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).
The UK's Office of Fair Trading gives the country's top 50 payday loans companies 12 weeks to change their practices after identifying "widespread irresponsible lending". (BBC)
Paddy Crerand, who won the competition in 1968, blasts Roy Keane over his position on Nani's controversial red card, describing Keane as being "in a minority of one. Not one person said it was a red card except Roy". (BBC)(The Daily Telegraph)
Comment He was convicted on other charges in October, so that mediates some of the appeal to posting this in my eyes. I do see that the October 2012 conviction was posted, though. Also, he's likely to appeal this. How have we handled similar cases with multiple convictions for different charges, which are being appealed? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the first time he is sentenced in prison and it doesn't mean he would be jailed for sure. I'd say that the only way this could bear some importance is if he ends in jail; otherwise, it's the same story with the same conclusion again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose meaningless sentence given the amount of appeals available in the Italian courts. He's been convicted so many times for so many things, everybody's lost track of it. A final sentence, sure that's very notable, but this is not one. SnowolfHow can I help?18:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A former Prime Minister being convicted of a crime is never trivial, even if there are still appeals. Thue (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what you wanted to happen, TBH. You never explicitly stated that I should post here, and 2 days went by without any concrete suggestions from you on what to do? Blurb updates are routine in WP:ERRORS, as Ryan Vesey implied. –HTD05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never explicitly stated that you should post here? I'm gobsmacked. Indeed, blurb updates often are handled at that page. Blurb updates pertaining to separate incidents not clearly described in the article aren't. —David Levy05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I was unsure of where to go. Even Ryan Vesey presumed I should've went there first, which I did. I was dumbfounded when you said any change to the blurb would have to have consensus at ITN/C (a valid point), but updates were usually handled here or WP:ERRORS. I chose the latter as I thought it would've been faster. –HTD05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not criticising you for raising the matter at WP:ERRORS. I just don't understand why you're claiming that I was cryptic and didn't explicitly advise you to post here. I'm further confused by your above statement that I "said any change to the blurb would have to have consensus at ITN/C". Not only does this directly contradict your aforementioned claim, but it simply isn't accurate. (I only stated that I wasn't comfortable making the particular change requested.) —David Levy06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that confirms I didn't understand whatever it is you said.
The reason why WP:ERRORS exists is to have speedy resolution to edit requests. That's why I resorted to pointing out that the discussion went stale (which you characterized as a "complaint"). In verbatim, I said "Is there any hope of a supposedly speedy resolution to this issue?" which just a query on when would someone act on it, as it took 14 hours already. The only consensus needed at WP:ERRORS is between you and me, and not the people here at ITN/C, as that would defeat the whole purpose of WP:ERRORS... which has been defeated anyway, as I expected at most a two-hour discussion that turned into 3 days long.
You could've just explicitly said I needed to go here instead, and explicitly asked for an update, instead of wasting our time. –HTD06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that confirms I didn't understand whatever it is you said. I said that it would be helpful to initiate an ITN/C discussion (as you separately acknowledged above). I'm baffled as to what you "didn't understand". The reason why WP:ERRORS exists is to have speedy resolution to edit requests. You requested an ITN blurb update not supported by the article's prose. I've explained this repeatedly, including at WP:ERRORS. That's why I resorted to pointing out that the discussion went stale (which you characterized as a "complaint"). In verbatim, I said "Is there any hope of a supposedly speedy resolution to this issue?" which just a query on when would someone act on it, as it took 14 hours already. Are you seriously suggesting that this wasn't a "complaint" about the delay? ("Supposedly speedy" isn't exactly glowing praise.) Regardless, I responded by pointing you here. You evidently misinterpreted this as an accusation that you "went to the wrong place". I clarified that an ITN/C listing was advisable because I didn't "feel comfortable performing the suggested update without consensus", as it wasn't "clear to me that the article's prose account[ed] for all of the deaths included in the figure". You responded by arguing with me (citing past instances in which ITN blurbs were updated upon request and noting that the death toll was "cited in the article", despite the fact that the prose didn't match) and asking what you should do (despite the fact that I'd pointed you to ITN/C twice). I replied with a third mention of ITN/C, and you agreed to come here. Then you claimed that I was cryptic and "never explicitly stated that [you] should post here". The only consensus needed at WP:ERRORS is between you and me, and not the people here at ITN/C, I explained to you that no such agreement existed, as I didn't see an appropriate article update enabling immediate modification of the blurb. That's why I advised you to bring the matter here. as that would defeat the whole purpose of WP:ERRORS... Its purpose isn't to bypass ITN's article update requirements and push through questionable changes without consensus. which has been defeated anyway, as I expected at most a two-hour discussion that turned into 3 days long. You expected the blurb to be updated with claims not reflected in the article's prose. When I pointed you to a suitable forum in which to discuss (and hopefully rectify) the matter, you wasted more than 16 hours (during which you questioned my response and expressed bafflement as to why the ITN blurb wasn't simply updated with information not contained in the article's prose) before finally agreeing to come here (and then claiming that I never clearly advised you to). You could've just explicitly said I needed to go here instead, and explicitly asked for an update, instead of wasting our time. Again, I'm gobsmacked. —David Levy15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy, for some reason, I do my reading on the edit page (lol) and I see this big wall of text. I'd try to respond on this, hopefully for the last time as it is not helping the growth of the encyclopedia.
