, I would very much like a map in the article before even considering posting. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The age estimate isn't shoddy, it's just these are deep old impacts which have been burried over time, and which had associated mantle unpwelling, further complicating the issues. Normally things are dated by a layer (KT Event) or by the layer in which they are found. This is a huge structure that basically obliterated the normal layering processes, and which has subsequently been covered over. A good answer as to age might take years. I still think we should wait until something like "The Australian impact has been determined to date to the Permian extinction" or the like before posting, as that would be the essential fact of the event. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 24 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.
Former NFL player Darren Sharper pleads guilty in a Maricopa County, Arizona courtroom to raping two women after spiking their drinks at a Tempe apartment in November 2013, and the court sentences him to nine years in prison. Sharper has also been indicted on charges of sexually assaulting women in the U.S. states of California, Louisiana, and Nevada. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This story has been very controversial since it was first published last year, and now we have a major development pertaining to it that has been covered in many major media outlets. Everymorningtalk02:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose if there were a defamation win or settlement it might be worth posting, but in this case good news is no news. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ongoing campus rape epidemic is a problem, but the fact that one story was fabricated isn't going to pass muster at ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - so this current news is that previous news was false? So there's nothing substantive. I don't recall the previous news making to ITN anyway. Next. starship.paint~ ¡Olé!02:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with above - this is not really a ITN-type posting. If this might lead to a defamation lawsuit, then the results might be of interest, but this is not at this stage. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 24 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.
Nominator's comments: Lots of coverage from around the world, and the president of Afghanistan has ordered an inquiry. [10] Feel free to suggest an alternative blurb, I know this one is kind of clunky. Everymorningtalk01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Protests happen worldwide. If the protest itself have significant impact than just happening, then that might be a reason to post. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 24 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.
Oppose the timeline of events goes up to 2 March, if this is really for "Ongoing", we ought to be seeing more than just a tabular update of deaths more than once in three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait US researchers disagree with Indian researchers about whether the strain is mutating (ReutersAl-Jazeera). This is more likely to be ITN worthy if other journals publish that the virus is mutating to a more contagious strain - or if there is a case overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose the high death rate per infection seems compelling, but I fear this may be a statistical artifact due to every death, but not every infection being reported. In any case, were I looking for factual information, I would come to wikipedia for comprehensive, non-alarmist coverage, and we have a very good article on this. Looking at swine fu in general, 20,000 + in the US, with a third the population is record. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the unusually high number of casualties (prefer ongoing, but blurb would be fine). Judging from the examples in List of epidemics, an event like this occurs only about once a decade. Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a blurb - In regards to The Rambling Man's comment above, I don't know about previous cases of an item becoming "ongoing". But to me, it makes sense that an item like this receive a blurb first if it is ITN worthy, then move to ongoing if it remains ITN worthy after a significant period of time (i.e. there are enough newer items to replace it in the list of blurbs). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Japanallocates 820 billion yen ($6.8 billion) for creating a nearly 400-kilometer (250-mile) chain of cement seawalls, at places nearly five stories high, against future tsunami disasters such as the one that struck the country's northeastern coast four years ago. (AP)
A Venezuelan bus plunges into a lake in Aragua state, southwest of the capital Caracas, killing at least eleven people with thirty-six others injured. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support with article fixes - Keeping in mind that last week, his death was falsely reported, this seems like the real thing now. The article has several citation needed tags and paragraphs w/o citation. RD is clear and evident for importance, of course. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As above - No doubt over significance, this man turned a small port into a booming economy and had a father-like reputation to the people he ruled over. Just fixes here and there needed. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and marking ready per this week's updates. I can't imagine there will be any opposition to posting this major leader's passing. 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
