:::::Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. [[Special:Contributions/77.101.41.108|77.101.41.108]] ([[User talk:77.101.41.108|talk]]) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. [[Special:Contributions/77.101.41.108|77.101.41.108]] ([[User talk:77.101.41.108|talk]]) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
*We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
*We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to admin for adjudication. [[Special:Contributions/77.101.41.108|77.101.41.108]] ([[User talk:77.101.41.108|talk]]) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Article is essentially ready to go. '''Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to [[Spencer]] in admin for adjudication.''' If you guys are right, then fair enough, my bad. If not, then I guess well find out the hard way. [[Special:Contributions/77.101.41.108|77.101.41.108]] ([[User talk:77.101.41.108|talk]]) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and [http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-01/news/welcome-to-the-rightwingoverse/ here is a picture of the winners]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and [http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-08-01/news/welcome-to-the-rightwingoverse/ here is a picture of the winners]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Shots are fired at Kramatorsk air base as Ukrainian Ground Forces are dispatched to take on separatists. Unconfirmed reports state that four pro-Russian militants have been killed and two people have been injured. Some reports claim up to ten deaths. (Sky News)
A group of terrorists, suspected to be Boko Haram, attack a Nigerian school, resulting in the deaths of two security force members and the abduction of 200 schoolgirls. (BBC News)
Disasters and accidents
At least 48 people die and 15 are severely injured after a bus crashes into a truck 150 kilometres north of Lomé, capital of the West African nation of Togo. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: It's weird nominating something that hasn't happened yet. Nevertheless this seems to be an unusual eclipse, and there are supposed to be only 85 in the entire 21st century.[1] --Jinkinsontalk to me15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To those advocating a quick post: what d you suggets as a blurb? The current suggestion certainly shuldn't be used before the eclipse starts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timing comment - I assume we are waiting until the eclipse starts to post since most have not advocated for an earlier posting. I agree with that decision since it would be unprecendented (asaik) to post somethign ahead of time on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless anyone vehemently disagrees, I'm all for breaking precedent, and posting a blurb with 'will occur' today, changing to 'occurred' this evening. Stephen22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting after the fact would be silly in this case. A few hours or so before it starts will not hurt ITN's reputation for an event that people can prepare to see for themselves. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I check a bunch of the previous eclipses. It doesn't look like any of them were posted ahead of time. I would say post as it starts in present tense. That said, if anyone feels strongly about posting sooner, go for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it another "timing" issue is that we are discussing this under the April 14 heading, but it will be April 15 (UTC) when it occurs? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it will be April 15 (UTC) in eight minutes time, and our system should automatically generate the new date header. Maybe I'll just move the whole conversation then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please post this now, so readers will see this before they wake up tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
A United States court overturns the conviction of Andrew Auernheimer (known as weev), who was sentenced to 41-months in prison in 2010 for hacking the AT&T website, stealing millions of iPad user e-mails. (PC World)
Nominator's comments: Personal comment - Global news event, about a global news event. Seems like a solid ITN. Please debate as always though. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Providing an alt blurb - there are many Pulitizers named but clearly the WaPost/Guardian for the NSA matters are the headlines here. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the alt blurb masem, obviously use which ever is most apt. The headlines are about the NSA thing, but the exhaustive list is also important. I have switched the NYTimes source for Pulitzer as its the direct page, on a primary source, and the BBC one references the NSA thing as the headline. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate a more appropriate image and explain why. The headline is the NSA story, which came from Snowden IIRC. Open to argument. Chicago tribune is already using this image in its google header. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... And we have free images of Pultzer himself (which I support) and the Prize. If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gen pulitzer.jpg - Theres this of course. I have no idea what your personal issue is μηδείς, but you are deeming me belligerent, while clearly instigating s--- without provocation. If you enjoy conflict resolution by all means continue. Im here to work on this, not to play word games with librarians. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using Snowden's photo is a coatrack - this is meant to celebrate the various Pulitzer winners, and not the substance of the stories they covered. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You dont really have rationale for that. Everyone is using the picture, even people that are against him. Besides, the article is not leaning on him other to say the stories based on his revelations won the main award. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. And just because "everyone" is using the picture doesn't mean we get to too, we are more neutral than that again because we are not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. There is a second level of this story developing, in that some are stating that the fact that these reports got the Pulitzer means that Snowden's actions should be considered far from traitorious , but's that a point of opinion and not an ITN story. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snowden picture; he is not the story. Support listing the Pulitzer winners in principle(wondering if it should be ITNR) as a notable and widely covered award in journalism. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. The headline leads back to Snowden. The article itself will have no picture of snowden and will only have mention of the NSA series of stories in the description. The article is up now in frame work form, and has no great references to snowden. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal views on Snowden are irrelevant; I oppose using his image because he is not the story; the winners of the Prize are. If the article has no picture of him, neither should an ITN entry. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would prefer to concentrate on the guardian and the washington post? Snowden is synonymous with the series of stories that won the prize. Thats why everyone is using his image. Seems like irrational consensus. The headline concerns snowden, whilst obviously the exhaustive article concerns the prize winners in total. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Article is essentially ready to go. Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to Spencer in admin for adjudication. If you guys are right, then fair enough, my bad. If not, then I guess well find out the hard way. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says it might be the same group but they don't have a strong affirmation yet. However, this is outside their current region of activity so if it was them, this is an unusual incident. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The president of nigeria just said it was boko haram. As you guys have repeatedly told me my nominee was about an ongoing conflict, may I direct you to my "Boko Haram Attacks" Nominee, also from today, 2 below. Thank you.
Strong support. Obviously. Check out the story 2 nominees below RM. This is in a different part of the country, but one may assume a connection is not improbable. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a general blurb about this group conducting a series of attacks like the one I propose above(though I'm not set on the wording or linking) if there are sufficient updates. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Frankly I dont care who does this story. Combine nominees or close one of them down. This group has killed "135 people" and gone on to kill "74" more, hours later. Lets get an article up about this months attacks, before the world finds a different free format to get their information from. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an immediate posting, Wikinews is thataway-- if you want a decent article to highlight and a proper blurb to match, this will get done in time. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are confusing the issue, minimising the issue and obfuscating the relevance of the issue.
Boko Haram have killed 135 people - hours ago.
Now they have killed 71 more.
And you want to nominate as relevant because CNN are now covering it and they used a bomb this time.
Whats notable is not that CNN are covering it and they used a bomb. Whats notable is this terrorist group is escalating attacks and launching an assault on the state of nigeria, and they have been in the process of doing so for some time now, while you marvel over a bomb.
Again BBC, AJZ, and Reuters have had this story already for hours. I have been telling you ad infinitum to consider your position, and instead, once again, you have waited for the american networks and a shinny bomb to marvel at. They already done killed 135 people hours ago, as you will see in the nominee right below this one. Who cares if its by bomb or by bullet.
The story is the group are intensifying attacks on the state of nigeria, and you shouldnt need an IP editor to tell you that. Once again, many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated a story no one was interested in, about this group killing 135 people hours ago, and then on the same day, you are nominating a the same basic chain of events because a bomb went off and the alphabets are all over it. Its a little cheap, all due respect RM.
Im repeatedly getting told killing 135 people isnt notable because theres a lack of media interest and its an ongoing conflict. Even though the government is making statements and BBC, AJZ and Reauters are all over it. Now a bomb goes off and American media is on it, and its a separate nom, even though its just another attack by this group that already killed 135 people hours ago. Nevertheless I will happily contribute to the story, while you claim the nomination, of the same group, in the same spate of attack, that I highlighted 2 nominees down. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would reasonably support a story about the spat of violence over the last few days (I think there's three separate incidents now? ) with Boko Haram highlighted as the story, but this needs to be updated to add these. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Any way this story goes, we are walking down a path that leads to the larger context of recent attacks. Thats where this story goes. The only way it doesnt go there, is if Boko Haram didnt do it, and as we are dealing with terrorists, confirmation through claimed or proven responsibility is an extremely difficult thing. We either get a confession from BH or we await some kind of trial? We need to establish precedence and link the recent attacks and bomb, which is inexorably part of them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The salient point is that the president, like everyone else in nigeria is placing this attack, not as some kind of anomaly, but into the wider context of the Boko Haram attacks, that as Masem rightly states, have been going on for days now. The presidents quotes are on the article, because i put them there, and he is quite clear in his rhetoric.
In fact he categorically places the attacks into the greater narrative of boko harams spate of violence "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.". But who ever is dealing with the article has cut short the presidents quote, unjustifiably for what reason?? Have re edited it in, as the full presidents quote is obviously more important than trying to alter the story to fit the nomination or the obsession that this bomb is some kind of special event, divorced from the 135 people they just killed hours ago.
77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We shouldn't ascribe it to BH unless/until we have confirmation from a reliable source that it was them. In the meantime we can either
say BH are 'suspected' (or 'accused', 'blamed', etc), or
we can report that the president says it was BH, or
we can not mention BH at all.
Personally I prefer option 2, because it allows us to put this attack in the context of the wider/ongoing BH attacks without yet ascribing (in Wikipedia's voice) responsibility for this latest attack. Also option 1 is a bit weasel-wordy (IMO) - if they're accused then we should say who accuses them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^ Ok I added -
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan visited the scene of the blast, where he appeared to blame Boko Haram for the explosion, saying "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.".[7]
The attack comes a day after Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna claimed the group had killed 135 civilians in north east Nigeria in the week preceding the blast. [8]
Strongly support the alternative blurb. In any other conflict, we are updating information on attacks in this situation. The fact we slept on this groups activities, doesnt justify treating the bomb as an anomaly now that we have woken up to them. The president and the people of nigeria are experiencing this as the latest in a very recent escalation of attacks. This is reflected in their quotes and there is no point attempting to massage this basic fact out of article coverage. Yes the conflict is protracted, but the intensification and escalation in attacks is a few days/hours old. Thats my case. The alternative is we keep running into the bigger picture, while attempting to make this all about the bomb. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP77, please, please, please stop obfuscating the nominations with walls of text and personal commentary. That's not what this is about. I don't care for your opinion or accusations of being "cheap", I just want to get on with suitable nominations and sensible discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop addressing me in disparaging tone and then censoring the reply. You essentially stole my nomination from 2 down, posted on the same day, and then hid behind consensus to fashion your own article. Did you not think it worth reading that there was a nomination only 2 spaces below the one you posted?
Dont address me and censor me. You have shown no moral position to chasten anyone.
As for being productive, Ive researched this story extensively and have contributed half the article. I was advocating for its inclusion hours before you posted your nomination. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same spate of attacks as corroborated by the president of nigeria, and reported in BBC, AJZ, Reuters, and now the american networks.Please stop appealing to moderation, when you dont have the common courtesy to give credit to contributors or check other peoples entries before posting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well congratulations to you for wrecking a process that, while a little wonky, used to work. You have the floor. I have no energy to deal with editors like you. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all dude respect. I found a story no one here wanted, because there was little interest from the American networks. There was ample evidence of interest from BBC, AJZ, and Reuters. Then as part of this spate of attacks, that no one was interested in, a bomb goes of 1 The American networks report 2 You jump in with a duplicate nomination focused on the bomb and ignoring the fact they just killed 135 people, and any interpretation or article about the bomb, inexorably goes back to the larger context of the boko haram terrorist attacks, that my nomination focused on. And now you have consensus for your nomination, because a bomb went off! I wont be your scapegoat. You did this. You want to appeal to moderation and act like ive done ill, but I contributed half your article and was the only person here advocating a nomination about this group, hours ago, when no one else was interested. You want me out of your nomination. fine. Go ahead with it, and kindly blame someone else as the president of nigeria names the group and draws the bombings into the exact same spate of attacks my own nomination was focused on. Go ahead and take the nomination. It is far easier to attack an unknown than it is to clean your own name. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out several times that WP's "In the News" is not to simply replicate stories that are headlines in the newspaper. We have a way to highlight news stories that are subjects of notable articles, and your postings have been trying to subvert that process after you've been told that there's a way we do things here. As WPians, the last thing we're here to do is correct political injustice in the world, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not in a position to tell anyone anything masem. The format is the guide, not you. Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with it, before making spurious remarks and accusations...The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: As well as being Australia's longest-serving independent senator, for long periods Harradine held the balance of power in the federal parliament, which he used to influence policy in areas such as abortion (where his strong Catholic faith led to him taking a firm anti-abortion stance) and Aboriginal land rights. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The article seems kind of slim(though I don't feel inappropriately so) for someone with the influence HiLo describes, but I do think "longest serving Independent politician" meets DC2. No tags in article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD A very significant figure in Australian politics over several decades. I'm surprised that the article is so slim, but then his independence immediately precluded him from high office and I don't think he's had any major scandal attached to him. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) well it is in th einterest of globalizing to put this tchap on here and I support, we also need more such people from the non-English worlsd like east timor or sometingLihaas (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - referencing is so-so. I would either expect a longer article or a better referenced one. (I.E. I can sometimes overlook a few misisng citations, but when there is only 3 paragraphs total it is not too much to ask for everything to be referenced.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what? A senator, not the top of his field. His article is slim suggesting lack of impact and lack of interest. His article gets only 16 page views a day. When long-serving US Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. died last year he was not nominated. There have been presidents of some nations who didn't make it on RD. Abductive (reasoning) 15:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't any ordinary senator; the longest serving independent senator in Australian history. That isn't easy to do in a parliamentary system where those not in political parties can normally do little. If the field is Australian politics, this would seem to meet DC2. While I think the nominator often takes the issue too far, there is also a legitimate systemic bias issue here. We did post Daniel Inouye in December of 2012. Page views are not the be-all-end-all. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not the longest serving. Just because he was an Independent (which is somewhat of a thing in Australian politics) doesn't mean anything. And the very notion that ITN doesn't post Australian material is silly. If Olivia Newton-John were to die tomorrow, there would be no systemic bias against posting. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means everything, but I guess we will just have to disagree there. I don't think the idea of systemic bias is "silly"; can you point out the last Australian story posted? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD as 331dot suggests, an unusual notability from being an independent senator for such a period. As for the hyperbole from Abductive, I too would be interested in the last (non-cricket) Australian story posted! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole? I state simple facts: 16 page views a day, vs 600 a day for Daniel Inouye (who I would not and did not vote for ITN). Assertions of BIAS against Australia need to be backed up by failed nominations, not the length of time since something happened there. Here are some recent successful Australia-related noms election results, government split, Aboriginal artist and one failed: Governor-General which failed because just a figurehead and longstanding consensus against such posting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with entertainers? Are they not serious enough? Look, you think a lady who sang songs and appeared in movies is bad? Talk about BIAS! Politicians are magically better subjects for In The News? People who matter should be posted. An obscure journalist? Please. A long out of office politician? Please. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bias? LOL. I think Olivia Newton-John is terrific. But why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? And Keith Dunstan was definitely NOT an obscure journalist. For several decades he was the best known writer at Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper. But I'll admit he never made it big in Hollywood, which seems to be an essential criterion for Abductive to approve a posting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page views shouldn't be the top most consideration here. Part of the purpose of ITN is to highlight articles to get people to read them. Also, we do not know how many worthy articles could get nominated that don't because users fear the systemic bias. I'm not sure I would consider September "recent" but I do appreciate you checking. I agree 100% that not posting this is a systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not people. Only you. And it's not all Australians you have it in for. It's only those who haven't made it big in Hollywood. Would you have supported posting Don Bradman's death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that "page views" suddenly became part of the ITN/C criteria. Fantastic new update, news to me, sounds like hype, but we should never believe that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to "have it in for Aussies" to still be engaging in systemic bias. That's why it's called systemic. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support While ordinarily I would agree that the death of a senator from old age is not really ITN-worthy (especially since there are often heads of state who are not featured), but being the longest serving independent senator is noteworthy just as Robert Byrd being the longest serving US Senator was noted. Byrd was not only featured when he passed in June 2010, but he also got a picture slot. AgneCheese/Wine20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the article could still do with a few more citations and a bit more material on his political impact/achievements. I'll have a look at what I can do. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Number and regional significance. Blind spot on the map. Note to moderator of title, used the towns name and lowest current estimate. Lets not turn africa into one homogenised killing field. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per BBC, 1500 have been killed in Boko Haram since the start of the year, so this is nothing new (akin to the continued violence in Syria + Ukraine) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference BBC source claiming 1500 killed. Has this been covered here, like the Ukraine and Syria conflicts were undoubtedly? I was not aware Nigeria was at war, and there doesnt seem to be much mention of it in articles either. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right in your source : "At least 1,500 people, half of them civilian, have been killed in the restive north-eastern region this year, according to Amnesty International.". --MASEM (t) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So source is Amnesty International. Feels like Boko Haram have a license to kill with no wikipedia article and very little media interest. Africa...SMFH77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WP article on Boko Haram (you've linked it) and there is documented all the known major attacks they've done - this should be added to it, but you can't expect WP to correct media-bias (or lack of coverage) nor world problems. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect it to reflect internationally significant stories. Nigeria is one of africas fastest growing nations and has one of the largest populations on the planet. Africa is a populous region. Killing 100s of africans is an internationally significant thing. I dont expect wikipedia to save the world. Nor do I expect wikipedia to ignore internationally significant stories that affect a great many people, because its easier to reflect western media narratives and interests. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are 3 of the most popular and credible news networks on the planet. Thats more than enough evidence to justify inclusion on merit of sourcing and news reporting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no, we are not always going to reflect international headlines. If you want to do that, go to Wikinews. We're trying to focus on encyclopedic articles here, some which will be about certain events, but in this case, this individual event (the attacks today) is not notable but the ongoing conflict is. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are meant to be directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. You are meant to be supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Ive demonstrated wide interest by the fact its a massive population, an internationally significant story and its covered by three of the most credible and popular news networks on planet earth. ITN is not InTheNeigbourhood masem. And you are not supporting making wikipedia a great encyclopedia by making it localised and ignorant to the rest of the planet. You dont get the casting vote on if attacks are interesting or not. Thats your opinion. Fair dues. Lets others make their arguments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - 13 of those incidents on the Boko Haram article have their own adjoined articles and non of the ones I saw have a body count of 135 civilians. Your argument of "meh africa, wikipedia dont care", doesnt hold water. I just demonstrated precendence for exceptional treatment of individual incidents, and this has the highest ostensible body count on that whole page of incidents. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not all of them. And again, we need the article before it can be ITN, this small an update to the Boko Harem article would not be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'OK WHO IS Messing WITH MY TITLE?' Plz explain why. Too tired to debate this but originally reads "Boko Harem kill scores in Amchaka, Nigeria."