So after four days of discussion, you've finally explicitly said it. The blurb is not found in the article. I was second guessing on what you actually wanted to say.
While I'd happily concede that my words weren't "glowing praise", if it sounded as a complaint to you, then I'm sorry for giving out a complaint. At least someone responded after 15 hours, and for that I give my thanks. If it weren't for my "complaint", I dunno what would have happened. Probably nothing. As for article updates, again, as what I've said before, I've only contributed lightly to the article, and the article has doubled in size after March 1. I wasn't privy to the issue that the cited death toll in the infobox isn't found elsewhere in the article. I did not know about this, and whatever is wrong with the article should've been fixed now. I stand by my earlier statement that the death toll was cited, and that there was more than sufficient expansion on the article. Whether or not it was in the prose wasn't brought up explicitly. As you've said, " It isn't clear to me that the article's prose accounts for all of the deaths included in the figure." This means anywhere from the death toll is in the article but is in a bad state (bad grammar, etc.), the death toll is incomplete in the prose, to the death poll isn't in the article at all. If you could have plainly stated that "The prose doesn't include the x death toll," we could've been saved by this misery. –HTD16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant deaths occurred on 6 March? It appears that the most recent ones mentioned in the article occurred on 3 March. And while the infobox's death figures total 45, I count a total of 27 at most (if we go with the higher figures where contradictions exist) mentioned in the prose. Where are the other deaths described (and are they the ones that occurred on 6 March)? —David Levy05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. The relevant deaths occurred on March 1 (Lahad Datu), 3 (Semporna) and 5 (airstrikes). The next ITN blurb updates after this was posted was Chavez's death on March 5, and this occurred hours after the aforementioned March 5 events and the northern Mali conflict on March 4. If anyone is into bureaucratic stuff, they can move this to March 5 from March 6. As for the death toll, I had already asked for help on the article's talk page. –HTD05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, there are reports on March 6 that a dozen of the sultanate people bodies were found, presumably due to the airstrike. I've searched for a concrete death toll, and the latest (dated March 5) had 31 deaths; presumably these didn't yet include those who died in the airstrike.