While there still remain a few para without citations, this wasn't as bad as when I commented above, and is reasonably good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tag away, but it's dinner time for me, and I really think this is ready to be posted. Problematic paragraphs should be hidden at this point unless they are essential. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose blurb - Lee Kuan Yew(pictured), the first Prime Minister of Singapore, passes away at the age of 91. - he's above RD in my opinion. It would not be a stretch to consider him the most important Singaporean ever. Seriously, can anyone name a more prominent or influential Singaporean? He was part of the Singaporean Cabinet pre-independence from 1959 to post-independence in 2011. After Singapore gained independence in 1964, he was Prime Minister for 25 years from 965 to 1990. Sources for "founding father" of Singapore: Los Angeles Times / China Post / BBC News / Associated Press. Timesays he "Made Modern Asia". Wall Street Journalsays he "dominated Singapore politics for more than half a century and transformed the former British outpost into a global trade and finance powerhouse, setting a template for emerging markets around the world". The Guardiansays he is "widely credited with building Singapore into one of the world’s wealthiest nations" . starship.paint~ ¡Olé!22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Obviously had a huge impact on Singapore, but I'm not sure his global impact rises to the level I would want before supporting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neljack: - since when was global impact a criteria? If so, earlier this month we featured as a blurb the deaths of 3 French athletes killed in a helicopter crash in Argentina. Assuredly, their combined global impact was much lower than Lee's. Perhaps you'll like to read the Washington Post : "But the departure of Lee could also have implications for the United States ... Washington has for decades relied on Lee to interpret events in Asia for it." starship.paint~ ¡Olé!00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The French athletes were not posted just because they were athletes; they were posted because of what happened to them; i.e. an event. Blurbs for deaths are generally for either those at the tip-top of their field(such as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela) or whose death was sudden and unexpected(like Robin Williams). Is this person in the same league as Mandela and Thatcher? 331dot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From reading, while not have as wide a range of impact as Mandala did, as Starship has pointed out, he is considered to have single-handedly influenced the creation and rise of economic prosperity of Singapore. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: - if the field is Singapore, he's the top person. No question. IMO, even bigger than Mandela and Thatcher to their respective countries. The UK and South Africa existed before these two statesmen. Independent Singapore didn't exist when Lee took the helm. The Hindu: "a towering figure in post-colonial Asia oversaw tiny Singapore's transformation transformation from British tropical outpost to an affluent, global city in just over a generation, setting the example for developing economies from China to Dubai". starship.paint~ ¡Olé!00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it's a farce he's not at least on RD yet. Singapore is the third, fourth or fifth richest company by GDP per capita depending on which source one uses, IMF, CIA or World Bank. There are no tags, the article is hugely supported, and we've got both Thatcher's and Obama's endorsements. What else do we need? Users who look to the front page can at least click there. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and blurb - According to this report, Henry Kissinger called him one of the “asymmetries of history.” Margaret Thatcher said “he was never wrong.” Barack Obama called him “one of the legendary figures of Asia.” Tony Blair said he was “the smartest leader I ever met.” Samuel Huntington said he was one of the “master builders” of the 20th century. -A1candidate 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tariq. I'll say oppose blurb more as a comment than a vote, since he died of old age, but a blurb would certainly not offend me. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. He rises to the Mandela/Thatcher level of importance, due to key role in the transition to independence, and his extremely long and influential time as prime minister. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: US P Obama: "giant of history". UK PM Cameron: "Lee Kuan Yew personally shaped Singapore in a way that few people have any nation". Aus PM Abbott: "giant of our region". UN head Ban: "legendary figure in Asia". @Neljack:@331dot:starship.paint~ ¡Olé!01:08, 23 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.
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.
New blurb: "The Italian Supreme court overturns the overturning of a verdict made by a court that was asked by the Supreme Court to review a verdict of an appeals court that had overturned the verdict of a lower court." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 28 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.
Oppose The election would have been the point this should have been ITN. It looked like no one nominated it then (its at Current Events for Nov 2014 but no ITN as far as I can see). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; elections are ITNR, not inaugurations(as stated on the ITNR page) thus I have removed the ITNR tag. Inaugurations are commonly attended by other heads of state. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 22 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.
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
.jpg){kind=link}