If you are going to change title, plz explain why? Thank you kindly. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain in the edit summary: these should be short and neutral; "kill scores" is not neutral even if they are a terrorist group. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem you thought Boko harem was a place. Kindly desist from editing my title, and get someone else to do it, if it infringes. I am using BBC, Al Jareera headlines. The lowest estimate is approaching 70 which is scores. Will seek third party if you continue to vandalise my title. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Masem that title is lifted direct from BBC. Do not change without third party admin. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
'Thank you masem' - if the titles out of line, by all means seek recourse. I will understand. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. Part of an ongoing conflict, so we don't need to post every battle with a death toll(just like Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) Not yet seeing wide coverage of this, either(BBC, A-J and Reuters are not the whole universe). As Masem suggested, we are not responsible for what the media reports nor are we a news ticker. It is also difficult to support with no article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a battle or a terrorist attack? Notable incidents do indeed have their pages in wikipedia in this conflict at least anecdotally the body count here is the highest at a glance on that page. BBC/AJZ/Reuters are indeed not the centre of the universe, it seems the are more like captain kirk mapping that universe while USMI are all about WIMBYism on vulcan (!). :D BBC, Reuters and AJZ demonstrate the story has widespread interest imho. It shoudnt depend on one countries media to legitimise the stories. As fast as you are to tell us we are not a news ticker, or zealous missionary's of "truth", ITN is categorically defined by the directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest...and indeed supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. All of these things support reflecting stories of worldwide significance, and not just "things that have an american commercial media interest". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN; posting here does depend on the media legitimizing a story. I don't look at just one country's media. I stand by my views and I will have no further comment on this matter.331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I quote you on that? The Worlds Media =/= americas provincial media bubble. Theres a whole world out there, and there is no need to clear a story with 5% of it, in order for it to be widespread, or wide interest or relevant to ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would support posting an article on the conflict as a whole, with this as the specific news item, if we had a good example of such an article. Our lack of a suitable article on this important topic clearly does reflect our regional bias - although that is not the fault of contributors to this page. An article on the wider conflict is here: Islamist insurgency in Nigeria but it needs to be fleshed out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I see a slightly different picture, if this massacre was risiding in a different location, wikipedia has actually tracked the conflict quite well, on second glance. New articles can and have been made for specific incidents and the BBC/AJZ/Reuters trio have covered conflict quite well. The story is perhaps lacking western direct "interests", so it follows a lack of WMI. It still has demonstrable widespread interest to wikipedia users world wide. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would stop misquoting someone right next to the actual quote.' #BasicF---Stuff
Indeed the entire city did not burn down. 1000 homes did, 20 people died and the entire city was labelled a disaster zone.
When do entire cities burn down? The Great Fire of London didnt burn down the 'entire' city.
77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favourite part - Please recite a million times - Quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant word or clause, and then only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in any way. Selective use of quotes can be unbalanced. Be sure that quotes you use are representative of what the speaker is saying and that you describe body language (a smile or a wink) that may affect the sense of what is being reported. When quoting an individual always give the context or circumstances of the quote.- Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing an essay, publishing a paper, or being graded. This is a casual conversation where we have a different interpretation of something, which I will continue to do as I see fit, just as you would. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im pretty sure that latitude falls shy of falsely quoting someone right next to the original quote, by adding in a word you deem appropriate ammunition to attack their position. Just a moment ago you were protesting your right to your position. Kindly stop misrepresenting mine in fabricated quotes right next to the original excerpt you are misrepresenting. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This just in 71 people are killed and 124 injured in twin bomb blasts in Abuja, Nigeria. I see a great career in journalism for you Lugnuts, when you get done being an amateur librarian that just slept on a city getting burned into a disaster zone and a spate of terrorist attacks CNN that killed 100s of people. :D Good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is going out of his way to be obnoxious and has been wrong now on two big stories, one of which some other dude is essentially taking credit for nominating. Stop sending me wiki directives and learn some manners. Site is quite clear about being polite to people, rather than instigating s---, and then hiding behind a greater knowledge of customs when people respond. Go ask Balaenoptera musculus. This guy is going out of his way to be rude, and to initiate rudeness, without provocation. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine launches a "full-scale anti-terrorist operation" against pro-Russian protesters who have captured police and security forces buildings in the town of Sloviansk. (Reuters)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose - Hate golf. Would rather see boxing. Elitist, under watched, over rated, culturally obnoxious, featuring a wonderful over representation of privileged monoculturality vs working class, popular across the world, contested across the world, olympic sport, featuring a diverse array of cultures and peoples. I know its obligatory, but would rather see the boxing, as more people probably gave a s---. Google TrendsGoogle Trends77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose nominations that are ITN/R. If you have an issue with an event which is ITN/R, then you must propose its removal on the ITN/R page. Andise1 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether 77.101.41.108 likes golf or not is irrelevant; this is ITNR. If you don't want golf there, propose its removal at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we know not to talk about golf in front of them in the future. Always good to know more about your fellow wikipedians! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please... ...put the name of the country in the blurb. Other countries have Masters Tournaments too. Yes, I know the blurb just reflects the name of the article, but that doesn't make it right. Just proves our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The European Tour has 4 or 5 events every year with "Masters" in the title, including tournaments in Portugal and Qatar, and the Omega European Masters, though "The Masters" is fairly well understood to mean Augusta, some European sources call it the US Masters to distinguish it from the European tournament in Switzerland. Courcelles04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same in Australia, which also has its own Masters tournament. The US one, not surprisingly, is called the, yes, you guessed it, the US Masters! Come on, it would do nobody any harm at all to include the name of the country. Fighting this is endorsing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right but you don't need to link to systemic bias every time you type it, especially within a few lines of each other. Instead of beating the systemic bias drum to death you could just point out that "The Masters" could be confused with other tournaments with the name first. I also don't think politely pointing out their reasoning is "fighting this". Not everything is a systemic bias issue, as not everyone is aware of everything in the world. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. An awful lot are only aware of American things, and NOT aware of our [[systemic bias}}, and that's part of our systemic bias. Linking it helps them learn about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that before beating that drum you have just started by pointing out the possibility of confusion, which is there regardless of systemic bias. You don't need to start the battle with the biggest guns; assume good faith that people aren't out, intentionally or otherwise, to be biased. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the Masters article is beefed up a little bit. Also agree that it would do no harm to call it the "US Masters" in the blurb, after all our article on the tournament itself says "The Masters Tournament, also known as The Masters or The US Masters..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake must we capitulate to every possible demand that HiLo makes? The piped article quite clearly states where the Masters is held. Include both titles in the blurb if absolutely necessary, just like the article does, but to seriously call this an example of systemic bias? Just drop it already. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But since it'll do no harm at all and since our own article offers "The US Masters" as an alternative and acceptable title, there should be no issue with the alt blurb, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point about systematic bias is a good one. The assumption that if no country is mentioned then the country is assumed to be the USA is a very clear example of systematic bias, in my opinion. The merits of the person putting forward the argument are not relevant here - if you have a conduct complaint then take it to WP:RFC/U. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Balaenoptera musculus The systemic bias gun didn't need to be brought out immediately; simply noting the potential confusion was sufficient. Looking for systemic bias everywhere means one will find it everywhere. "The Masters" only is assumed to be from the US if users do that themselves; however, it is confusing with other "Masters" tournaments. That's the bottom line. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the potential confusion is sufficient reason to state the country. All users should however feel free to raise whatever arguments they like in whatever order they choose. The 'systematic bias' argument is not one which is illegitimate or should be held back, in fact the evidence for it is (in my opinion) rather strong (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments that get overused weaken over time; systemic bias should be saved for instances when it is actually needed. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I an unconvinced that we should mangle the name of the tournament. There are many international participants, so it is not a US-only championship. The Masters is held in Augusta, Georgia every year. Yes, it is not a bad idea to say where an event happened, but in this case that fact is not critical. By clicking the link the user can learn all about it. JehochmanTalk12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that a certain user will be along to beat the systemic bias drum, even though that isn't the most important argument in favor of adding the nation(to avoid confusion). 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? All that virtual ink spilled over literally 3 characters? If there is a potential for confusion, even a small one, and it can be solved by adding 3 chars, there is no real reason not to do it. Meanwhile, the real issue - that the update was very minimal - went nearly undiscussed. Get your priorities straight people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still an issue with the name, can someone in the US clarify if this is ever called "Masters Tournament" in general parlance? It's certainly not called that in Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK "Masters Tournament" is the official name, but I don't think most people call it that in general parlance, no. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even an issue? To anybody that knows golf, there is only one real "Masters" because it is one of the four majors. Anyone arguing about this is just trying to make trouble based on anti-American bias.
Nominator's comments: Boxing is currently not represented in ITN, and I believe that it is a sport which gains significant coverage and is notable enough to be in ITN. Andise1 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Opposition - Hard to establish a bench mark for cultural significance in boxing. Far more important stories going on. Can we also cover UFC while were at it, as thats never been featured. It was a big event, so there are some plus points, but London Marathon is probably more significant. I dont think this was a fight for the ages, but it was arguably one of a handful of fights qualified to be deemed fights of the year. Title changed hands, but Champion had no tenure. Was Bradleys first loss, so I guess that helps. 36 people died in mexico and its deemed trivial. This seems pretty trivial. On the other hand, all sport is trivial and needs to be represented none the less. The article would presumably be good and informative as these things are easy to do. The fight was truly international, and boxing is probably under represented considering its global status as a sport of interest and participation in all corners of the earth. Tepid opposition. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think UFC should be covered, then feel free to nominate it here at ITN. You claim this was a big event, yet you also claim that there are "far more important stories going on." You also claim that the "London Marathon is probably more significant.", which may be true, but is not a valid reason to oppose this event. Plenty of items at ITN are more significant than other items at ITN, yet one item isn't not posted because another item is more significant. You also claim "I dont think this was a fight for the ages", which may be true, but neither are annual events we feature like The Masters and Wimbledon. I also want to point out that the significance of other nominations, such as the bus crash, are not relevant in nominations aside from their own. You seemed to contradict yourself quite a bit in your oppose.Andise1 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, plz no UFC,. Thats a fake b--- sport if ever I saw one. Im not your biggest opponent. Save your fire for the next guy Andise1. Tepid opposition is more like "meh". Wimbledon is like once a year and is the recognised biggie tournament in tennis. There are another 3 majors, but there you go. Tennis is arguably far more popular than boxing, but then boxing is PPV. Im not your biggest fan or critic, so just take it as a "meh" and prepare for the naysayers. My opinion is divided, not exactly contradictory. Its quite a left field suggestion and its not easy to work out in the context of sporting events. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious question How many boxing organising bodies are there these days claiming to create world champions? If there is more than one, it cannot be our job to decide which one is more important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cant avoid assigning a degree of arbitrary merit in these things. Anecdotally Pac was considered top 1 or 2 P4P for many years and Bradley is in that bunch just behind that. The biggest issue is working out the significance of a big boxing match to boxing. Its not like the UCL or the Superbowl. PPV figures often tell you how big the fight is, and thats a dirty road to go down. The belt is somewhat legit, but the weight range is not undisputed, as you have mayweather right there, refusing to fight pac and vice versa. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sanctioning organizations, but there are generally recognized to be 4 major ones: The WBO, WBC, WBA, and IBF. This would qualify in the boxing world as a major championship. Welterweight#Current champions lists the champions of the 4 sanctioning bodies. --Jayron3200:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Four, but why can't it be our job to decide which matches (not which organizations) are the most important? That is what we do with every story that comes around. Boxing fans don't need some organization to tell them "this is an important match" - they already know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's four boxing organising bodies, multiplied by how many wieght divisions? We have a number up in the 20s at least. We won't post them all. Choosing any will involve masses of unsourced POV. No way we should be posting any of this disorganised rubbish. That turns my position into a clear... HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There are plenty of (knowledgeable) lists of the best pound-for-pound fighters. A rule like two of the top 5 on those a list could be used. It might be subjective - most of our decisions are - but it wouldn't be without sources. And of course, there is always the level of media attention that can be used as a guide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen professional boxers whose matches are likely to attract international attention, such as Wladimir Klitschko, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., etc. There's no inherent need to post every title defense by at every weightclass, or even every fight by these fighters. However, certain fights would garner ITN attention. For example, Klitschko currently holds 3 of the 4 major titles; should he get the fourth he would be the first Undisputed Heavyweight Champion (widely regarded as the most important title in Boxing) in 15 years. Likewise, the results of a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight would attract enough attention worldwide to be worthy of posting; such a fight has been hyped for many years now, and if it were to occur, it would garner enough media attention sui generis and on its own, to be worthy of posting. --Jayron3201:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually easy to determine which fights are "big"; the same way we decide which tennis or golf tournament is big. The fights which have the biggest purse are "big". A world title fight for any of the flyweight titles in the middle of nowhere isn't big. A world title fight in Vegas could very well be, but I dunno if it's automatically ITN material. Now I dunno how big the purse was on this one. –HTD02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ever reliable Bleacher Report, The purse for this fight was $26 million dollars, with Pacquiao earning $20 million, and Bradley $6 million. This was less than the 2012 fight. Pacquiao was also to have his share of the PPV earnings; in 2012 he likely earned about $12 million from PPV buys on his fight with Rios last year. Compare to the purse for the Masters, where Bubba Watson got $1.62 million, or at the 2013 Wimbledon where Andy Murray won 1.6 million pounds, but both weren't beaten up. –HTD03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in boxing circles, this was considered the most anticipated match of the year. I was considering nominating it myself (despite nevr watching boxing, I knew it was a big match). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This and the marathon are probably sporting events of this week, worldwide, if i put my mr planet hat on. Boxing is truly an international sport, if a male dominated one, riddled with corruption. Just please, no UFC as thats not a real sport. Period.
Nominator and thad do have a point. If one was to template two sporting events for this week, id be inclined to favour the london marathon and this fight. If it was 1, Id still be inclined to favor the marathon. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sports stories nominated in a week is irrelevant. Each sporting event should be assessed individually and not on the basis of whether there are other sports stories being nominated or posted at the same time. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on shaky grounds because boxing just isn't that big anymore. As somebody who has a love/hate relationship with boxing, I would like to see a story about Pacquiao on the front page because most boxing analysts (of which I'm not) seem to say that Pacquiao is one of the top fighters of all time, but this would be at least his 6th major title, and that kind of diminishes the value of it, in my opinion. Mvblair (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Manny Pacquiao fight has been described as the Super Bowl in the Philippines only it happens twice a year. That means it's actually (A LOT) bigger than the NCAA tournament or the boat race in the US or UK. Now the question is if Pacquiao fights should be on ITN, and if yes, which? I haven't checked every Pacquiao ITN, but it seems we've posted if Pacquiao begins a new "tuple" champion. Pacquiao, with all of the 4 major sanctioning bodies, and tens of smaller ones, is the only Octuple champion in history. In this fight, he won back the WBO welterweight title he lost to Bradley in 2012, so he didn't win a new title in a separate weight division. I could not look into the future, but I'd guess that the next Pacquiao ITN that we should if he wins a new title in a different weight division he hasn't won before, or if he and Mayweather finally goes at it. –HTD02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manny is practically the patron saint of the Philippines and this is a big fight in boxing I believe, although I haven't seen a mtch since I was at my grampop's on a film reel. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another boxing match, just one of the four(?) welterweight world titles... If we start posting changes to world titles in boxing, we'd need a ticker. And the target article is barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree the fact there is no single boxing authority issuing titles and boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think boxing in some circles is much more popular than some ppl realize. At my work there was more 'watercooler' talk about the fight than the NCAA or the soccer. Certainly for many people boxing is considered to corrupt and too violent to pay attention to but not everyone feels that way.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A shooting occurs at a Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas, U.S., and another shooting occurs at a Jewish retirement center in a nearby city. Three people are killed. A gunman is arrested. (Post) Alternative blurb: Something about anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism News source(s):[3] ABC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Gun crime / anti Semitism/ domestic terrorism. Staying out of this one, I'll nominate for debate, so we dont get hesitance about parochial noms and let you guys sort it out. Personally would question if scale warrants inclusion, but maybe it has cultural significance in the US Media. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Marathon was 3 civilians. Sikh temple shooting was 6, and was considered an act of terrorism. Woolwich murders were 0 civilians 1 soldier and was erroneously reported as terrorism for a long time. I do think things like this are terrorism, however unfashionable it sounds, whatever religion was assailed and however few the victims. Will probably be categorized as a hate crime, but i dont see much difference between this and the sikh temple thing. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the reports, this appears to be "crazy white man goes crazy, shoots up things" as opposed to anything planned out with any sense of terrorism. EG, this is comparable to the Fort Hood incident or the PA school knife stabbing, which neither was ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; unless developments show this was an organized conspiracy, this (while horrifying and tragic) doesn't rise to the level of noteworthiness for ITN. Right now it looks like one guy with a gun and a screw loose. Willing to reconsider if information changes. --Jayron3200:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even if it was a conspiracy. There are plenty of conspiracies to murder people, some of which are racist attacks. Unless quite a few more people die, they aren't ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am heartened by the fact that there was already a Wikipedia article on the suspect. This suggests that the number of people who would actually do such a thing are vanishingly rare. I can't see posting this, though. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: shootings, tragically, are not irregular in the US, as was mentioned, unless there was some greater plan, there is no special reason for inclusion for this article. Thanks, Matty.00710:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So an earthquake that kills 5 people is notable and should be posted on ITN, but an automobile crash that kills 7 times as many is neither. Got it. (Facepalm) Jinkinsontalk to me19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's monetary damage and the fact that earthquakes can't be prevented in addition to the fact that tracking earthquakes indicates long-term interest in geologic events, compared to traffic accidents that are typically have no significant long-term impact and can be prevented. This is what WP:NOT#NEWS is about. Death count is never a factor. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. ITN is to highlight WP articles that are topics of current news. Per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT, traffic accidents are too common - even with death counts in the dozens - to be considered as notable topics that should not have standalone articles on WP (Wikinews, yes, but not here). That's why one piece of advice we use here is that we are not supposed to be reflecting a news ticker, but being careful about its selection. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If enough people die, it will be ITN, regardless of what you say. Im not arguing with your position regards traffic accidents, only commenting on the nature of thing. If a tidal wave kills 2 people it wont be ITN. If it kills 280,000 like the one ten years ago, im sure we will be reading about it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, that's not the metric. It's the encyclopedic nature of the event. A natural disaster on the scale large enough to kill someone is also likely going to have caused serious property damage, and will be something that geologists/scientists/civil engineers will study to understand and prevent similar damage in the future. A traffic accident is a very isolated event in the larger scheme of things. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is a factor, merely saying it is not does not make it so. It isn't the only factor and there is no magic level of deaths that makes something automatically notable, but if you think the death toll doesn't have any bearing on something's long term impact you are mistaken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not dismissing the death toll but that's secondary to whether the event is encyclopedic in the first place, and it's also going to depend on the nature of an event. If, somehow, a road traffic accident caused the death of hundreds, that might be something. More clearing the notion that death toll should be considered a critical factor in comparing the value of various ITN stories. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50/50 The death total is particularly high, but traffic accidents do happen every day. Contrasting this with the forest fire in chile, the fire killed half the amount, but turned the city into a disaster zone. This has ruined many lives too, but is a localised disaster by comparison. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrible crash, but no notable cause or victims, no long term impact on society besides the victims, I.e., not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Needs more celebrity. If Ultimate Warrior had been on the bus, or it had crashed into Peaches Geldof, that would be notable. But 30 dead mexicans just isnt a news story. #f---theworldwelivein. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it posthumously inspires legislation that limits such deaths, as a result of public outcry. Then it becomes retrospectively significant culturally, based on the assumption of cultural significance at the time. ie Dunblane attacks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual celebrity (and non-celebrity) deaths are posted based on the impact of the person's career not the death itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP:77 is just trolling, Thaddeus. There are logical responses to his non-sequitur, but the effort isn't warranted in this case, as it just encourages it. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying rude things when no one can pronounce your name is trolling. I was making a point, but essentially I agree with the naysayers on this one. Road accidents are prevalent. Unless Randy Savage is in the car, or it kills treble figures, its unlikely to make ITN. 36 is a lot though, regardless of everything. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some very odd arguments being made against this. First there's the argument that traffic accidents are too common: well guess what - earthquakes are also very common. In fact, there are more than 1000 earthquakes every day. So by this reasoning we shouldn't post any earthquakes. But while most earthquakes, like most traffic accidents, are utterly non-notable, that is no reason to refrain from posting earthquakes or traffic accidents that are significant. Then there's the argument that death toll is not a factor. That is saying that whether a traffic accident kill 0, 36 or 360 people has no bearing of its notability. That is absurd. We would never apply that to other disasters - nobody thinks that an earthquake that kills nobody is as notable as one that kills thousands. Of course, it's not the only factor, but it is an important one.