As for requests for an ITN update, of course, all pending ITN updates have to be updated at the article. There's nothing wrong on a preliminary discussion. If no one died on March 5, then we can use the March 3 update of having 30 dead, which I originally asked at WP:ERRORS on March 5. I merely followed the death toll at the infobox, which jumped from ~30 to 40+ at the span of two days of discussion at WP:ERRORS, plus a third day now. –HTD05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above (and previously at the errors page), I don't even see 30 deaths covered in the prose. That's one of the reasons why I declined to fulfill the request and recommended that you initiate a discussion here. —David Levy06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not been a primary author of the article, but it seems the unified death toll is the one found in the infobox, the death tolls in the prose are given per skirmish. –HTD06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And they should match. Last night (my time), the infobox's casualty figures totaled 45, while the prose's totaled 27 (at most). —David Levy15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support bump. I found 14 (1 March skirmish) + 13 (Semporna attack) + 13 (Assault by Malaysian Armed Forces) = 40 dead in prose. OTOH, see source in ITN box above (already in article infobox). ... (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the blurb to "more than 40" as there are reports of 30+ deaths (aside from the 40 in the infobox) today. Clearly, the blurb has to be edited to show that it has escalated into something else, rather than as an isolated gunfight. If any more deaths occur it's safe that we can slide it down, since the focus of the blurb has changed. –HTD13:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my earlier count of "27" comprised the (possible) 14 from the 1 March skirmish and 13 from the 3 March Semporna attack. At that time, the "Assault by Malaysian Armed Forces and subsequent operations" section contained no mention of any deaths. (The need for such expansion was one of the factors justifying this discussion.) —David Levy15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Who doesn't think that human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups are exciting? The 338,000 years ago bit is older than Homo Sapiens (200,000). So this means that there was probably a bit of hot interracial action, with fertile offspring, much like the hypothesized contribution of Neatherthals. Genetic archaeology can make just as interesting discoveries as real archaeology.
About updating: all the haplogroup charts will have to be redrawn; I am guessing there isn't even any reference ones which incorporates the new discovery. So perhaps we can justify doing without them? Thue (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. before anyone points it out, New Scientist is wrong to say that the late Albert Perry was the only member of the halpgroup (which would complicate things if he had no sons), there are a few (living) Mbo individuals as well. --LukeSurltc08:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is updated, topic is stereotypically encyclopedic, impact is large (apparently certain evidence of pre-sapiens ancestry, and thus human evolution generally) news is really cool.128.214.79.75 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (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.
Oppose - I really wouldn't consider him or his band to be very important in his/their field. Sure, they played Woodstock, but neither Lee nor his band had done much work of any significance since then. Also, the article is largely unreferenced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the Syrian Civil War lead with the story and the Syrian National Coalition and Arab League pages as well. I'm guessing the Syrian civil war should be the main article due to it being the main event surrounding the situation. Hello32020 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weakly - this doesn't actually impact the outcome of the conflict. If the government is able to defeat the insurgents, this would likely roll back. --IP98 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this had happened informally (by dismissing Assad's regime from the League) a while ago. This is good progress, but it's not earth-shattering, and not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is the first time the rebels have captured a provincial capital. An entire province is now under rebel control. They also captured 2 top government officials. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support large city and provincial capital. Seems like an important milestone. Decent article to highlight, rather than the monster Syrian Civil War article. --IP98 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like Syria stories are a good candidate to be a sticky. This, in itself, isn't ITN, but the various things going on in Syria right now may warrant a sticky for a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree One of my major objections to the sticky is that it points to a massive, lumbering article that interested parties really have to sift through to find updates. I would rather have standalone articles like this one which highlight major milestones go up in blurb form. --IP98 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I just don't see this story on the usual news sites I visit at all. So it's not "in the news" from that perspective. Hence a sticky might help out to keep it ticking over. As such, changed my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Medeis originally linked to was a redlink, and he was suggesting that it could be created. I pointed out that the article he was proposing already existed (my link). SpencerT♦C15:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Maher, who spent almost 20 years as a fugitive in the United States, is jailed for five years for stealing a security van containing £1.2m in Suffolk, England. (BBC)
Japanese carrier Willcom announces the Phone Strap 2 WX06A, which weighs only 32 grams. The company advertises it as the world's "smallest and lightest phone". (The Verge)
Scientists in the United States publish the most detailed scans of the human brain to date as part of a project to understand how the organ works. (BBC)