Frankly, there is a great deal of prejudice against "traffic accidents". Virtually any other disaster that killed this many people would be posted. But apparently it is different if it is a "traffic accident". And while the argument about widespread damage to property might be relevant for natural disasters - earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc - it doesn't apply to train or air disasters. Nor does the argument that traffic accidents are preventable - air or even train disasters don't get objected to on this score.
Nobody has been able to articulate a good reason why we should treat road accidents in a particularly unfavourable manner. This disaster killed three dozen people. It is getting widespread international media coverage. That is enough to make it notable and ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia and trying to document topics with long-term, global significance. A "routine" traffic accident (a paradoxical statement yes, but you get my gist) is not going to have any significance beyond the short term time frame and local area. It will have a short burst of coverage, but it highly doubtful that next week we'll see much mention of it. This is not considered a notable event per WP:N + WP:NEVENT. As such, while it is "in the news", it is not the type of news we cover, and thus why we should not have articles on these things. And if we shouldn't have an article on the event, then by no means should it be at ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Neljack is right. widespread international media coverage, a massive number of deaths for a crash. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose this for ITN, but the AfD is an overwhelming keep, and we have posted AfD candidates before. If merely proposing an AfD, which lasts 7 days min, were grounds for disqualifying a nomination, any old editor could veto any nom simply by placing an AfD tag on the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain that when this happened in the past (posted noms with AfD's) the AfD's were snow closed by the posting admin. Should this nomination, which I Oppose, be posted, the closing admin could certainly close this AfD, which is doomed to keepture. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification required perhaps this needs to go to RFC or at least be discussed at WT:ITN (I'll start a thread there shortly), but are we content to post items with an AFD template at the top? I have no dog in the fight, but if I was a first-time visitor to Wikipedia's main page, clicked on an ITN item to discover the top half of the article emblazoned with a "This article is being considered for deletion" tag, I'd wonder just what the hell was going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated a discussion here, I'm not sure an admin posting an ITN item has any kind of carte blanche to snow close an AFD, the processes being 100% independent of one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both articles need updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Its definitely news from a different part of the world than we are used to hearing from, but other than that, I dont really see it as significant. Will await the coming civil war between the polar bears and the wolverines. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias), but when the government acceded to protester demands in Ukraine, Yemen, etc that was posted here and indeed WP called it a "revolution". This is along those lines...some are terming it the "second civil war" even (im not going that far, but there is some acrivity brewing around (look at the BLM page)) --Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Minor legal dispute; this sort of thing is not uncommon in the western US where the federal government owns most of the land. The BLM has also not given up on enforcing the court orders; the movement was to prevent a violent confrontation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. ! "I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias)" Why be predictable. Lets use this. :D Now if youll all support the chile fire and the marathon, we can have tea and biscuits like gentlemen. Nominator - this is a genuinely interesting story, but seems a little small scale in comparison to current events, in my humble opinion. Thank you for bringing the dispute to a wider audience and will read with great interest as soon as I have some time. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support showcases the recent militarization of bureaucratic agencies from the federal to local level, with federal Bureau of Land Management's own internal sniper division training guns on family members armed with cameras and the sheriff saying protesters better be ready for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family had threatened no such thing, and I am unaware of any source attributing that to protestors, although the family does call the feds, whov've seized 134 of their cattle, thieves, and called for them to be "hung" in public opinion.. The BLM does not dispute that it dispatched its own armed agents in SUV's and helicopters prior to the huge public response as a result of the media coverage. Regardless, this is a showcase of coercive state action within the US against civilians in civil matters, no different from NSA spying, just potentially more deadly. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said the protesters made the threat, not the family; That said, the protesters have included militia groups from all over the West CNN states at least some were armed and The Guardian states that Bundy said "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" Someone also stated ""Range War begins tomorrow at Bundy ranch at 9.30am. We going to get the job done!"331dot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you have the chronology wrong. The feds showed up with snipers, and trained their guns on the family when no protestors had yet shown up, and the family was only photographing the actions of the feds. Then the news broke, and all sorts of protestors showed up, and the family, emboldened, posted things to heir website that I would not have posted. Then the feds said after the fact that the threats from the protestors was the reason they showed up with guns. That is patently false. But the reason this issue is notable is not the dispute or later developments, but the fact that the BoLM, a strictly bureaucratic division of the strictly bureaucratic Department of the Interior, showed up with its own unconstitutional enforcement squad in the first place, rather than getting a warrant to bring in the state constabulary, or the militia or military for an insurrection. It's as if the BBC showed up with its own snipers to take out an unlicensed TV, or the National Health had snipers with guns trained on a patient protesting her discharge from hospital. The matter is a civil one in a Western Country with a cherished history of the rule of law with civil regulators using armed force without warrant against citizens not charged with any crime. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in commenting further but it probably wouldn't be relevant, so I will just thank you for your comments. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where to begin.. From the article, it's not even clear what has happened – apparently the nominated "news" is that the authorities temporarily called off a law enforcement operation due to safety concerns. If you look at the edit history and talk page, the article's neutrality is being contested. Including the suggested blurb, which seems to misrepresent the current situation in favor of one side of the dispute. --hydrox (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the news is the profile not the halt. Operations are created and halted everyday, but most don't create such temprement.
Oppose Whoever called this the "second civil war" should be nominated for a "hyperbole of the year" award. If another civil war breaks out, feel free to nominate that and you will have my strong support. Until then, no. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
This is ITNR and gets posted every year, as being on ITNR means it is automatically considered notable; if you oppose its presence there, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was looking under athletics and running on on ITNR or probably wouldnt have posted. Remove it as a nominee if you feel its redundant because of prior inclusion 331dot. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items still need to be posted here, for discussion about the blurb and article quality. Being on ITNR only means notability and its merits of posting are presumed, unlike non-ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much of the prose in the target article is in the incorrect tense and no prose at all appears to exist for the result which we're publishing here, do we not also publish the winner of the women's race? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding (re the women's race); I'm not sure when that got removed as it was originally in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ive now changed the prose on the original article. Also I had a different blurb, but someone changed it. Someone has edited out the womens, and two wheelchair winners, which were originally to be included. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article will need prose on the race itself, not just a list of the results. I will do this at some point today if no one gets to it first. We do normally list the men's and women's winners (but not wheelchair winners), and I support mentioned the course record as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Thad, have done the first paragraph from template, although require help with picture.
Note to all. Brits are likely to exaggerate the importance of Mo Farah competing. He brought publicity and crowds, but little else with regards to the elite competitive context of the race. He did reasonably well for a brit, but did not achieve any measure of relevance in the competitive narrative of the race. The british papers are all about Mo, when in reality he was not important in the races actual competition, others than the publicity and crowds he brought. Great athlete, but lets not get distracted by his participation. Strongly recommend trading on American media accounts for this one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This is an ITN/R article, so it's got nothing at all to do with Mo Farah or any other runner. You need to spend some time reading about what ITN before making so many fundamental faux pas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People are editing the article. You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. 1 It "has" nothing to do with Mo farah. 2 spend some time reading about what ITN "is". You talk about faux pas, but you cant even type clear English. Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this has nothing to do with Farah, and the idea that you'd advocate using American press as a preference is appalling and demonstrates your lack of understanding of this entire process. Take some time out to read about it son. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im editing the article and using different media articles as reference. A lot of the british ones are focused on Mo, rather than focusing on the race itself. If this is the wrong place to mention that, then fair enough, you have me there. would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS, before advising on the latter directives about the specific section we are in. Many thanks and have a nice evening. I have enjoyed reading a few of your articles, although I may have to edit some of those commas out. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, firstly, you need to, well, stop complaining about, um, the commas. Secondly, I suspect POS means "piece of shit", could you confirm? Thirdly, the point remains, there's nothing here at all to do with Farah, and certainly no advice to stick to American news outlets should be followed in any way. Many thanks, and have a nice, well, evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner. Will endeavour to stick to the format and use anything that doesn't focus the story on the guy that came 8th. Thanks for the heads up. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bill and I are close, and Aguero more so, but could you clarify that I understood POS correctly? British sources e.g. the BBC don't focus on Farah at all. Perhaps you're tired? Many thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine about all this, I didn't suggest you were a POS or even mentioned Farah, in fact all I said was that the article quality was inadequate. It's still inadequate. If you can be bothered to do anything, please do, if not, have a good night yourself old chap. Sounds like you need the sleep. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - unless there are specific objections, the article should now meet minimum quality standards and be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - got rid of the MPs, smoothed farahs story into the context of the race, and tried to weigh up performances according to merit. Review. The MP thing is saved in the talk pages if you have to have it, but the british public hate MPs and frankly they are right to. There were objectively more significant records amongst the public if you want to reflect that. Also the public part of the race traditionally reflects the public and not celebrities or MPs. but its still there in talk. Article looks crisp. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone sadly died after collapsing at the finish line. Added the detail. Theres lots of information about people attempting obscure records and celebrities and mps taking part. Will probably mention, as its a big public participation event. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thad::: I moved it around a little bit, but i'm happy with it now, if you are. trust me on the members of parliament/members of public thing. Its the best way of expressing it, keeping your entry and reference, without creating an elitist dynamic in a traditionally mixed race. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I tweaked the blurb a bit to fit the standard form for these sort of events. But consensus to post seems obvious at this point, and the article looks to be in good shape. --Jayron3214:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose with no article to evaluate or update(such as a specific article about this fire, not wildfires in general). The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles about subjects in the news. Looking at some other news sites I'm not seeing much coverage of this fire so I would be interested in seeing other news stories about it. Blurb also needs to be properly linked and bolded. I'm willing to reconsider if these suggestions are taken into account. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* How rude. Better clear your calender for the foreseeable future if that's your attitude. Not a fan of self important amateur librarians or cult mentalities on a supposedly free web platform. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have said something in that manner, but I understand the sentiment. You're making a lot of nominations but not demonstrating that you are reading and learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the format seems somewhat redundant as one must edit or create a new article to reflect news stories not covered on wikipedia, which are many. Im not even sure I am allowed to edit some of these wikipedia articles or to create new ones as I am editing on an IP account. Furthermore I am not convinced that this whole thing isnt terribly provincial, as many of these stories would be covered if in a different region. However that last guy seemed very rude, and has really inspired me to contribute a bit more to these pages in the way of international stories that might otherwise be missed. Please thank lugnuts for the pep talk. I was indeed starting to lose interest, but he sure has made me interested now. I dont know who the we in "what we are looking for" refers to, but ill admit i was in perfect ignorance that you guys owned wikipedia and the internet. When i say "what we are looking for", im thinking of the worlds internet users, not a bunch of amateur librarians - all dude respect. Perhaps your contributions are not what we are looking for, signed the planet. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the Wikipedia community who comes here to discuss what is posted to ITN. That includes you at the moment- but you need to do a better job of showing us that you are learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. You are free to edit any article that isn't protected; creating an article requires IP users to ask for assistance (perhaps at Wikipedia:Articles for creation). 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats where the conflict lies. I dont answer to you. I answer to my understanding of the format on a free internet platform. Your contention is that im doing it wrong. My contention is that when i click "In the news" I dont see an adequate representation or reflection of the worlds major news stories. There are two possible explanations for this. 1 The population/consensus etc is horribly skewed by over representation in one region. 2 The articles that are indeed ready to go reflect this. I dont want a wikipedia badge. I dont want to be your friend. I want to see some accuracy and reflection of the worlds major news stories in the ITN section of my wikipedia. Im not righting wrong, I am attempting to write some accuracy into a supposedly global format. The world spins, and here are its major news stories day to day. You guys are complaining that the wikipedia articles dont exist to cover these stories or that these stories are pointless. I honestly dont think the stories are pointless or that a rock awards ceremony is worth more than a city in chile getting burned into a disaster area. If you guys think different, then well that is a genuine point of contention. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you act like you own the place you are going to be sorely disappointed. Your understanding of "the format on a free internet platform" is severely lacking. Being concerned with systemic bias is a valid concern, but that does not negate the need to do things in the correct manner. That includes understanding the purpose of ITN, which you haven't really demonstrated yet. If you are going to be a regular contributor here, that is something that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do own the place, as do you, as does every other sod online. The public own the place/ wikimedia foundation does. My only concern is rather than reflect the worlds news, the geographical bias behind article coverage, and consensus bloc, means important stories are being relegated behind NCAA basketball and the boat race. You think I have some explaining to do? A city in Chile just burned to a disaster zone and ITN is NCAA from last week and the boat race... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns the place; decisions are made by consensus(which was the point of my link above). It's fine to be concerned about systemic bias, but that doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else here. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point im making is the consensus is a geographical bloc, and the articles reflect the regional nature of the editors. furthermore theres the english language bias and the gender bias. Im not arguing that my opinion is worth more, im arguing that parochialism is a real issue that turns ITN into In The Neighbourhood.
Lets move past this. The story will gain traction as BBC and Reuters have both featured it, and it happened when much of the western world was asleep. Now if I was to write an article Im sure people would do their best to attack it. The fire really does approach the kind of notability that requires an article in my honest opinion.
We cannot control who comes here and who does not come here to discuss nominations; we can only be mindful of systemic bias. I haven't yet seen disagreement that this fire merits an article, but we still need one before considering posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posit that this incident is far more important than our little squabbles and earnestly and humbly invite any editors that are interested to create an article to support inclusion of this important story. If you want me to work on it with you, I will do that, but of course experienced editors are more likely to want sole ownership of the article.
Total support. I completely disagree with the early commenters above. Systemic bias are common in major US/Europe news agencies. The Valparaíso news is big here. The fire has killed more people than the earthquake earlier this month did. The city has been declared a disaster zone (that means, that the army occupies the place to ensure protection of residents and that stuff). I can't see why this shouldn't be posted. Yes, it's missing an article, which should be named 2014 Valparaíso wildfire (since there are other notable wildfires in Chile that occurred this year and that may -perhaps- merit an article later. I can contribute with a photograph if you wish, though I'm not available to write an article. (Updated: By the way, President Bachelet said that this may be "the worst fire in Valparaíso" [6]) (2nd update: Added a photograph. More will be available later at commons:Category:2014 Valparaíso wildfire) Küñall (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kunall - If you can safely get a picture from where you are, on to wikipedia, without breaking copyright or endangering yourself, it can go straight in the header. I completely agree with you on bias, but lets not get sidetracked again.
331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it. The whole point of why ITN was set up was for stories like this post 9/11. Nevertheless, lets not get side tracked again. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "ignorant" to state that there (at the time) was little news coverage. We cannot control what the media discusses. Fundamentally an ITN posting must be In the news. This is also not a news ticker but a place to highlight articles about events in the news; we don't post things before they are 1) ready to be posted and 2) have consensus to do so.. Go to Wikinews if you want to post news stories ASAP. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can upload a photograph, yes. But let's not exaggerate, the city was not completely burned down as you state. It has devastated some four or five hills once fulfilled with houses of poor people. Local media is reporting now 16 dead. Küñall (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the American Alphabets were literally in bed time hours and most of the posters seemed to be preoccupied with sniping at me or trading on a misunderstanding of the severity of events. Again, instead of trying to get the last word in, lets get on with this thing. We are arguing while the poor blokes city burns to the ground. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Kunall. We are trading on what news we can get. Please upload photo if safe and we can move on under best practice from there. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "trying to get the last word"; I am trying to correct your erroneous impressions- such as "arguing while the city burns to the ground" which 1) is not yet an accurate statement and 2) belies our purpose here, which is not to instantly post stories before they are ready. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed 331 dot. BBC, Reuters and AJZ already had the story. Were you literally waiting for the american networks/posters to wake up and legitimise it? 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction : The city hasnt burned to the ground. 500 plus homes have, 17 people have been killed and the entire city has been declared a disaster zone by the Chilean leader. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot survey all forms of media in the entire world to learn how widely a story is covered. I can only go by what I see and find myself; when I first saw this nomination, it was not widely covered. If it is now widely covered, that's wonderful. That also does not change that consensus and an article are needed before posting something. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are arguably the 3 most credible and wide reaching news entities in existence. We've both made our points. Lets get on with this.77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn Kunall - I saw the pictures on the BBC report this morning, but it hits home even harder when its a wikipedia poster you are communicating with taking the snaps. Thank you for the image for the header and stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on merits (significant damage in a part of the world we rarely hear about), but obviously an article will have to be written before we can post anything. I will try to get to it today, but I have a busy day already. So, if someone else is willing to do it, please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." Hold the Press--John Maxwell Hamilton. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Went to wikinews, but saw no sign of this story, so request collab there. Anyone who wants to make a template, I will add information and reference the best I can using the abundant reliable sources featured in the header above. I dont know much about article production, but im willing to do my bit. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now up in Spanish. 2014 Valparaíso wildfire Request information on how to translate and contribute. request all interested parties to spend 10 minutes contributing, using the many reliable sources featured in the header. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if article is improved. The article is in a terrible state at the moment, with numerous malformed templates, citations, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy working on the edit is in the city that's on fire. appreciate if you show a little tact, rather than complaining that not enough of his neighbours have died, to your liking. All major news networks are covering the story, and none with the headline "Meh, 500 homes burned down, prime minister calls city a disaster zone, only 17 dead". Be polite and realize some people are actually living in the area they are referencing, and not sniping at strangers from a dented couch. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip, anyone can work on any article here, whether that's the guy whose "neighbours have died" (cn) or you. Do something positive and edit the article, the quality of which (when I reviewed it) was inadequate for main page inclusion. Stop making this personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Thou protest too much, methinks. No one said you were drunk. Or a drunk. Or a drunk man city fan that bet on Mo farah. Lets concentrate on facts here. Baseless assertions have no place in these hallowed halls good man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Well done kunall. Stay safe. Should get an award for personally providing pictures and back story while the flames burn outside your window. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - article now meets minimum quality standards. --ThaddeusB (talk)
No worries, IP editor. However, I'd love if the proposed picture was actually used in the main page; I mean, it is much more 'impacting' than that of a bleeding heart drawing. Küñall (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:No article specified Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Ukraine launches a military campaign against against pro-Russian activists in East Ukraine. (Post) News source(s):Sky NewsBBC Credits:
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.
Awaiting confirmation of extent of escalation. Will drop a few sources so we can all have a butchers. Presumably articles exist that are being updated regularly. This situation is on a powder keg and looks set to go off.77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I don't see where either article has been updated with the relevant content, so I don't know what I am supposed to be assessing. --Jayron3201:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see above comments. It's a speculative news story about anonymous reports. Also, neither of the two articles seem to have been updated at all. Mvblair (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note though I too poppose, ill point that we posted ghouta when the perpetrator is STILL not known. (officially...its apatently obvious the biggest terrorsit regime in the world (saud_) will do anything)Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Story has some traction. 1 Its difficult to verify anything under these circumstances. Same story even with the large attack. 2 If both sides have accused each other of one specific incident of CWA, then its unlikely CWA didnt occur. 3 "The international body tasked with destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal says it will investigate new opposition allegations that regime forces have used banned chemicals in at least three attacks since January if the claims are referred by an appropriate state authority.""A senior Israeli defence official said earlier this week that new chemical attacks had taken place in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The claim supported complaints by rebel groups in Harasta that at least three people had been killed in late March, with several dozen more taken ill, after shells landing near them discharged noxious fumes" UK and Israel to investigate.
Content on the current events portal page is not discussed here; this page is only to discuss what appears in the ITN box on the Main page. The two are not the same. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If culturally prominent to the level stated.
The oscars are just the american film industry awards. bollywood is bigger than hollywood in many ways (films produced, ww revenues, tickets sold and annual growth rate) and india is a bigger country in population. If Oscars are featured, then lets feature this. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if culturally prominent as stated, based on 77.101.41.108's reasoning. Suggest amending blurb by removing the words 'will be', and waiting to post it until the prize has been awarded. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indian cinema is a pretty big thing, and all sources name this as the most prominent award in Indian cinema. The biography article has sufficient sourcing and a minimum three-sentence update. --hydrox (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - blurb says "will be" - does that mean he officially gets the award at a later date? If so, we should wait for that date. If not, the blurb should be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he will be awarded later but news will be stale by then. Not much media coverage will be there. Last year when Pran awarded, it was posted earlier for the same reason. -Nizil (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can probably get away with the simple "is awarded" despite the technicality. Otherwise, it would have to be "is announced as the recipient of" - either way it needs to be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Article will need work - referencing is fairly weak, and their are many WEASEL words. The article also makes some strange choices on what to cover - I very much doubt examples of his poetry (in Urdu) should be included in the article, for example. Otherwise, I could support this on merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support firstly I dint know hes still alive. But yes notable lyricist, but then ai maybe biased...on this note its mehfil time for me...saki ne phir se mere jaam bhar diya...Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements and present tense rewriting of the blurb, per Thaddeaus' suggestion. With India's large population and the enduring prominence of its cinema, I would even support adding the Dadasaheb Phalke Award to ITN/R because of its cultural significance. AgneCheese/Wine00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Improved I have improved the article. Added references. Copyedited text. Reorganised content. Added inline citations except for award and filmography lists. Can someone check grammar as I may have made mistakes? Does inline citation for filmography and awards neccessary as the most of articles dont have them?
Nominator's comments: Per the BBC: "The study is a 'major breakthrough' and marks a 'turning point' in hepatitis C treatment, said experts." Article will need updated for a new one on the drug (whose name I have not found yet.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - If verified, genuine news. Hep C is a lot more prevalent (in places) and far more easily transmittable than HIV. It is also chronic and kills people. It lays dormant for years and affects a great many people. Anecdotally one can cut a finger and put it in a cup of HIV blood, a few minutes after its been bled, it wont transmit. Do not try this at home, obviously. But the contrasting stories of Hep C tell of a disease that lives in bleach. Scare stories, but the point of them is the contrast in respective ease of transmission. Ergo prostitutes and intravenuous drug users have massive percentages of Hep C, moreso than HIV, and Hep C can be dormant and transmitted to people without their knowledge relatively easily, whereas HIV doesnt have a long time active outside the human body. Also Hep C can be transmitted by things that dont work for HIV, so good news if true that this disease is now under control. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question A cure for Hep C would certainly be a big deal. But this is only 2 studies (though large ones). Should we wait until results independently replicated? What level of verification is enough for us to consider it reportable? Or perhaps bill it as "Study claims ..."?
Comment. I wish the BBC had linked which study/ies it meant! The one I've found (SAPPHIRE II), published 10 April in New England Journal of Medicine[7] looks interesting but doesn't seem to be the one the BBC is referring to. The accompanying editorial states several different combinations are currently under phase II & III trials with >90% virological response rates.[8]Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the correct study (thanks for finding it). Another article I read said it was published in The New England Journal of Medicine and said the drug was a combination of ABT-450/ritonavir, ribavirin, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to read around a lot more to be sure this is more groundbreaking than combinations with sofosbuvir, which afaik is the first approved HCV direct-acting anti-HCV drug that isn't a protease inhibitor, FDA-approved last December for treatment in regimens without interferon, again for the first time. (We really ought to have run with that, but don't seem to have done.) In my (admittedly biased) opinion, Abbott's approach to data manipulation is second to none in the pharma industry. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think it is the study the BBC is referring to -- that report mentions patients with cirrhosis, while SAPPHIRE II is in patients who don't have cirrhosis. There must have been two phase III studies published at the same time, probably both with Poordad as one of the main authors. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There were several occupations of gov. buildings already earlier this week, including one in Donetsk,[9] the largest city in largely pro-Russian East Ukraine. So far, it seems like just another protest in East Ukraine. Call me when Putin intervenes, then we will post for sure. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean its not in the news, as you insinuate in calling for references to indicate it being in the news, this ISs so.Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in some form. The Ukraine story seems to be staying relevant, and even escalating. We should post something.Thue (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian armed men have traded gunfire in a battle for control of the eastern town of Sloviansk, the interior minister says.
At least one Ukrainian officer was killed and both sides suffered casualties, Arsen Avakov said.
Pro-Russian forces took over the town on Saturday, prompting Kiev to launch an "anti-terror operation".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27008026
Should be monitored for escalations. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support once an operation is carried out(or other similar escalation such as Russian forces crossing the border). 331dot (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor 331dot: some parties are indicating that this has already happened. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: the raids in the east of Ukraine were "professional" and "coordinated", "[giving] credence" to the theory that Putin is behind them.[10] Nato: there are "[indications of] Russian military involvement" in Kramatorsk.[11]It Is Me Heret / c22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israel imposes sanctions against Palestinians for signing of U.N. human rights conventions
Nominator's comments: PA President Mahmoud Abbas's applied last week to join 15 international treaties and conventions. On Friday, Switzerland confirmed that "the state of Palestine" had acceded to the Geneva Conventions, which govern the rules of war and military occupations. The Palestinians have repeatedly accused Israel of breaching the Fourth Geneva Convention by pursuing settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967. Obviously important conflict and development, and the kind of thing possibly under reported in western networks, whilst over reported regionally. Wikipedia is an important source of neutrality in a polarized conflict. BBC, Reuters are also pretty reliable. Obviously Al Jazeera, and the American networks have serious neutrality issues. --77.101.41.108 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Routine news. "Palestine does something, Israel issues sanctions". In the rest of the world, we call this "Tuesday". This is a standard part of how the relations between these two countries go, and does not represent a significant change or lasting newsworthy development. If live war breaks out, or conversely if a definitive recognition of sovereignty occurs, that'd be something. When one of the two entities does something, and the other gets pissed off, that's just what happens all the time. --Jayron3213:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contention with Jayrons point. We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal. It also seems to be on the side of Israel to ignore provocations, and only report responses. From a palestinian POV, they are supposedly at war, and occupied and are now being sanctioned for signing up to international arbitrary treaties. Also, I dont know that you talk for the rest of the world.This whole ITN thing started because of 9/11. The whole of the world was calling that tuesday until the sky fell in. I dont know that we serve history by ignoring root causes of conflicts, minimising other peoples suffering and only recording violent responses. Its easy to sit here and say its just another day in the west, but of course its possibly a very different story in different regions. Frankly if palestine have signed legit international treaties, and have thus been sanctioned for doing so, its seems like two news stories and both of them actually substancial. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you are saying seems to me to be (when you say, and I quote " We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal.") that we must assume that any event is important, and only in hindsight can we decide that it wasn't that big of a deal. What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! It's only after careful and studied analysis that we can decide that it was just another turd; instead we must assume that all events are of "significance", and only years later should we decide that each of those was probably routine. Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne... --Jayron3218:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One can only guess at what the combined Allied forces thought they were playing at in establishing the Geneva conventions on human rights, or what 196 countries thought they were playing at in signing it. One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it isn't News. Surely this is news. It's perfectly newsworthy, and I have no qualms with BBC and Reuters and any of a number of other news agencies covering it, as they should. This needs to be made clear. Wikipedia is not a news agency. The purpose of ITN is to highlight high-quality Wikipedia articles which cover major news stories. What article have you updated or cleaned up that you want to highlight on the main page? --Jayron3219:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make clear, I wasn't lambasting your nomination in my immediately preceding statement. I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic. I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, such as the notion that all events must be assumed significant, and can only be declared insignificant in hindsight. If you don't see the silly flaw in such a statement, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight. You are, of course, free to nominate any article at Wikipedia you think is worth highlighting regarding major current events. I personally don't think this one is really all that worthwhile, but that's not the important thing in this exchange we are having. The important part of this exchange is that you should take care in how you present your defense of your positions. When you make plainly stupid statements that amount to demanding that everyone treat everything as maximally important unless subsequently proven commonplace, you open yourself to ridicule. Instead, try saying "look, I know this isn't a top level story, but we have a nearly featured level article to highlight here, and I think that is worth highlighting on the main page". That would sway people's opinions. It would certainly sway mine. What won't sway anyone is making demands that we violate the basic principles of sound reasoning. --Jayron3219:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
jayron. Im not a fan of your rhetoric, your attitude or your critical faculties Jay. Im sending it down the line to conflict resolution. You talk about ridiculing people, calling people stupid etc, while making points about cheerios and ignoring the international significance of UN/Geneva conventions on human rights. If you didnt understand my argument, perhaps its because you were not reading it, but were loading up one liners about cheerios. The significance of the conventions are set up in international law and culture, and the articles on palestine and israel already exist on wikipedia. I dont know what your problem is, but your whole spiel seems absolutely incredulous for a mod/admin. Complaint sent. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is significant on a number of scores: (1) Palestine's accession to these treaties, which are only open to sovereign states, reinforces its claim to statehood; (2) the Israeli sanctions will have a major economic and budgetary impact on Palestine; (3) this dispute threatens to derail the peace talks. Neljack (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I see it, the real news here is that Switzerland called them the "state of Palestine" in a news release. Otherwise, it all seems like just another slash in the perpetual game of trading punches that has been going on in this region for quite long. But barring actual recognition, Switzerland still remains just another country who do not recognise the state of Palestine. --hydrox (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why has someone edited the mention in current events?
I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---.77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrox - BBC and Reuters disagree, as do the nations that also signed these international agreements and conventions, themselves hallmarks of international legitimacy. You dont really have the casting vote on international legitimacy. You talk about trading punches, and perpetual games and then ignore clear provocations and international developments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that if the news here are the sanctions themselves ("yet another punch"), I do not personally find them significant enough for ITN mention (not all news are ITN-worthy). If the news is that Palestine has signed up to join treaties, that can be unilateral as far as I understand (e.g. Sealand could just as well sign up to join treaties), so not very noteworthy. The most significant part as I see it is that Switzerland called them "state of Palestine", but that's not akin to an actual recognition, so not very ITN-worthy either. --hydrox (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct, hydrox. An instrument acceding to a treaty must be accepted by the depositary (generally a government, international organisation or international office-holder - the UN Secretary-General is the most common one for multilateral treaties), which examines it to see if it is valid. Generally speaking only sovereign states can sign international treaties (the exceptions tend to be related to international organisations like the EU and sui generis entities like the Holy See, so they aren't relevant here). Since nobody accepts Sealand as a sovereign state, no depositary is going to accept an instrument of accession from them as valid. Sealand simply doesn't have the status in international law to accede to a treaty - in fact, it doesn't have any status in international law. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means that Switzerland is implicitly recognising them as sovereign, though it's not formal recognition in the sense of establishing diplomatic relations. I'm not sure why it isn't getting much attention. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me the Sealand Geneva convention, occupation by Israel thing isnt about to happen. Nvm. Will leave this to be debated. There is a level of international recognition and legitimacy being courted and realized here. Furthermore, the sanctions against an entity for basically signing international peace agreements is an ostensibly hostile and unjustifiable move. Team A sign the Geneva convention. Team B attack them with sanctions for it. SMFH. Seems like double news and signing international agreements and conventions doesnt seem like a hostile punch. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. I'm not seeing a lot of awards, honors, or other reason he was notable that would satisfy the death criteria(assuming this is an RD nomination). I oppose a blurb as he was not the tip-top of his field and being 69 his death is not entirely unexpected or shocking. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Panic after Lanzhou, China declares its tap water toxic
Nominator's comments: How about a serious story that affects a billion people not from america. Im not being snarky, but if this was happening in the states or europe, it wouldnt even be a debate for ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again if it was happening in America it would be ITN. Furthermore the article and the issue directly affect a billion people in china, or a significant percentage thereof. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im more interested in the story than any credit. Go ahead and edit my entry if you so wish Alex, or drop some directives and Ill happily defer to them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon update as a major pollution incident, though I disagree that this has any harder time getting posted being from China than anywhere else. I don't recall any other similar incident affecting millions of people not being posted. (and I invite others to demonstrate one, if it exists). Blurb will need wikification and article needs updating(or even a new article). Keep in mind the role of ITN is to highlight articles about events in the news, not be a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one was to audit ITN, it would hardly be shocking to find a bulk of nominees and stories coming from 5% of the worlds populace. A heady remainder may be from europe. Thats no crime in itself, as cousins either side of the atlantic have ready internet access and these pages are in english. However, I think world events such as this need to be highlighted, especially when they affect so many people. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. You have been posting here all of 48 hours yet you presume to lecture us about our supposed bias. We regularly post stories from all parts of the world, as you would know if actually looked instead of just making up nonsense like "95% of the stories come from 5% of the population". --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a personal comment thaddy, in fact a command! so Ill retort, You arent in any position to lecture me on my thoughts or opinions, last I checked. If wikipedia is your own personal fiefdom, please make this clear, and label it as such on the wikipedia entry.
FYI 14 of around 70 stories were American. Thats massively disproportionate for an 5% of the planet on an international format.
You have more than had your turn at playing the planets editor at large, so unless your name is jimmy wales, by all means keep those control impulses your own issue, and do not apply them to me. Maybe allow the rest of the planet a voice.77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 stories on ITN, not 70. One is American. This is the nomination page, not ITN. No one can stop anyone from nominating anything. You could nominate 500 stories from Zimbabwe tomorrow if you wanted - then there would be 14 US stories out of 570.
If you want to keep making nonsense comments about something (ITN) you have no clue about, be my guest, but it doesn't make you right, and it will make people unlikely to read your future comments.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When i click beyond the header, I get the actual page of current events and thats where the numbers come from. You are being very rude, but frankly bigots often are. Also 4/8 of the headers of the ITN space itself are from the Americas. All 3 deaths are from the Americas. 1 out of the 5 stories are from the americas and 1 of the remainders is about computing and the internet, referencing microsoft. By all means cherry pick from that, but its 4/8 stories in your back yard. This leaves Cricket, the hurricane and the boat race as the sum total of the planets news. LOL. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That page is not part of ITN; it is called "Portal: Current Event" and is available for anyone to add any story they choose. As far as being rude goes, you have done nothing but insult people, mostly using your own imagined statistics since you got here. If you actually bothered to look into my history instead of just making hateful assumptions, you would know I have nominated and written more non-American stories than almost anyone else. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All 3 deaths are from the Americas" - You do realize "the Americas" is 2/6 populated continents right? A.N.R. Robinson is clearly not a US story. Nice try at obscuring facts to make your point that the US is over represented. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1 of the remainders is about computing and the internet, referencing microsoft" - the Heartbleed bug is unrelated to Microsoft, as you would know if you clicked on the story. Another nice try at obscuring facts to make things sound more US-based then they are. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well thats just categorically incorrect. I was very polite to you, and made sure to avoid ad hom, until you tried to attack me. And when you say the americas, you are supposedly including the southern part. 4/8 of those stories are about your back yard. Ie central and north america. This is not personal thaddeus. This is about facts. Is wikipedia meant to be international, or domestic? International. Are the stories currently reflecting what is in the news of this world, or whats making the rounds locally? The latter. All three deaths are local. 2 of the 5 stories are local. You keep on nominating trivial local news, whose international domestic counter parts are not nominated because no one is silly enough to go around nominating every time a chinese music hall of fame inducts people, or an indian tv host retires. If you honestly believe this is some kind of adequate or reasonable reflection of the main points of the worlds news - Heavy rains from Cyclone Ita (pictured) trigger severe flooding in the Solomon Islands, killing more than 20 people.
In rowing, Oxford defeat Cambridge in the 160th Boat Race.
In cricket, Australia win the women's ICC World Twenty20 tournament and Sri Lanka win the men's tournament.
R- Then I honestly fear for your faculties.
The rest of the stories and deaths goes - America, Canada, Trinidad, America, Internet. - LOL.
No ones writing great wrongs here. Im typing as politely as I can and trying not to laugh.
The United States does not care about Trinidad and Tobago. By equating the two, you are purposely obscuring facts to make your point. A worldwide internet problem is not a local US story. By saying it is you are purposely obscuring facts to make your point. You might not have insulted anyone by name (other than me), but every single one of your posts is insulting to everyone who works hard on this project, lecturing us on our supposed bias (basically because we posted one story - NCAA basketball - that you don't like). If that isn't being rude, I don't know what is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the people who work hard on the project agree with me, and a lot of the people who could have worked hard on it, left after 24 hours because of the CULTure. So I just read, anyways. Women where are you?
Regardless or irregardless, as they are indeed both words, out of 12 lines of ITN text, 6 are from your back yard, and 4 are from the NCAA Basketball tournament. And just to show no hard feelings, the boat race is a joke. The Uk is massively over represented too. You want to know what I want you to do? Get up tomorrow and click Reuters or BBC "world news" before you find a story to pimp. That would be a good way to get rid of me, and never see me again. you are excellent at what you do, but this is a world wide service, and indeed in many ways wikipedia is the "world service" of the day we are in. I am confused and befuddled at the amount of local trivial news, but thats just my opinion. Im not sending you demands to "Please Stop". I simply used my little voice to challenge it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You complain "95% of the stories come from 5% of the world". The 5% obviously being the US, then you include a global internet problem, Canada, and Trinidad and Tobago in that 5%. No doubt if a Mexican story was feature, you'd count that as the United States too. But why stop there, Russia is extremely close to Alaska geographically. The United States has military bases in hundreds of countries - maybe when thing happen in those countries they are in America's neighbor's too (the soil of such bases is technically part of the United States). The US occupied Iraq for a couple years recently, maybe everything that happens in the Middle East is mostly of US interest too. The United Kingdom, Spain, and France once owned the land that is now the United States so I guess anything that happens there is related to the US as well. The United States fund most space exploration, so everything related to space is obviously an American story.... Even with all that, we still wouldn't be at 95% of the stories on ITN.
If you can show me one ITN regular that agrees with you that "95% of the stories come from 5% of the population" I will never post here again.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are both victims of hyperbole, but when we actually looked, 14 out of 70 odd current affairs were from USA, and 4/8 ITN and recent deaths were from North America. You argue that USA has a big shadow in this world, and when in context, I agree. But not when your context is the 3 most important deaths that week or a sporting event dwarfed by one you ignored. And like I said, the boat race is a hilarious irrelevance too. You cant cite Americas shadow for importance of deaths, anymore than I could cite 5% for importance to the nuclear arms race. American lives are not more important to this world, or to wikipedias explicit and expressed policy. And the worst part is, its not American lives getting the nod, but the deaths that seem relevant to an american perspective. So whats being expressed and reflected in Wikipedia (international format) ITN (world news) is American perspectives on America and her neighbours. And no sarah palin, russia is not part of north america, however close it seems from your window. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that RD is slightly biased, specially towards US entertainers, but again Trinidad is about as related to the US as China is. I do not agree main blurbs are biased towards US stories, and I certainly do not agree my own contributions have any bias at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will admit, I see nothing wrong with righting wrongs, when the wrongs are over representing one tiny denomination and sizeable slize of the map, and the righting is adequately and honestly setting out to accurately represent and reflect the worlds news stories. This is the correcting errors and positively setting out to reflect the worlds events business, not the caped crusader and robin. It simply makes no sense why one little area and people should be featuring to heavily on the event catalog, even when one allows for the insanity of the cult of american exceptionalism and the considerable shadow of americas world status. The fact is (again) you are literally 5% of this worlds people, - its not so much why are you evil people dominating the news, is more "who f---- cares?!?" to some of these things.
Bottom line. This isnt a format for local news > world news.
And if you would like to paint me a wrong righter, Ill admit the one thing on this issue that irks me to this day, is almost every american Ive ever met knows all about the BP Oil slick, and hardly any of them have heard of Bhopal, or the 5 times the death total of 9/11 that was wiped out there.
Is that my MO when I assert the NCAA is smaller than the UCL? No, of course not. I just look at it like this. The world is a big place. There is a constant stream of international news. Whats most important? I dont sit here and surf british news all day long and drone on about the boat race. I have an internationalist perspective on my news. I would have that in a big country like america, just as i do in a small insular island like the UK. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Water supplies becoming tainted due to foreign toxic additives is not new - this may be the largest such warning of this size, but far from a new thing in the world. The situation can be corrected , and it will take some time, and likely will be a footnote in the future, barring any investations on the source of the benzene. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the articles can be beefed up about this incident. It should be ITN because of the enormous size and reach of the pollution in this incident, but the articles don't source it very well. I don't mean this to be inserted into the debate going on above, but Love Canal, Bhopal, or the Japanese mercury poisoning crisis in the '50s would have been on ITN had it been around, and this could potentially be worse. 2,500,000 is a lot of people to suddenly stop drinking water. Mvblair (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What article are we judging to put on the main page? I don't see any updated article we are highlighting? Where are the improvements we are assessing? --Jayron3203:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the only real consequence so far seems to be brisk sales of bottled water. No report of anyone being sickened or killed by the polluted water. -Zanhe (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Thadeus' - Tell you what. This story is yours. If you feel it is significant to work on then be my guest. If you would rather work on the awards things, go for it. I dont have the experience to edit the wikipedia article, and its pointless shouting down fibre optics, for 1000s of miles. Its all yours if you want it, and we can send it down the memory shoot, if you dont. Same goes to the rest of you. This is an important story, but im not experienced at editing wikipedia articles. Its in your hands. Do with it what you will. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from what I've read it's about levels of benzene being too high (which may give you cancer at some point), and everyone's been advised to avoid it for 24 hours, and then it'll all just pan out. No big deal really. If it was Ebola, I'd be more interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The President chooses the PM in Madagascar, so he wouldn't want someone who wouldn't carry out his policies and support his views. Not really a dramatic change. If posted, the blurb does not need to mention his radiology and living abroad, that's not relevant. Nor should it mention the day of the week. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITN/R clearly states that changes of head of governments must be discussed on their own merits. Given that there is no article that meets the quality requirement for ITN, nothing should be posted. And don't bother creating a crappy stub such as "Kolo Christopher Laurent Roger is the new prime minister of Madagascar." Our readers expect to find out more than the news media are reporting. In other words, who is the guy?Abductive (reasoning) 17:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R is the consensus for the topics it covers. This is one of the topics it covers. To put it another way, everybody has said something about ITN/R, and the consensus is not to post this. Abductive (reasoning) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "everybody", I mean all the people who have ever participated in WP:ITN/C and all the people who have helped craft WP:ITN/R. The consensus I am referring to is the one developed at ITN/R. That consensus says this cannot be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, nobody but you mentioned ITN/R, if an article isn't listed there, then it's up for debate here. Quite why you alone thought it was relevant to bring up ITN/R is entirely up to your own thought process, but no-one else has mentioned it at all. The consensus at ITN/R is undefined (show me the discussion, for instance) and since no-one mentioned ITN/R, this is a simple ITN/C case where we have to discuss its suitability. Your mention of ITN/R was entirely 100% irrelevant, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may come as some surprise to you, but consensus is not entirely the result of discussion here. There is precedent to consider. I was reminding people here that changes to heads of state are supposed to be posted per ITN/R, but that changes to heads of governments are to be discussed on their own merits. Given that the stub is one sentence long, it cannot be posted, since WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". One, there is no article. Two, nobody is interested in it (well, 34 pages views must include some human eyes, perhaps ten people looked at the stub). Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much exactly what I meant with "if accompanied by an article of acceptable standards". The thing is that we don't have a new ITN story to post right now, so if someone is kind enough to create a good article on the new Prime Minister of Madagascar, I am all for it. --hydrox (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: There are 1800 known exoplanets, but no known exomoons yet. This could be the first (but of course only time will tell if scientific consensus backs the conclusion that an exomoon, and not something else, was actually detected). Its making headlines on some unusual sources (i.e. things that rarely cover science). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's no less speculative than the "MH370 ping" story I proposed below. However, I am neutral since there may be convincing arguments to be made in favor of this nom. Not anymore: in the absence of such arguments, I am now opposed. Jinkinsontalk to me22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I would say entertainment news is underrepresented on ITN, so I'm giving this a shot. Rock has been the most popular music genre worldwide for several decades and its HOF induction ceremony is an event in-and-of itself. This year's ceremony is especially notable due to Nirvana being inducted and its remaining members reuniting for a special performance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Eh I'll give it to ya. (Possibly because my favorite band of all time that isn't named Led Zeppelin or Radiohead is on the list.) This is a recognition of the best of the best of rock and roll, despite its criticisms. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - per entertainment news being underrepresented in ITN, to achieve BALANCE this would help. I'm not an R&R fan and even I've heard of the artists in question, so there is mainstream name recognition here -- Tawker (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The target article is problematic and has maintenance issues. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is a museum—a tourist attraction—(insert anything) Hall of Fame does not make the inductees or the induction process notable just because there are famous people. We don't post hockey players being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Why is the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame any more significant? All this is doing is creating more publicity and advertising for the tourist attraction itself. A museum does not have credibility in determining significance as award organizations do, such as the Grammys. 70.26.173.105 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sports HOF inductions rarely generate much press coverage and are national/regional in nature and usually restricted to one league. R&R has global appeal and generates a lot of press coverage, so that is the difference. HOF inductees are determined by voting from a selected group of industry people, just as the Grammy awards are... You are correct that the article will need work, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IP 70. Basically a vanity event and tourist trap paid for by infusions from the city of Cleveland and run by non-musicians, unlike a peer system, such as the Oscars. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'weak opposition'. I dont know. I dont know that rock is most popular. I dont know that this isnt just more parochialism. I thought hip hop was the most popular world wide to be honest, but who knows.
Alex it went into pop music. even that dance crazy from korea was hip hop. Point is im not advocating for hip hop, but doubting the universality of rock, and the universality of this HOF. If this is a game off numbers, Ill delete weak opposition and leave it at some doubts. I dont want a vote here, just to express a non american opinion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, hip hop is often considered a derivative of rock music. I am pretty sure hip hop artists will be considered for the R&R HOF once the requisite time has passed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hip hop is derivative of everything, but Rock is a derivative of blues... Im pretty sure you have those cultural bragging right the wrong way around. Honestly Thad, I have no great opinion on this, other than to question the universality and international significance of the event and to some extent the genre. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rock is derivative of blues, jazz, and bluegrass, mixed with elements of what came to be known as "pop" in the 1950s, classical music, funk, R&B in the 60s and 70s, and etc. Hip hop came out of likes of Grandmaster Flash in the late 1970s and takes its roots from Soul, R&B, Funk, and Reggae. All musical forms are derivatives of others. - Floydianτ¢23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only point was that hip hop artists could be inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame (and per Black Kite apparently already have been). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been hip hop inductees to the R&RHOF; Public Enemy and Run DMC off the top of my head, there may be others. Oh yeah, Support. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Nirvana is hardly a head above the rest of the crowd. I'd say Peter Gabriel, and most especially KISS (despite them not giving a fuck), are the headliners. R&RHOF inductions might be worthy of adding to ITN/R; they're certainly as notable as the Grammys. - Floydianτ¢23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)`[reply]
People need to stop assuming global appeal on these american events. 5% of the planet is american, and 95% of the in the news stories.... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter statistics are patently false; at one point we had 5 stories from Asia (3 of which were from Japan). Currently there is only one story from the US. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you need to stop assuming everything you don't care about appeals only to Americans. Nirvana, for example, is a featured article on 5 non-English Wikipedias and a good article on 4 more. If only Americans cared about rock music, people would not be bringing such articles to featured status in so many languages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thadeus my thoughts are my own, and they are guided by example after example of nominations that are based in one geographical region, containing 5% of the worlds populace, featuring stories that have little to no relevance to anyone outside it. Yes, nirvana were great, but this is not the day Kurt Cobain died, and frankly more people probably take interest in a bollywood film ceremony than this in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to the top of this page where it says "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Every event has people that care about it in some places and not in others. If you want to see more ITN items from other places, please nominate them, as you did here. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of civility, it means nothing where Im at, and has little to no international significance in my humble opinion. My words and my perspective can only reflect that. If it was the ultimate warrior dying, or indeed kurt cobain dying then I would honestly have to support inclusion. If it was Rick Flair being inducted into the HOF, then I can only say, not really internationally significant imho. Same with Nirvana. Its a salient fact that its not internationally significant 331. One can be cordial about it, but its still a 5% nominee, with little to no reach outside the states. You confronted the subject, and perhaps its best addressed on a meta forum, but the bottom line is if its not internationally significant and is a domestic level event, then im going to have to say that. I can be polite, but it is what it is. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An event being "domestic" does not and will not preclude its being posted, as long as it is sufficiently in the news and the article is sufficient. Again, if you want to see other stories here, nominate them, don't just tear others down. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the news where? Also you seem to be saying its tit for tat with different nations wanting more exposure etc,. But all im seeing is a massive bulk of domestic interest US stories....It is an issue when an international site is 95% based in one 5% area. Of course one must be civil, but its definitely worth addressing and FYI the first accusations of parochialism came from the east of the pond on the peaches geldof debate. Will endeavour to be polite about non international stories though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This story is already featured on ITN,- i just checked, as are a good 14 headers from around 70 stories. Fair enough, its not 95%, but its still dis proportionate, and frankly a lot of them are trivial and silly. do you really think colbert replacing letterman matters to anyone outside of America? so why the positive discrimination? We all want different things when we click wikipedia, but most of the world doesnt want "American trivial news". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This story is already featured on ITN", um no it is not. This is the page to discussion additions to ITN only. There are five items on ITN at the moment - the heartbleed bug, NCAA basketball, Cyclone Ita, The Boat Race, and ICC cricket. Only one of those is primarily American; three have absolutely nothing to do with America and are of little interest here. Occasionally there are two American stories on ITN, but other times there are none. No one has even nominated Colbert replacing Letterman, and if they did it would be voted down easily. Incidentally, 50% of Wikipedia's viewership comes from the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Find another forum for this discussion and well have it there. When I click in the news, - more news stories, I get the actual page, not the header. And thats where i get numbers from. Im not really bothered where wikipedia gets its audience from. Its not advertised as a domestic site, so I take it as an international one, and a universalist one, as indeed it advertises itself. It doesnt say ITN America. It says ITN. You dont speak for all of wikipedia or her audience, as frankly wikipedias gender bias is in the news, and its geographical bias is well known. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you click on "more current events" you will be it takes you to "Portal:Current events" which has nothing to do with ITN, other than the link. Anyone can add any story to that page. And yes our readership is relevant - we are here to serve our readers. We are not here to right great wrongs (e.g. real world bias). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to expose child molesters. I am challenging you on your explicit and covert policy of positive discrimination toward american stories. They are featured 4/8 on the ITN and deaths, even on the specific ITN space. This is not real world bias, this is a ridiculously misplaced concentration on one geographical area, on what is self purporting to be a global format. By all means get rid of the wiki globe and turn it into a North american outline, if that is your purpose. No one is stopping you or trying to right that wrong. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A.N.R. Robinson is not from the United States... If you honestly think the United States only plays a 5% role in world affairs, then you are very out of touch with reality indeed. You advocate for it having only 5% of all stories, which would righting the "wrong" on US influence on the world, not a reflection of reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude you are arguing that North America not only has 50% of all ITN, but that it somehow has trivial stories of insignificance, that are worth more than other peoples trivial stories of insignificance.
I dont think USA should be on a 5% tariff of stories, nor do i hold americas 5% of the planet as worth more than the other 95%, and nor does or should wikipedia. If you honestly think the NCAA basketball holds anything like 50/50 with the unmentioned champions league, in world sport, then you are very out of touch with reality indeed. You advocate for it having 100% of all stories, between the two on the day, which would be righting the "wrong" on UCL influence on the world of sport, not a reflection of reality.
Reality is 5% of the planet is not more important than the other 95% person to person. There is importance, and then there is ignorance. If you post a natural disaster or a sporting event in America and ignore a similar natural disaster somewhere else, or a bigger sporting event somewhere else, you are just being ignorant. It has nothing to do with righting wrongs. wikipedia is an international format, and you are going out and over representing one area. This is not some great injustice on the world, it is silly and myopic and tiny minded. I am not the avenger here, and you are not the bad ass. You are some guy in a garden, pimping stories from his one street, in a city full of streets and people. Its not an international perspective. You cant act like the world revolved around USA, because it is just 5% of the planet, however much you seek to act like its not. And wikipedia is an international format, and not a local or domestic one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Champions League is obviously more popular/important than NCAA basketball. It will be posted when it is complete. Each having one story does not mean ITN sees them as equals - it means we only post final results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Thadeus' - Tell you what. That China story is yours. If you feel it is significant to work on then be my guest. If you would rather work on the awards things, go for it. I dont have the experience to edit the wikipedia article, and its pointless shouting down fibre optics, for 1000s of miles. Its all yours if you want it, and we can send it down the memory shoot, if you dont. Same goes to the rest of you. This is an important story, but im not experienced at editing wikipedia articles. Its in your hands. Do with it what you will.77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Hall of Fame inductions are relevant to things like RD, but I don't think the inductions as an event are noteworthy enough. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actual induction ceremony is the most appropriate time to bring this to ITN - while they are actually named earlier (a couple months?) this is when they get the most coverage. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I know there are issues on the "reliability" of the process (it can be bought, canvassed, etc, it has a strange set of limitations that have kept out some notable artists, etc), but it is considered a pinnacle of popular music today, with more long-term relevance than Grammy awards. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on personal preferences. While the artists themselves might be culturally significant, who cares if people give them a speech and put some of their outfits in a museum? Mvblair (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this really so much bigger than other halls of fame? I don't recall hearing about inductions to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame before, whereas I've definitely heard stuff about inductions to the Baseball Hall of Fame, for instance - and I'm someone who doesn't follow baseball at all and lives halfway around the world from the US. Plus what's particularly noteworthy about Nirvana being inducted? Is it a controversial decision? Neljack (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I read "A scripted entertainment event" above, isn't that the Oscars? The BAFTAs? All scripted? I read " entertainment news that is twenty years delayed.", isn't that "hall of fame" for sportspeople that so many here bang on about? Either way, it's nice "good" news, and it's interesting to our readers for sure, but it's probably not significant enough for ITN. So I'll remain firmly fence-bound. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking though it may seem, I don't find the Oscars significant, either — compared to, say, the Middle East, a tsunami, the melting of the polar icecaps or (I almost forgot!) the NCAA championship. Go Big Blue!Sca (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: As one of only 3 Hawks players to have his number retired and a 6 time NBA All Star, seems like an influential figure in his field as per WP:ITND criterion 2. --Jinkinsontalk to me20:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't active when Sharman was nominated, but looking at that discussion I say "what a joke". Although, I think there was enough consensus to post (shame no admin had the balls to do it), the fact that it was even a question is outrageous. One argument was "he's not the single greatest player in history" (which got a oppose per X too) - seriously? That is not even remotely the RD standard. We post an entertainer almost every week, but can one post 1 basketball player in the next 30+ years? WTF. We definitely should not be using that shameful display as a basis for any decisions ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Hudson does not appear to be in the NBA HOF based on our (stubbish) article. Is there a reason he may have been unfairly excluded (arguably of course) or is he legitimately not HOF-level? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let an actual HOF member, Dominique Wilkins, answer that: "Young people today don't know how good Lou Hudson really was," Wilkins, a Hall of Famer, told The Associated Press. "He was a hell of a player. The guy could score with the best in history. He was a phenomenal basketball player. He should be a Hall of Famer and it's amazing to me he's not. " [12]Jinkinsontalk to me22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "NBA HOF"; there are 2 basketball Hall of Fame: the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame and the FIBA Hall of Fame. The former, while primarily U.S.-centric, has a separate "international" section, while FIBA's primarily restricts theirs to those who played international basketball; not all the best American players may have played international basketball, especially the old ones prior to the open era. –HTD19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't meet the RD standard. No MVP awards, not one of the best 50 players, etc. A six-time all star and having a retired Hawks jersey doesn't cut it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Its a lab grown vagina. A medical first and a hallmark for our species. Women are under represented in wikipedia and this story may well be interesting to our sisters all over the planet. It is perhaps a smaller story than some, but has scientific significance, and of course some may argue more significance for women, than wikipedias over represented men. If a lab grown penis was a thing of the present, one can only imagine the worlds interest!.
October 29 - This day in history - The first-ever computer-to-computer link is established on ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet.
One can only imagine what is more historic today, than the first lab grown vagina being implanted.
Support (if you please) Ok gentlemen and women. Im unaccustomed to your way of doing things. One may not of course write an article so how is this done? If the job is to find a wikipedia article that needs to be ammended, then thats easy. One can not be a journalist, nor can one ignore a significant story, through lack of pre existing wikipedia coverage.
For a wikipedia article Id suggest starting at Tissue Engineering or (NSFW) Müllerian agenesis
By the way, what has started as a small story is snowballing as we type, and as the worlds media finds inventive new ways to cover it over breakfast. Google "Lab Grown Vagina", and you will see all the familiar outlets (BBC, NBC, Newsweek, Huff Post, Fox News, RTE, The Lancet, Independent, Daily Mirror, National Geographic, Daily Mail, MSN, CNN etc) are rising up to the occasion.
Part of posting to ITN is having a decent quality article to evaluate. Even if the subject has merit, a poor quality article cannot be posted to the Main Page of Wikipedia, seen by millions of visitors. This is why we need to either have an article about this subject or to know which article can be added to(and to eventually see the addition). 331dot (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at risk of ignoring more appropriate wikipedia articles I propose Tissue Engineering. (NSFW) Müllerian agenesis is another option of course. This is a cutting edge area of science, and there are more than a few wikipedia articles. I have not the background knowledge to amend, nor to propose how to amend. Instead I will jump out on this issue and leave that element of the stories wikipedia "in the news" resolution to my more illustrious and notable peers. Thank you.
I should add, the tissue engineering article currently has other articles for each of the achievements and organs engineered. This latest addition is definitely snowballing into the news cycle across the worlds media and it feels like we are basically waiting for someone to come and write a specific article to reflect that. Even the tissue engineering article by itself is informative and SFW appropriate, if a little exhaustive. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the use of Tissue Engineering in this context. High news value, better to use an article which isn't perfectly apposite than to do nothing. If we ignore news stories of particular importance to women due to the relative lack of articles in Wikipedia on those topics, we exacerbate the WP:Clubhouse (external link) problem IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lab grown penis already has a (50/50 shared) wikipedia page, and it isnt even out of the blue print phase. On the day we as a world hear of 4 women newly fitted with lab grown vaginas, it has not even a bullet point on the whole of wikipedia and is ignored as a news story. Could one see a more obvious and self evident example of gender bias.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_transplantation
So write an article on Vaginal transplantation or lab grown vagina. You seem passionate about the subject, so I'm sure you've read or would happily read all the articles covering the subject; write an article, add links to those refs between [ these brackets ] and someone can help translate those into citation format. - Floydianτ¢18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you might consider updating Anthony Atala, which is of course more relevant to this topic than the article proposed in the template above, and then featuring that on the main page (though you'd have to reword the blurb). Jinkinsontalk to me20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not exactly outstanding news on tissue engineering. I agree with a commenter above that this may be better suited for Did You Know. --Küñall (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to Slate, the procedures were done years ago when the women were teens, and what is in the news is that upon follow-up the women report that they have been having good use of the vaginas, if you catch the drift. Abductive (reasoning) 06:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with posting if there was an article that was any good. But at the moment the vaginal transplantation is total garbage. For one thing, these are not transplants, so the title is wrong. The stub says zilch about the technology, the underlying medical condition, or any of the Five Ws (and an H) of good reporting. It further embarrasses Wikipedia with entirely useless text such as "Their work was published in The Lancet." which should be handled be the ref system. Abductive (reasoning) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the article. If you have a better title, let me know - the lab-grown penis is covered at penis transplantation and reliable sources are referring to it as a vagina transplant so I didn't know what else to call it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems like a pretty significant development in tissue engineering - this is the construction of an organ that was entirely or largely absent in the studied women. Article is now in OK shape, although I am certainly willing to hear suggestions on how it can improve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe suspends Russia's right to vote and take part in election observations as a consequence to its annexation of Crimea. (Voice of Russia)
Protesters against a proposed trade deal with China peacefully ended their 24-day occupation of the legislature, as lawmakers prepare to review bills requiring greater oversight for such agreements. (Bloomberg)
No consensus to post; we typically don't post lower-level resignations like this. Secretaries/ministers are supposed to carry out the policies of the President/PM, so no dramatic change here. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No, not really. It's being announced because of the level of the position, of course. It has long been known she was going to resign. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Secretaries and ministers resign all the time. This one is in the news in the U.S. a bit, but this isn't of the level one expects of ITN. --Jayron3216:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Newsworthy in the U.S., especially given that her role at HHS put her in charge of overseeing the rollout of Obamacare, but this isn't the sort of story that we post here, because it's only minimally important. Obama's nominee to replace her will have a similar perspective on the health care law. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are we supposed to put something up everytime a government official resigns? The only thing that would possibly make a resignation notable, is if it were sufficiently high-level enough (like the vice president) and/or it was the result of some scandal/conviction/e.t.c. Neither is the case here. Redverton (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Townsend was a novelist and playwright, best known for her series of Adrian Mole books. She won several awards for her work and two honorary doctorates. --JuneGloomTalk23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is improved. She's a household name throughout the UK not only for the hugely popular and much-imitated Adrian Mole series, the early novels of which were cutting satire about Britain in the Thatcher era, but also for the gentler humour of The Queen and I. The Daily Mail obituary states she was the best-selling novelist of the 1980s (I assume in the UK).[13]. The article needs substantial work referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Although 68 is not particularly old, Townsend had been in ill health for a long time so it wasn't completely unexpected that she died at this age. RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready,per Lihaas - there is an organe tag, many [citation needed] tags, and the article is pretty stubbish in general. I some of those supporting could work on the article, it would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Minister Flaherty had just resigned from the house, under a month ago. At the time, he said he was on road to recovery and his decision was not health-related. One of the highest ranking politicians in Canada. Canadian Parliament was suspended on news of his death. --Zanimum (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a real RD, then no blurb required. I read the article, many [citation needed] tags and a whole section needing better refs, not sure that this guy even qualifies as an RD-notable candidate. So, all in all, it's an oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - and support inclusion in full listing with text similar to "Long serving former Canadian Finance Minister and MP Jim Flaherty dead at the age of 64 one month after resigning as Finance Minister" - we're talking about an long term finance minister from a G8 country and a sitting member of Parliament. Putting it into context, Canada's major networks all broke into regular programming for this news. -- Tawker (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb for a non-sitting cabinet minister not killed in a misadventure is simply unprecedented. See the Tom Foley nomination. merely being a high minister doesn't make one top of the field in ministering. Unless there's some special ITN-worthy accomplishment of his in office? μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you only oppose a full blurb, or do you also oppose RD? He was practically a sitting cabinet minister, and likely the only reason he did resign was to ensure the stability of the economy. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless it is indicated why he was out standing in his field. Plenty of non-English speaking ex cabinet ministers die all the time, we don't post them. (List of recently dead ministers) A good comparison would be General Schwartzkopf. Generals as a class aren't worth posting simply because they are high ranking military officers. But he ran a brilliant, unprecedented campaign in Iraq and won the war, regardless of what happened after. Compare this to CIA Head, and Defense Secretary and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger who died two weeks ago without a peep. Here we have another high raking politician. But what did he accomplish with that high rank? μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is leading Canada through the ongoing recession and making it the top of the G8 in terms of stability not enough to consider someone at or near the top of their field?
Support RD - While he did resign as a cabinet minister last month, Flaherty was still a sitting MP and remained a significant individual within the government. Resolute19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could those keen supporters please spend a few minutes updating the article and fixing the tags please? It won't be posted until then. 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Support RD Highly influential in Canada. Was the finance minister for many years until just a month ago, and a very consequential minister at that. And I'm saying this as someone who didn't share his political views. Death very much unexpected. Redverton (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: very sudden and tragic death of Canada's Minister of Finance. Played a crucial role as one of the finance ministers of the G20 nations. Helped Canada to become one of the strongest economies in the world during The Great Recession. The story is being covered by international media organizations; it's trending on social media sites as well. 184.146.111.12 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD - I tend to belong to the sofixit crowd and just prefer to 'get er done' where consensus has been reached -- Tawker (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull It is grossly inappropriate and a violation of WP:INVOLVED for an administrator to post a nomination they have expressed strong support for after less than three hours of discussion and without unanimity (I have no problem with admins posting nominations they've commented on after lengthy discussion and when the consensus is absolutely clear, as TRM sometimes does). Moreover, I'm not convinced that the article quality is sufficient. There are still issues with the article - there are statements that should have citations that don't, references that are dead, and material that seems POV (both for and against him, in different parts of the article). POV and undue weight issues raise BLP concerns as well (recently dead people are still covered, of course). I'm inclined to support Flaherty for RD on the merits, but we should take some more time to look at and deal with the issues with the article. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the criticism. Admins posting an article they supported and so quickly is unseemly in the extreme. Other admins here take pains not to do this. We've already discussed at length and this year that we don't post non-unanimous nominations so quickly--the consensus was 12 hours to get a world-wide perspective. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undone - per criticism (although I do wonder why nobody posted on my talk page expressing concern...), I do note that the objective here is recent, and I do not see the benefit to extensive delays. Per TRM's comment I had taken it that it was looking in fine shape to post. With that being said, I believe there was enough valid concern to reverse the change for now. -- Tawker (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable and sitting politician, unexpected sudden death. By the way, where are these hidden "rules" that an article can't have any citation needed tags? Consensus is consensus, and half the point should be that we attract editors who are knowledgeable about these recent events who could improve the article. Doesn't make sense. The RD criteria states that an article should be B-class or higher, but the discussion on that provision was far from any consensus. The only other text I can find alluding to this is at Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria, which mentions that articles with red/orange banners MIGHT not get posted, and that the updated section is where the concern rests with citations. In either case, the community opinion outweighs the precedence. After all, consensus can change, right? So, this should be posted to RD. - Floydianτ¢23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure this will be posted once the article concerns are addressed. The consensus is overwhelmingly for that once those issues are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all, there are very few barelinks left. Just two now, and some of the links pointing to government websites explaining certain finance department programs have been replaced with news coverage. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barelinks... nope, not in the criteria. The consensus is overwhelmingly that this should be posted, now, not when the "concerns" are addressed. A minority is holding it up on the illusion of some rule that prevents it. Can anybody using these grounds please point out the location of that rule? Otherwise, post it. - Floydianτ¢00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not only rude, it's ridiculous. No one here has opposed this except me, and myself not on quality issues. Don't impute some sort of conspiracy. Quality issues are not a side matter. And we certainly don't need to be breaking policy procedure for this nominaion as if it were Michael Jackson or Margaret Thatcher. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Those claiming it can't be posted due to some unwritten rule should add their vote. I have nothing against a "Oppose until article is improved". But if you aren't going to vote oppose, don't bring up a silent rule, provide no evidence that it exists, and then call me rude for playing the devil's advocate. Show me the money! Say it with me one time, Jerry. - Floydianτ¢01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was an important minister in both the Harper and Harris administrations, as well as a prominent politician in his own right. We do not know if his previous condition played a role in his death. But he was important and should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - for the record the "unwritten rule" (which is actually written) is that an article that has orange maintenance tags, or reasonably could have them, is in eligible for ITN. In this case, a {{BLP ref improve}} was reasonable earlier in the day. Thanks for improving the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Oppose non-sitting and otherwise non-notable politician of a small state with little reader interest. Perhaps notable enough to bump Kumba Lala. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly someone who made a significant contribution or impact in his country, per Death Criterion #1. He broke that 30-year reign of the People's National Movement by winning the 1986 election; he was held hostage along with most of his ministers in a coup attempt, during which he was beaten and shot in the leg after defying instructions from his captors to order the army to stop firing and instead ordering them to "attack with full force"; he was instrumental in Tobago being given greater autonomy through the creation of the Tobago House of Assembly; as President he caused controversy by refusing to approve some nominations for senators from the Prime Minister and then by appointing the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister after an election where the government and opposition each won half the seats; and he made the proposal that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. How he can be dismissed as "non-notable" is beyond me. Neljack (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for RD; former head of state, started the process to create the ICC, meets DC1 and possibly 2. As TRM states, however, article does need more references. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending the necessary improvements above. Former head of state, significant importance, that he was from Africa helps combat systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comments above. An important international figure. The article isn't exactly a "feature article," but that doesn't make the news any less notable. Mvblair (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its an RS source (and the original content from there IS reliable). Just the lazy media not doing its own background work. I also removed more than 1k bytes that were merely copy+pasted and left only the more ntoabke stuff that was in anothe link.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the precedent is that articles with oraneg level tags are normally not posted. It is even written right into the ITN instructions: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." If there is a copyright problem - and you correctly identified that there is - then there is absolutely no way this is going to be posted as is. --16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I had forgotten to remove the organe tag when i added the sources. BTW- the copyright is not from WP, it was the other way around. As for the new link with the MP stuff, I have removed some stuff (and added some stuff).Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. Both the Wikipedia and the newspaper article are copied form the parliament website (the link I gave in the copyright tag). It is definitely a real copyright violation on our part, and unfortunately most of the article is affected (and has been since 2010). --ThaddeusB (talk)
Bank of America agrees to pay $727 million to customers as restitution for deceptive marketing practices and unfair billing. An additional $45 million will be paid as fines to government regulatory groups. (Reuters)
[Closed] Nominating the Champions League quarter finals.
Closing as there's no way that quarter finals of a competition are going to be posted when we debate enough over the final results as it is. Stephen06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has to be more culturally significant than college basketball in America, that no one else on the planet even cares about. For the United States, we are talking about 5% of the population of planet earth. The rest of it was watching the champions league. In world football, you basically have the second legs of the quarters, on two separate days. Then you have the second legs of the semis. Then you have the final. In world football, and indeed world sport, these are easily top 10 events outside of an olympic / world cup year imho. What level of football do you have to get to, to be up there with college basketball? world cup final? world cup semi final? Champions league semi final? You have up to 228 million people watching these events, and they dont get a mention, but college sports in Americas 5% of the planet homeland do?
Wikipedia suggests nothing about college basketball...
Suggested events - NBA Finals
Men's FIBA World Championship
Euroleague Basketball
Expected stories per year: 3 in Olympic and odd-numbered years, 2 otherwise
77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per POINTy and offensive nomination. I don't know what you are looking at, but there are nine association football items on ITN/R, including The Champions League finals. To suggest the quarter finals of any tournament in isolation are one of the top 10 events worldwide across all sports is ridiculous. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was this pointy and offensive? I couldn't understand it well enough to come to that conclusion, and thought maybe it was a misplaced talk page comment, not a nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "the rest of the world" also includes Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia, most of which care little about European football. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ThaddeusB. You just beat me to it regarding the rest of the world. Such uninformed parochialism never helps a nomination, no matter where it's from. Where I live, for example, "football" means something entirely different, just as it does in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sounds like the nominator is bent out of shape about his country being slighted somehow on a webpage. Nationalism has led to horrendous wars and genocides, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: There's essentially no chance that anyone will support this, because no one died and it happened in the US. I am therefore nominating this mainly to test my hypothesis that the chance of an event getting featured on ITN is directly proportional to the number of people who died as a result of it. --Jinkinsontalk to me15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I've been watching this story, and because right now we have no idea the motives behind it, in addition to these being not-lethal injures (to date), it might not be anything. But if it was premeditated (as opposed to a spur-of-the-moment thing), that might make this story more ITN-appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/comment - 1) Too early to tell whether this is ITN material indeed. 2) Why nominate something if you think it's not going to get in? Bit pointless, and seems to be a dig at the system of ITN. I assume this is partly tongue in cheek, given your point about it not being posted because it's in the US (as the opposite is of course true). All in all, rather odd nomination! Fgf10 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is partly tongue in cheek, Fgf10. However, I am also nominating it because there is a very small chance it might actually get featured. And I'm not sure that tons of US stuff gets posted on ITN, given that on the main page I see a French-British racehorse, a boat race between two British colleges, and Australia and Sri Lanka winning a cricket tournament, and only one thing that specifically mentions the US. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that the Fort Hood shooting was opposed by almost everyone. Jinkinsontalk to me15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe this one can get more support because it was a stabbing rather than shooting spree. The Brits here are tired of how we can't learn to use our guns constructively. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that using the present distribution of stories at ITN to judge if there needs to be a story from another region is not appropriate, even from a basic statistical basis. This story may have merits at ITN if it more than just "student gets angry, lashes out at others at spur of moment with knife" which is why waiting to see exactly what went down is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that we should wait a little while before deciding whether to post this or not, since if it does have an impact it won't happen this soon. Also, I wasn't citing the current ITN stuff to show that we need to post more US stuff, I was just trying to explain that Fgf10 is wrong when he implies that tons of US stuff gets posted. I might also note that apparently ZunZuneo, Brendan Eich resigning, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission being decided all happened in the US and were all dismissed as not important enough for ITN. Jinkinsontalk to me16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you cited had very little news value, which is of course the reason they weren't posted. No conspiracy there! Fgf10 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the main draw behind posting this story? That, instead of yet another U.S. school rampage involving a gun, a knife was used instead? Not a very sturdy basis for ITN, I would say. --WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close Once again, we get a pointy, insulting nomination from Jinkinson. There's no support for this. There won't be any books, any memorials. A year from now this will have been forgotten. It's not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/close per Medeis. I would oppose this if it happened in my own country or anywhere else, just like I would oppose the UK smog (missed that one) & the UK flooding in Feb.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/close - sorry if I sound cold but this is not a story for ITN. I might had supported it if it had happened anywhere else but in the US were these kind of school massacres are almost a monthly thing these days. However I do not oppose the article itself as it has some national intention etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then. I'm sorry for getting cynical after such a large number of my previous nominations failed. Of course, the reason this has happened is the same reason this is getting such a negative response--because I don't have much experience doing this kind of stuff. Another reason I made this nomination was, as I said above, to try to find out if more deaths from an event means the event is more likely to be featured.
So I acknowledge that my nom was rather pointy (at least at first), as Medeis states, and for that I do sincerely apologize. I'll try to be less cynical and flippant in the future. Nevertheless it needs to be considered that, regardless of whose fault it was, one reason I nominated this in the obnoxious way I did was because a large number of my previous nominations failed. Jinkinsontalk to me18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, most nominations fail, and most good potential nominations have already been posted once you get here to add them yourself. Constructive comments, reviewing other people's nominations to check if they are updated and otherwise qualified and adding refs to nominations that need them are great helps, and you can get credit as an updater quite easily, since we always have a rush to nominate, but few people actually like to do the work, even on their own nominations. Act in good faith and you will be treated in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's certainly no relationship of direct proportionality, but the number of deaths is highly relevant - does anyone doubt that this would be a bigger news story if all the people who were stabbed had died? Neljack (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose MS made it well clear this day was coming for months, compared to the sudden discovery of the Heartbleed security problem. Note that this doesn't mean XP suddenly fails, just that MS will not update it any more, so only if a new security hole is found would this become significant. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the right time to post this. We don't post elections, we post results; in the same way, I think this is the right day for this story. And "only if" a new security hole is found? Meant to be a joke, surely? GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a tech story that can affect millions - akin to the ssl hole - the point to announce this as ITN is when it is affirmed it is happened, that is, back when MS stated they were closing down XP support so that people could actually do something about it. That is the result, even though it was fully done yesterday; this is equivalent to us announcing the sentence of a criminal irregardless of appeals, delayed incarceration, etc. I did check and I don't see anyone bringing it up then, unfortunately (There was one when win 7 was announced, in 2009, on the preseumption XP support would end at some point). Now yes, MS could have set a date and then later changed or cancelled it, but still the important fact was that closure was announced and coming soon, not after the fact. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "and the end of support means that security-critical problems will no longer be fixed" Have you tried switching your machine off and then switching it back on again? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant milestone for one of the most popular (and longest lived) OSes in history. I modified the blurb to link directly to the relevant section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's interesting, perhaps unexpected, that more than a quarter of computers are still using XP. The BBC has been expounding on the significant cost for small businesses. If this had been proposed when it was first announced it would probably have been shot down to wait for the actual date, in case of postponements. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb note, both suggested blurbs above are inaccurate. Neither says within desktop operating systems and the blurb should do or else they are incorrect. So ' the desktop operating system still used on' or 'the world's second most popular desktop operating system'. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it should have its own obituary, an RD of extraordinary wide-reaching significance. Yes, we knew it was going to pass away, but the day has arrived and we should mourn the loss of Microsoft's best effort by a mile. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is far less newsworthy than Microsoft wants people to believe it is. This was known years in advance and doesn't actually have any noteworthy long-term effects except for Microsoft continuing to stuff Windows 8 down people's throats. Windows XP hasn't ceased to exist or be useful, it just won't get first-party patches or support anymore, which it rarely did anyway. — TORTOISEWRATH19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Which it rarely did anyway" I'm sorry, but that is patently false. Even the April 2014 patches had XP fixes included [15]. Windows XP was one of the longest running operating systems in history [16], and the large exposure of internet connected machines is what makes this newsworthy. Your opinion on Windows 8 is staggeringly irrelevant. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:TortoiseWrath. This isn't news, it is arbitrary intentional obsolescence unless you pay as a corporate marketing strategy. A dam hasn't failed--it is being blown up on purpose, but you can pay a protection racket if you still want water. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's certainly well known that this was going to happen, but we're in a new age where operating systems move on day by day. XP is truly significant, as captured in the article and above. It was the OS that no-one really moved on from until Windows 7, a decade later, and even then, XP continues to operate in mission-critical systems. The valedictory for XP is worthy of a brief "thanks and bye" blurb on Wikipedia, hell five years ago, probably 50% of people looking at Wikipedia were doing it on an XP platform. This isn't about sucking up to Microsoft's obsolescence programme, in fact, they've proved time and time again that they're not actually very good at this, but the farewell to XP is similar to the farewell to Windows NT or MS DOS, it's massively significant in the world, significant to just about everyone on earth (even though many don't know it). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But XP isn't "leaving" or "dying." It's going to remain in use for ages, just as previous versions of Windows did. Plenty of enterprises, in particular, still use Windows 3.1 or 2000. All that's changing is a corporation's choice to arbitrarily push updates to it, something that continues to be done by other companies. — TORTOISEWRATH21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is simply no significance in this announcement unless we see that it really exerts strong effects on the Windows XP users. Please also understand that Windows XP doesn't cease and all the comments above solidarising with Microsoft's efforts to exaggerate the importance of this news are not helpful. We're lucky to have the OpenSSL story on the main page which is incomparably more serious and important than a single decision made by Microsoft coming into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; XP isn't dead and gone, or otherwise withdrawn from use, it just is not being supported any longer by its maker. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No; I think the point is that it should be dead and gone, because there will be no further security updates for it. Unfortunately, as you say, it isn't; 25% or so of the world's desktop computers still use it. This is news, and news that really needs to get to people. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More symbolic than having significant impact. SpencerT♦C
I just don't get how you can think like that. When the operating system used by a quarter of PCs out there suddenly no longer receives security updates, how can that have no impact? GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just because an event is predictable doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. Opening and closing ceremonies of an Olympics occur regularly on ITN. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is big news for small businesses. Windows XP was the dominating OS for about a decade, and even up until very recently continued to have a majority of the market share in countries such as Japan and China. --Tocino08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Win XP is the largest desktop operating system as has been mentioned in this thread. Ergo, I do find this notable. EOL is the largest single event in the lifespan of a software product after its release, and if WIn XP was now first released and we knew how popular it would become, we would sure post it, right? Opposes of the line "it was pre-announced" make no sense to me – of course it was pre-announced! Most elections are pre-announced and we still post them. If we would ever post it, this is the time. Article and the specific section are of high quality with excellent sourcing. --hydrox (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the numbers 11 support, 7 opposes. I won't attempt to weigh the strength of arguments since I commented by I think it is fair to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per The Rambling Man. Re Lihaas, Kiril Simeonovski and μηδείς comments above, yes this is a conscious decision made by Microsoft, yes it's intentional obsolescence, but if anything I think it paints Microsoft in a bad light, not a good one. I don't see it as a PR puff piece. If we put it in RD, that shows a slight sense of humour (why not?) as well as allowing the item to go on the page blurbless - which really it might as well, since the news is just that the OS is now deceased. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, seriously, the arguments here are getting twisted and weird. This can't be put into RD! And planned obsolescence is routine. The fact is that people will still be able to get their computer needs taken care of by other vendors, or by updating to a different OS. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the most likely target article, Stuart Parkin, is tagged for insufficient citations. That will need addressed before item can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is now in acceptable condition. Based on the news stories I've looked at, this does appear to be a prestigious award worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now. Is this Technology Academy Finland prize truly the largest in the world? What are its competitors? And who were Parkins competitors for the prize, since other nominees are no listed. The article reads like a vague and self-promoting press release. This year's prize itself is one item in a list. Even the Hugo and Nebula Award articles for science fiction list the alternative nominees for each year. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The selection process of the award is explained here. I'm not sure whether the selection committee publishes the other nominees or not. The New York Times called it "the world's largest technology prize" in 2004 [22]. --Jopo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there are an awful lot of awards out there. No sources have been provided saying this prize is particularly prestigious, and prestige is not the measure that ITN uses, it's whether or not the item is in the news. I don't see it on the BBC's front page at all, nor the The Guardian's. The update for the present winner is unacceptable; it reads like either copyvio or just painfully hagiographic. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Journalists have the bad habit of unauditedly copying information from Wiki nowadays. And guess what, that information was self-referencing and didn't even exist at the website. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What information does not exist at which website? (Off-topic: So let me get this straight, we need citations from reliable sources such as well-established news outlets (as per WP:Reliable) but when those sources are referenced they are not to be trusted since they are written by journalists? ;) --Jopo (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I haven't looked in detail at the concerns but there are two maintenance tags on the prize article that need to be addressed. The Parker article is adequate. The prize is clearly notable, coverage in the mainstream press here along with a million euros shouldn't be sniffed at. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I'm myself leading the branch of a research institute and get to read and know a lot about the physicist's envelope, I can assure this prize isn't all that important. Not important enough to get posted at ITN. Besides, the articles clearly lack the quality. They need to be improved. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Fulfils recent death criteria two: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field - in this case, professional wrestling.
ABC News: Pro Wrestling Legend ... one of professional wrestling’s biggest superstars
Reuters: one of U.S. professional wrestling's most celebrated athletes ... days after being inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Inc Hall of Fame
New York Post: Legendary wrestler ... a longtime star of the sport
Details of death: collapsed at 8:50pm EST on April 8, which is 0:50am April 9 in UTC. Rushed to hospital and pronounced dead.
This is my first nomination, sorry if there are any errors. --starship.paint"YES!"07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my first time participating in a discussion like this as well, so forgive me if I'm missing something. This nomination does seem to fit Wikipedia:In_the_news#Deaths criteria 2, as far as I can tell. Numerous sources provided by Starship describe Warrior (Warrior was his legal name) as being one of the most recognizable in his profession, being a former WWF Champion. Also headlined the WWE Hall of Fame just days before his death.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Done. It had been chopped in half in tonight's all-out blockbuster editing melee extravaganza. EDIT: Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the red error message in ==References==. Dunno about that other stuff!— Smuckola(Email)(Talk)08:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as notable in his field(whatever you refer to it as). The nom states it is for RD but where the death was sudden and unexpected (was 54) should the blurb be posted? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support As a wrestling fan, I'm not entirely sure if he's quite over the threshold of notability for RD. But, with that being said, his fame did come during one of the biggest periods in wrestling history and his death is getting massive coverage. -- Scorpion042212:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Headlined major events in his prime, a recent inductee into WWE's hall of fame. Speaks to his importance in the field. Given his legal change of name I assume the listing should be "Warrior", piped to the article? GRAPPLEX13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that he should be listed under his legal name. His ring/stage name of Ultimate Warrior is the WP:COMMONNAME that people knew him by. The five reliable sources reporting his death all used "Ultimate Warrior" in the titles. starship.paint"YES!"15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD I remember him from the late 80's. He was "top of his field", and was just recognized as top of his field the other day. The article is in okay shape, though there are citation needed tags and the info on the last few days of his life (Wrestlemania XXX for instance) are repeated. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD - my concern has been met and consensus is there, so I am posting this to RD now. If consensus emerges for a full blurb, it can be upgraded at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support RD ...just to make the point that, while I aggressively opposed the posting of an event in the script the other day, this guy has obviously been a long term, successful performer in this field. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing for including the streak, but it lasted almost four times longer than The Ultimate Warrior did (WWF-wise). Most of his notability comes from a single match, where he was scripted/boooked to end Hulkamania. As far as real success, the streak undoubtedly drew many millions more dollars. But yeah, as far as really ending goes, there's a clear difference here. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:16, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Support RD and blurb There are a lot of wrestlers, but very few so mainstream as Warrior. I think the sources speak for themselves on that. WrestleMania VI was, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, indeed a happening. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:14, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Wait, no. Support new blurb. Something mentioning the proximity to his return after 18 years, or his ominous final promo. That's what makes the death itself notable. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:41, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Post-posting Support, blurb opposed This was big enough it made front page news in the US this morning. I have always opposed every wrestling nom we've had. But this seems good for RD. A blurb, however, absent extra-genre awards, would be absurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's me your alluding to, no, I was entirely sincere in my comment. If the typo's the reason, I noticed it after submitting and thought it amusing enough not to bother correcting. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my apologies μηδείς, that was not aimed at you but was meant to go under a different !vote - but I can't figure out which now. Possibly the one above yours, I'm not sure now. GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian police detain about 70 people in Kharkiv in an "anti-terrorist" operation that clear government buildings seized by pro-Russian protesters in Kharkiv.(CNN)
Oppose this claim has nothing to do with finding the first animal that had a heart. Molluscs, annelids, vertebrates, and dozens of other animal phyla which did not descend from any arthropod had hearts, which was a trait inherited from a much deeper common ancestor much older than this fossil. All this is about is what fossils we have found which have preserved which traits. It's like walking into a poorly lit library with a million volumes, and pulling a John Grisham book off the only shelf you can find in the dark and announcing this book from 1992 is the earliest mystery novel yet found. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The problem here is that the claim made in the blurb (and I must admit, in the titles of the source articles) are far more interesting than what is really being claimed. What we have here is the oldest fossil which has evidence of a circulatory system. That's NOT really confirming anything. As Medeis notes, we know for certain that older animals than this specimen had circulatory systems. Many taxa of living organisms are known to be older than this which are also known to have circulatory systems. However, those taxa lack hard parts, and so leave less interesting fossil traces. This discovery doesn't actually confirm anything we didn't already know. It's mildly interesting, but not a landmark discovery in the sense of "changing what we know about anything". --Jayron3219:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a traditional family tree of all the animals more advanced than jelly fish. The arthropods are at the end of the branch on the top right. The chordates (vertebrates and close kin) are at the bottom. Every single animal group shown has a cardiovascular system except a few parasitic groups like the tapeworms which don't need them, and hence have lost them. This shows how misleading a simple reading of the claim is, and its ultimate superficiality. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb would be correct if it said the "so-far" oldest "known" fossilized cardiovascular.... I'd still oppose, as we already know these and more primitive creatures had them, and this is no huge revelation even within the arthropods. It in no way compares to, say, the entirely unexpected discovery that the early flying bird-relative Microraptor gui had four wings. It is an unremarkable heart in an animal we knew had a heart and developed from a long line of animals we knew had hearts. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should, I suppose, apologize. I think this nomination is a lot more relevant than others that I oppose but recently haven't spoken up about. And as a matter of secret vices, I'd probably be happy if this got posted with a properly-qualified blurb. So my thanks and apologies to the nominator and supporters. My sole concern is that we shouldn't have uninformed supports here, for what is likely to be a short-standing and historically quite minor development. WWSJGD? μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Significantly better referencing is required; one can't even begin to assess the potential significance of this based on "Yahoo Bews" coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although this is not particularly "hype-y", I fail to see any lasting impact upon the field. Paleontology and archeology are not about "oldest" or "biggest" discoveries. What researchers are doing is attempting to (dis)prove hypotheses about the natural world. There are plenty of amazing discoveries coming out of those Chinese fossil beds, so a more ITN-worthy one will be along soon. Abductive (reasoning) 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
That's the Presidential election, technically different than the general election(both ITNR though); but if and when posted the blurbs could be combined. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just another suggestion. In the case of legislatures, can we say "Wins the most seats" or "Wins the most votes" As an American, I recognize and use a word like "plurality" and have no problem understanding it, but I know it causes ENGVAR problems with other varieties of English. It would be best to avoid that word, and "the most" carries the same meaning. --Jayron3201:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. I know most of our readers are tech-illiterate and won't grasp the magnitude of this, but I think we have to post it anyways. The current blurb suggestion is a bit awkward, so I'm open for suggestions. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the guy quoting this as "the biggest bug since SQL injection" has it on the money; this is possibly the biggest tech news in some time. Like goto fail;, but a million times more severe. Sceptre(talk)17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know little about this tech issue, but it seems to me that any tech issue affecting "half the Internet" would be significant enough to post. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revised the blurb. It previously claimed that over half of servers were affected, but the actual figure is around 17% [25]. --hydrox (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This # should be in the blurb to emphasis the significance (assuming this is the best, most reliable estimate): "...leaving an estimate 17% of the Internet's secure servers..." is a much stronger statement than just "large number". --MASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can always say "an estimated minimum of 17% of secure Internet servers", which is still significant. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That 17% figure is probably quite accurate. Your first source makes no mention of % that I can see, and the second source is a tweet mentioning that 30% support TLS 1.2, while certainly only some part of those installations were ever vulnerable. Actually, most OpenSSL installations were never vulnerable thanks to conservative sysadmins (the bug was only in the latest 1.0.1 version) --hydrox (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the 17% figure to the article as well. Netcraft is a pretty respected authority in this type of web analytics, so I am okay with posting the 17% figure in the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the issue will not be resolved overnight (since it requires both the fix and the redeployment), this is a major security issue in the news and is being appropriately covered. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current text in the linked section is horrible. I happen to understand a good deal of the consequences, and I can't recognize it in that section. Thue (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that we should leave giving such advise to the WMF IT team only. They have the tools and expertise for orderly informing the users of any such technical issues. Asking users to change their password in an ITN blurb might raise more questions than answer them. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean we should give any advise in ITN, but mention something like: "[...] affects large number of web servers, including Wikimedia's". --bender235 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support and proposal - A standalone article, Heartbleed bug, has been created for the subject. Should we update ITN to link to the separate article? Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I guess it should have been nominated earlier. The article needs further updating and expansion. Will do so later today. Feudal violence is common in the south of Egypt but security officials described this one as the worst in recent memory. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In each day there were deadly clashes. There's a three-day truce now as an attempt for reconciliation, but things might get ugly again (I hope not). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose reasonable stub article, not seeing this prominently in any news outlets I use, but that's not entirely surprising. What's the impact beyond tribal clashes? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnic side of it should be taken into account and might have a future impact in the region. Note that the article is partially developed now and it is still under expansion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Before opposing, I urge my fellow Wikipedians think about this tournament in a different way, specifically its cultural significance to the United States. Historically, the NCAA tournament has been a contentious nomination (50/50 support/oppose). Two types of opposes are generally offered. First, it is said to not be covered outside the United States. This is patently false, as has been demonstrated previous years. It is not "front page news" anywhere but the US, but very few sports are front page news outside their home region. Second, it is said to not be the world's "top level" basketball competition. This is true, but not relevant.
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the 3rd most watched sporting event - ahead of the NBA finals and 13 other US events we post: the World Series, The Masters, the US Open (golf), the PGA championship, the Kentucky Derby, the Stanley Cup, the Boston Marathon, the Chicago Marathon, the New York City Marathon, NASCAR, the Indianapolis 500, and the US Open (tennis). It terms of cultural impact, only the Super Bowl is obviously ahead of the tournament; it is on par with the World Series and the Kentucky Derby; and is miles ahead of things like the US Opens, the NASCAR points championship, and Chicago/New York City Marathons. (By cultural impact I mean, is talked about/followed by people who rarely watch the sport or even sports in general.)
We should strive to post the sporting events of the greatest cultural impact, not necessarily the "highest level" competitions (although often the two are the same). That is what the NCAA tournament is - an event of huge cultural signifcance. I realize America's interest in University-level sports is strange to most non-Americans, but I kindly ask you to try to see things from our prospective (and if you must complain about US-bias in sports, I suggest targeting a competition of much less importance to America than NCAA basketball.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your case would be bolstered if you could provide sources that explain that US basketball does not have minor leagues or lower divisions, so that the college teams act as more than university play. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, "The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the 'de facto' minor league for basketball" [28]; "[college basketball] is the greatest minor league system in the world" [29]; "NCAA basketball is now officially the NBA's farm system" [30] --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the D-league (one of the provided sources is about how NCAA is better than D-league)... Among college players who don't make the NBA, some of the best go to the D-league, but others go to European or Australian pro-leagues. It isn't clear that the "Development" league is even the best route for players done with college to develop into NBA talent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enormous cultural impact. Additionally, college basketball is not limited to only American players. For example, UConn has players from Ghana, Jamaica, Germany, and the whole list of international players that participated in the tournament can be found here. SpencerT♦C02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get too carried away here. Those international players would not be there if they weren't being paid to be there, in what is officially an amateur competition. The farcical "scholarship" system doesn't help the image of this competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is farcical, you should read this. Everyone who doubts how seriously Americans take college sports should read that. Note that basketball is even more popular than football in North Carolina (probably) and has ~85% fewer athletes to subsidize. Also, in case you don't know, the they can't be given more sugar than what's needed to attend the college (except from family) so no beer or car buying money or solid gold basketballs (though solid gold locker room hottubs would be allowed, if anyone did that. I'm not kidding) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know some Australians who got an American college education through their sporting talent. None would have made it into an Australian university. Nice people. Good at their sport. Bloody lucky! HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I suspect that people unfamiliar with it will see "it isn't professional" and thus will oppose without any knowledge of it's relative importance (i.e. more important than the NBA finals). --Jayron3202:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support due to the argument given above. As pointed out by Spencer, there are players from all over the world. If we posted the Boat Race(which I support) we can do this, too. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the reasons given by the nominator. One of the few sporting events that draws interest from non-sports fans, with millions of brackets filled out each year. Not to mention the press surrounding Warren Buffett's billion dollar perfect bracket challenge. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For many decades, the NCAA was actually the highest level of basketball recognized by FIBA in the USA, primarily because they're "amateurs". American college kids beat out teams of fully grown European men (who were also "amateurs") in the Olympics. Of course, that isn't the case anymore, but the open era of basketball also made the NCAA tournament international when players from other countries started exploiting college basketball as an alternative way to develop their young basketball players (the Australian Andrew Bogut, and the Panama national basketball team last decade, for example). Nowadays, the NCAA final four games have now become the single largest basketball event in the world, with the semifinals and final having the largest live attendance for the season in basketball. Not even the World Cup (of basketball) next year can boast of having almost 80k people watching a single game in a single venue. Compare, for example, the TV rights of the Premier League in the UK, 1.782 billion pounds for four years or 445 million pounds a year or 3.2 million pounds ($5.3 million) per match; NCAA basketball TV rights in the USA is $10.8 billion dollars for 14 years, or $771 million per year or $11.3 million per game. Granted, the Premier League has plenty of TV rights elsewhere, but this tells you the magnitude of interest for a bunch of college kids playing hoops for "scholarships". –HTD03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: one of the most watched sporting events in the US and the world. It baffles me why this is not in ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most watched in the world? Have you seen the audience for cricket in India? I'm not planning on opposing this, but I will still highlight silly claims. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the stats handy, but it's probably one of the top 10 most viewed sporting events in the world, which is why CBS and Turner have agreed to pay $11 billion for 14 years of TV coverage for NCAA basketball, compared with $4 billion or so NBC's paying for 10 years worth of Olympics. -Zanhe (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American money for American sports is not a valid comparison with the size of the audiences for cricket in India. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's that pointless? NCAA: $11 billion/14 seasons=approx. $780 million per season. Olympics: $4 billion/5 games (including winter)=$800 million per game. I thought people were capable of doing such easy math themselves, so didn't elaborate the first time. -Zanhe (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to point out that the updated article is now of pretty high quality, which hopefully counts for something. (I am happy to take suggestions for improvement though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thaddeus's excellent statement and my own comment from last year.[31] Clearly we do post university sport, given that the Boat Race is up there at the moment, and I'd say this has significantly greater cultural impact and public interest in the US than the Boat Race does in Britain. As someone from a country where university sport is little more than a social pastime, I find the massive interest bemusing, but that's neither here nor there. Ridiculous as the idea of posting a university sports tournament seemed to me at first, sport does not have inherent significance - as Thaddeus says, it is only significant because people care about it - and the amount of passion and interest this tournament generates is truly staggering. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh you're got to be kidding me. Posted after just 4.5 hours, with just the US evening for voting? Give me a break.... Once again, ITN becomes a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately The same story once again. We agreed on multiple occasions not to post this for many reasons and now it looks like someone was so prudent to nominate it and collect sufficient amount of votes while Europe sleeps and is not able to counterbalance it. This is a classical example of a systemic bias and extreme POV. Bongwarrior has apparently violated the rule of neutral point of view for his selective approach to consider only the votes from users from the other site of the globe and speedily post it without any real discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. There's a clear consensus to post. Europe has been awake for three or four hours, I see no dissenting voices other than your own. Should a plethora of opposes appear, then consider pulling. This was posted just as Tony Benn's RD was posted, quickly and with clear support. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item, not to talk about one that has been long discussed in prior occasions with no general consensus to post. This is clear avoidance of that rule of thumb and I'd even say that it was deliberately made. Maybe it's time to propose introducing a rule that will prevent such haste in posting ITN items on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item" no, not really. There's been no opposition but your own, European editors have been awake and online for six hours, there's no problem here but the one of your own making. As for implementing a delay, tried that, failed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril - We most certainly never "agreed" to anything. 1) The NCAA Tournament has been posted some years. 2) Some of us Americans felt that the not posting the our beloved NCAA basketball other years was the single greatest injustice on ITN.
Those "many reasons" you refer too basically boil down to precisely the one's I listed in the original statement. I attempted to refute those reasons with a strong argument, precisely the same argument I made about the Boat Race 24 hours prior. Given that we had never posted The Boat Race before and had posted NCAA basketball, I am confident cooler heads would have won out this year and NCAA basketball would have been posted, regardless of timing. That said. there is precisely nothing wrong me nominating the event (and working extensively on the article) when it occurred.
Post-posting support of a good, consensus-based post. The Australasians were watching this through the day as well as our American friends; not sure why we have to wait for the Europeans to wake up? Stephen11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the Europeans have woken up, and have been awake for six or so hours, and no-one's dissenting to this post bar the one clamour for "immediate pulling". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment I didn't express an opinion either supporting or opposing the boat-race nomination and have stayed out of this one. I think ThaddeusB's argument of cultural significance has some merit. My worry is how it will play out in practice, in two ways.
Firstly volume: ITN/R already adds up to ~65 sports stories per year. If we add in all the not-at-the-top-of-the-sport-but-still-really-popular events then that will be a considerable increase - I'm thinking of Manchester City v United, West Coast v Fremantle / Adelaide v Port Adelaide, Ascot, Goodwood, Bristol City v Rovers (for all you Rovers fans out there, yes, both of you!) and so on and so on. Where do we draw a line here? AFAICT, the rule of thumb has been that only ITN/R sports stories get posted unless the event is somehow unusual compared to the same event in other years (ie a particularly notable boat race or NCAA final or whatever). If it's a regular event we're posting only because the event has a particular cultural significance every year then the argument should be happening at ITN/R, not here. I get the impression that several sports events have fallen by the wayside recently, despite being ITN/R, because "we have too many sports nominations around here." I'm pretty sure this isn't going to help that situation.
Secondly, the 'cultural significance' aspect adds a taste of subjectivity that has previously been absent. It is possible to assess in a fairly objective way which events represent the top of a particular sport; if we accept proposals on the basis that an event is very significant to my particular cultural group, there will be no end to it. It is impossible to oppose a nomination on these grounds, since all you have to do to establish cultural significance for a group is to claim that it exists; anyone who opposes it is obviously just not part of that particular cultural group that finds it significant. If we're going to do this for sports then we should do it for other things as well; why not report on the last night of the Proms, or Glastonbury, or Burning Man? GoldenRing (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything posted at ITN is subjectively judged, including judging what represents the 'highest level' of competition in a sport. The 'cultural significance' aspect of the NCAA tournament can be measured by a few objective measures however, such as viewership figures, google news hits, WP page views, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I do agree that the "cultural" argument needs to take place at ITN/R and will bring it there in good time (generally items need to pass regular ITN before they can even be considered there). Sports do have a big impact on people's lives, and deserve the coverage level they get. It might be somewhat subjective to say NCAA basketball has an extremely high cultural impact, but it can also be measured in certain ways (some offered in this thread). It is also somewhat subjective as to what constitutes highest level play in many sports (for example boxing is especially prone to this problem), and other ITN decisions are almost purely subjective.
We actually do have at least one item on the current ITN/R list (Japanese baseball) that is definitely not "top level", but is properly included because of its importance to its home country. The most important sport(s) in many countries also happen to be top level and are listed. However, I have a few ideas to add (none of them American other than this nomination). There are at least three items (all American events) on the current list that I feel have no real impact that I plan to nominate for removal on the cultural angle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I give up but will never agree with Thaddeus that this has cultural impact on a high level. It may have only in the United States, which is way far from being something significant. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia is mostly edited by users from very few countries and this fact will never give us the chance to get rid of local stories in an attempt to creating an impartial and neutral encyclopedia. Evidently, this Wikipedia is nothing better and even worse than the smaller Wikipedias that are infamous for doing the same.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, though if pushed to it I'd have to admit ignorance about the cultural impact of the NCAA championship in North America. But I have to say your point is somewhat weakened by your silence on the Boat Race nomination. If local stories of limited, national cultural impact are the scourge of an impartial and neutral encyclopedia, where were you when the Boat Race was nominated? GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Australia and have never been to the UK, but I am familiar with the Boat Race. The only place I ever hear of the NCAA championship is here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the Philippines and this was live on TV; the Boat Race and cricket weren't on TV and the news. –HTD12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It says on this page "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If a "local event" is covered significantly enough on a worldwide basis(which this is), it can be posted. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support from Europe (if it matters). Important in the US, even though it's not the top level of the sport. I can't see why we shouldn't post this and other similar items of cultural significance (e.g. the Boat Race posted recently). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support It was wrong not to post the 2013 tourney. Glad to see we've corrected this. Championship in the top level of amateur basketball, major impact, etc. Kudos ThaddeusB. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull. We have had this discussion many times - amateur university sports are not the top level of competition, and are therefore not suitable for ITN. I wasn't around for the discussion of the boat race, but would have opposed that (and will advocate pulling); if I was being uncharitable I would suspect it was a stalking horse. 'Cultural significance' is neither here nor there. The timing of the nomination meant it was posted by the time anyone in Europe woke up, meaning that very few people outside the US had a chance to comment. Modest Geniustalk22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least partly true, and there was no need for such haste in posting. It LOOKS like American domination and systemic bias, even if you think it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's been 24 hours now, with just two people in favour of removing it, and many, many in favour of it being posted. Appearance of bias, "stalking horses" etc etc, whatever. There's been plenty of chance to overturn the clear and large consensus to post this, and nothing's happened. Time for people to get over it and move onto something productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly our audience is satisfied too, I don't recall seeing a single complaint about this item's appearance on the main page in the past 24 hours either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we're not here to provide information our audience wants to read, I don't know what we are here for. Not one single complaint. Nada. Must be doing something right!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HiLo here - I'd have opposed this given the chance, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue for a pull. 4.5 hours consideration of a minor sporting topic ending at 06:06 UTC is not good enough. Even if it was done in the very best of faith, it was an undoubted mistake because it creates the appearance of US-based editors doing whatever they like and not caring what anyone else thinks. There are plenty of stories that garner no opposition but go unposted because no-one bothers; did an admin really have nothing better to do than post this story?
Arguing that there hasn't been a 'single complaint' is also rather disingenuous - there have been at least four editors who have expressed concern at this posting, sometimes in very strong terms, in the paragraphs above. GoldenRing (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even counting GoldenRing and the MP comment as opposes (while ignoring the MP talk page support comments), there are five supports and four opposes since it was posted. Given that it is much more likely for people to express disapproval than approval of something after the fact, I think it is pretty clear the item would have been posted regardless of timing. Additionally, some opposes from previous years were supports this year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Thaddeus. I opposed this last time round but there's no issue here at all. You know something, some of us, maybe all of us, need to remember that Wikipedia is something like the 4th most visited website in the world. Millions of homepage hits a day. We have one or two complaints about "too much sport". So what? We're not here as a science project, to precisely carve out a politically and socially equal and "correct" encyclopaedia, we're here to put stories on the main page that some/many will find interesting. We have tens of thousands of hits on ITN, and this post isn't different. The main page is hit, on average, 15 million times a day. We're wasting our lives discussing why NCAA was posted and will disappear in a few days time. No-one else seems bothered, most importantly, the actual, genuine readers of Wikipedia. Do something else for a change, you whiners and whining stealth ponies, write an article, do something positive. Transmission ends. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Please update I don't have a strong feeling one way or another whether this deserves to be up there. Since the consensus seems to be that it does, then it should be updated to say that UConn also won the women's championship. That they won both in the same year is bigger news. Such an update would also help to reduce the WP:BIAS of sports coverage here. Teply (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too am disappointed that the ITN section has not yet been updated to reflect the dual championship win. This is more notable than the current article, as it has only happened twice in Division I history - and both have been Connecticut Huskies. mikemillerdc (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be too disappointed, I just updated it. Please feel free to suggest any streamlining of the blurb. Before anybody gets wild ideas, do not pull this blurb without first having substantial discussion and obtaining a consensus to do so. I will take a dim view of my admin action being reversed without following the required procedures. Additionally, the reason I've added the women is that there is no plausible argument to exclude them and there is clear support to include them. If the men are posted, the women should be posted too. Given the choice of pulling the men or adding the women, I've decided that there is a consensus to add the women. I am most convinced by the argument that the amount of news coverage of these championships is extremely intense. They get substantially more news coverage than many other sports events that we post. Per common sense, these belong in the ITN section. JehochmanTalk13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: Well, would you at least fix the fact that the "defeat" in "and the Connecticut Huskies women defeat the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to..." still links to the men's final? I don't know if there's an appropriate women's article. Either way, two bold links to the same article in one blurb isn't quite right. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the links - hopefully that doesn't make me a "dim" admin :). There actually is a plausible reason to exclude (or at least not bold) the women's tournament - the article is decidedly not updated (first sentence: "The 2014 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament will be played in March and April 2014"). ITN requires both consensus on notability and an adequate update. I will try to tackle the update sometime today, to avoid this embarrassment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Thank you for helping. The article has been patched, but certainly could be improved further. I'm of the opinion that posting quickly can make Wikipedia more engaging for the reader. If they see a chance to fix something simple, they may begin to edit. JehochmanTalk15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman: That is a fine theory, but is was more than 12 hours before someone (me) fixed the rest of the tense issues you missed and more than 24 hours before someone (also me) wrote a proper game summary. The consensus based ITN guidelines state that both consensus on merits and a proper update are required before something is posted as a bold link. It is an embarrassment to those who work hard on ITN and an insult to those who go to great lengths to have "their" articles featured in other areas of the mainpage to post articles that are not updated. ITN is not a news ticker, but rather a place to feature good article work on subjects that happen to be in the news. I respectfully request you not post articles until they are updated in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ridiculousI posted that the champions league quarter finals were more culturally significant than this, and i had my nomination shut down and was insulted by people with a credibility gap. So here it is, reality. Wikipedia seems hopelessly parochial and out of touch with reality. College basketball isnt even second level, its kids level. The champions league quarter finals are watched by more people, and are truly a world event, not a domestic kids level event. seriously suggest checking viewing figures world wide, including asia, africa, etc, before making assertions as to its regional nature. Especially as that region is a continent and not a nation. Furthermore, there can be no debate about what the world means when it says the word football, as football is the world game, and all other codes are domestic. Gaelic, Aussie rules, etc are domestic games. American football is a domestic game. football is the world game, whether USA embraces this or not. so to include something as internationally meaningless as a college basketball tournament, while leaving out even the quarter finals of an event carrying around 220 million viewing figures internationally, is silly, parochial, petty and incredulous.
This is a domestic kids level event with little to no interest outside of one nation, who though over represented on wikipedia, are currently carrying 5% of the worlds population. something like even the Champions league quarter finals is a global event, because in asia, africa and even south america, people are watching to the tune of 220 million people worldwide.
Wikipedia is out of touch with reality on the nom. Kids level, domestic, and absolutely irrelevant to the average citizen of planet earth. By all means try making that argument about the champions league semi finals?
Simply put, it matters not that this is a final, and thats a quarter final, as this is a kids level event, and no one outside of america cares what so ever. Comparative viewing figures, international reach tv reach, continent v domestic breadth of the tournaments, and full adult level v kids level nature of competitions all resoundingly back up my point.
Go check google trends under their respective labels and laugh as the whole planet outside of canada and usa turn up a search volume zero for college basketball, and the whole planet including america spam numbers for the champions league. Furthermore the global search volume for the champions league dwarfs college basketball, even in the day of the basketball final.
Wikipedia is domestic, and arrogantly out of touch with reality, on the evidence of this.
Kettle, black. You equate the "rest of the world" (minus the US) with Europe, described the quarter finals of a European event as top 10 in the world across all sports, and equate NCAA basketball with "kids level" sports, and yet it is everyone else who is out of touch with reality? WOW!
And no, Championship League is not widely followed in Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America. It is moderately followed in some of those areas (as is NCAA Basketball), but mostly those areas care about their own region's leagues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you obviously just made assumptions instead of actually checking. Google Trends is probably a poor metric to use, but the actual numbers show NCAA basketball has been more searched than Champions League over the last month and has more searches by a 4:1 margin around the championship game, far from your assertion of the opposite.
I agree with ThaddeusB. While I'm not the greatest fan of this item, it has to be posted, we have a significant consensus to do so, and that's how Wikipedia works. Next up, whether you think this (or the Boat Race or any such other localised item) is worth posting on the main page, you can do something about that by getting involved in the processes (WP:ITN/C to discuss what goes onto the main page, WP:ITN/R to discuss what will go up regularly as long as it's updated properly). Thanks for taking the time to give us so much feedback, but unless you and others who agree with your point of view get involved with directing the articles selected for ITN, things won't change to your satisfaction. Look forward to seeing you participate!! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? I think we've already established categorically that the Boat Race is global and NCAA is not quite so. Time for you to stop pretending otherwise. Where is NCAA broadcast? Does it get mainstream television in Europe? In India? In China? What channels broadcast this in Spain? In Uzbekistan? In the United Kingdom? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So which channel is that shown on in the United Kingdom? How many hours of it is broadcast to Malaysia? Is it on Freeview in Spain? I can't believe this at all, is it free to view in Estonia? Which broadcaster is showing it in Uruguay? These need to be answered.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN international broadcasts it worldwide. If you subscribe to ESPN, you can watch it. TOA and Xinhua ran the results. TV5 broadcast it in the Philippines. Who covered the boat race in the Philippines, USA, Canada (or for that matter Uzbekistan). --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for The Boat Race. TRM, I think you could agree that NCAA Basketball is US-centric with some international interest, and I think most people would agree that the boat race is UK-centric with some international interest. Why not just leave it at that? Uzbekistan and Mongolia are barely countries... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a stupid comparison. One is the global #1 sporting event by a very wide margin. The other isn't even a top 10 sport worldwide. --21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You guys... Champions League Quarter finals V BBall little leagues final.
Wikipedia entries : UCL Quarters 0 BBLL 3.
Global reach : UCL - Global (Go check - Africa, Asia etc are interested, do buy the kits, do watch the UCL as its the premier global competition in football, the worlds biggest game. It doesnt matter if its based in Europe, the players and fans are global elite, and from a diverse range of nations).
Global reach of BBLL - USA and Canada. Google trends might not be sacrosanct, but it is devastating on this one.
Breadth of competition : UCL : Continental and featuring global talent pool.
BBLL : Domestic and featuring local talent pool.
Significance of Competition : UCL - Senior level, worlds biggest game and talent pool. Most prestigious competition in club football.
BBLL - Little leagues. Kids version of adult game.
Regardless of the phase of the UCL it is more watched, more globally watched, more globally participated on a player level, a far more significant competition, a far bigger sport, a categorically more important and more senior level, etc,etc,etc.
The hubris and arrogant refusal to accept basic facts on this one makes a mockery of wikipedia. Well done getting a consensus when most of the posters are americans. UCL QFs are simply bigger, more internationally significant, intrinsically a continental sized competition, featuring the worlds best players and the highest level of the worlds biggest game by far.
And American Basketball little leagues gets 3 mentions on wikipedia and not a jot was given by anyone east of dixie or west of san fran.
I must add, all youve done on google trends thadeus is demonstrated that the UCL is getting comparable figures to mad march, on days that arent even match days. On the match days, the spike is clearly in favor of the UCL. Considering mad march is on for a month and theres only 2 match days for the UCL in that time, its hilarious that theres comparable trends figures over all and a clear spike for the UCL quarter final match day, over the final of the basketball little mini leagues final itself. All clearly demonstrated by your link, along with the global interest I previous stated. Cheers for that. Excellent piece of evidence for my case there friend. You guys will try to own the truth and the news, like some medieval force. Fair enough, but you are categorically wrong to suggest that the BBLittle leagues are more culturally significant thant then UCL quarters on any merit other than local 5% backwater on the map. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I showed with the Google Trend link is that you are just making stuff up. You claimed "search volume for the champions league dwarfs college basketball, even in the day of the basketball final" which is blatantly false. Much like the rest of your comments, it was based solely on your belief of reality and nothing objective. You accuse other people of being "hopelessly parochial and out of touch with reality", when it is you who is seemingly incapable of seeing any perspective but your own. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwarfed. Even on the very day, your little league basketball had its final. Arguing with ignorance here, I am. Broadcast in 80 nations the UCL is, and readily demonstrable on a wikipedia page as such. Along with 220 million viewing figures for the competition. Hilarious parachial ignorance and hubris. The whole world knows UCL dwarfs college basketball, but luckily we dont need to ask them as there is much more that my refusal to accept ignorance, and your myopic delusional regionalism. There is page after page of statistics to show UCL is more internationally significant and I pity the person who tries to argue against this. I could literally just sit here and wait for people to drop pages of evidence. Have a good one though. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange definition of "dwarfed". In your very own link, I see
April 5: college basketball 20, Champions League 17
April 6: CBB 30, UCL 14
April 7: UCL 17, CBB 14
Now if you had bothered to search for the actual event being compared (searching for "college basketball" to find the tournament is like searching for "football" to find UCL matches)
April 5: NCAA Championship 48, Champions League 17
April 6: NCAA 58, UCL 14
April 7: NCAA 22, UCL 17
Which dwarfs which again? That said, no one has argued the slightest bit that Champions League is not important, nor has anyone stated it is less popular than NCAA basketball. The only things I've stated is 1) you are making up stuff; 2) you are horribly biased. Both are obviously true.
Bottom line - we post the event finals of notable events. That includes UCL and 8 other association football events. It also includes NCAA basketball and several other things that I am sure you care zero about (and are not US events). We post events once based on the notability of the entire event. We do not post preliminary rounds/quarter finals/semi-finals of any event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again cherry picking non match days. I ask you straight- on the day featured - 8/4/14 - what were the totals? The first chart gives a very clear picture of their respective significances, and your cherry picking non UCL match days misses the central assertion of my argument. The day in question has two major sports events. One featured and one not. What were the respective totals?
Its not freeview on espn around the world either. 80 nations and their broadcasters paid for it.
Im not going to continue to argue about this, but this whole thing is about whats in the news, and poor as google trends is, it shows clearly 100/12 in favour of UCL on the very day in question.
I assumed you knew, but NCAA basketball actually ended on April 7. My bad for assuming. Nice "cherry picking" though, even if inadvertent. I think we can agree on one thing though - this is not worth arguing further. Good evening to you as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this chart is the most valid of all. And the UCL had 125 matches in a span of months (from the group stage onwards); the NCAA tournament has 67 games in three weekends. So UEFA had $14.4 million/match with teams actually losing money (RIP Rangers); the NCAA had $13.6 million/game, and they didn't even have to pay the players(!!!!). –HTD00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)