There's no rush. The point of this section is to highlight good quality articles in the news. It's widely agreed that around five sentences constitute a sufficient update. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize there's no rush, but there's also not much that can be added to the article at this point. It already has extensive discussion about his illness. Are we going to wait until all the world's politicians have gotten to add their sound bite? What specific information are we waiting to get added to the article? Kaldari (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issue with posting now, but it was definitely not acceptable when I posted. Even now, it borders on repeating the same information in three different sentences... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)23:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The current update is a bit lean, but I think it's acceptable. Now we just have to wait for an uninvolved admin to wander in and choose a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with the death section is edit conflicts, given everyone is so excited. Somebody's even been removing the death section. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pending full update. I prefer the second blurb, did cancer kill him, did cancer treatment kill him? (Do they say cancer killed you if cancer treatment does?) Might it have been something else? I'd prefer to wait a day or two to say what killed him. RyanVesey22:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment if all we are going to say is that he has died this should go in RD, which is fine with me. Otherwise in office and of cancer are the relevant facts. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty much agreed on that we only list on RD if the death isn't of high calibre. Otherwise, the blurb doesn't really need extra information to become a blurb. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Of cancer" is relevant, but early. "In office" is important,but I prefer Lockesdonkey's solution of stating that Maduro is succeeding him. RyanVesey22:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that, as this is the death of a sitting head of state, we should mention in the blurb who will be the president of Venezuela now. I also think that "President of Venezuela" may be a better link than the generic "Venezuela". Besides, with the huge political effects that this death will cause, I think it's justified to list it as a news event in itself, not just as a "recent death" entry. Cambalachero (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious strong support, significant figure in world politics who died in office. Article looks good; the update is short but sufficient, appropriate to avoid recentism, and adequately sourced. Modest Geniustalk23:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful news for democracy in Venezuela, obvious support as an event of great significance for the political future of a country. Mocctur (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wonderful news for an elite aristocracy which will now be able to enslave the populace with the death of the peoples sole defender. This is a sad day for the people of Venezuela. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chavez was duly elected again and again. The only people calling him a "dictator" are those who stood to loose when he freed the people from tyranny, brought them food and land and a means to make a future for themselves. The people who call him a dictator wanted to keep Venezuelas wealth for themselves. Chavez was a hero and a freedom fighter, he will be missed. --IP98 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
totalitarians The common people of Venezuela who saw literacy and food production increase under Chavez? Yep, they'll miss him. I think the people celebrating are laissez-faire "economists" who measure wealth in terms of food they can take from the mouths of babies. This is indeed a day for sadness for Venezuela. --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela is a democratic country. Chávez was elected in 1998, and was subsequently elected all over again; he did not force anybody out of their office. (Well, he attempted to in 1992, but he and the army failed) The US has always called Venezuela under Chávez a dictatorship just because he did not want Americans to mess with his stuff. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest including "in office" in blurb since that's a fairly rare event. Agree that "of cancer", though likely, is speculative and best left out. --IP98 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we cut the ideological crap and deal with the fact that the death section, even now, has five sentences, and more than three sources, and post this? μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're better off linking to the main article, at least at present. It contains more useful information on who he was, which is what readers will be interested in (rather than a long list of reaction quotes). His manner of death is not the ITN story here, but the end of his eventful life. Modest Geniustalk13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The point is that the last time it reached this height was exactly before the Great Recession. Of course it's not expected we would post if it would break the record again in a few weeks. --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral we post sports records all the time, we can at least consider this. If Sachin Tendulkar batting 100 centuries in cricket was notable enough for WP:Main, then so is this. Maybe like the case of Tendulkar (100), we should wait for a totally arbitrary round number like 15000. Or we can pick some arbitrary round period of time, like we did when Lionel Messi kicked a ball into a net the "most times" in calendar year. Highest points gain in a quarter maybe? My point is we can't dump on the DJIA and then fawn over sports records. --IP98 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major local and global impact, as the last time it was this high was exactly before the Great Recession. Thus this is a major watershed in the current economic recovery (both locally in the US and globally), and as such being widely circulated in all media. --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after four years of inflationary pressure the Dow Jones number is...inflated. Of course food, gas, gold and commodities are all at even greater highs--the actual comparative buying value of the Dow has not recovered. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disingenuous. You presumably read the source for this article yourself which attributes the gains to fed pumping and higher profits (i.e., prices) not economic growth. You are quite free to look up gold, gasoline, food and commodities prices yourself--no one has anything to prove to you--this isn't an argument forum. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not an argument forum. Fortunately WP is a cluocracy and the posting admins are free to disregard opposes citing original research and silly cartoons. --IP98 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the important part is not the record itself, but that the index has recovered completely after the recession. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dont agree with the comparision with a sporting achivement, this record does not involve a achement and as The Rambling Man points out when would this one stop. LGAtalkedits19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of the articles? The news is not really that DJ is breaking a record, but that they are back up at the pre-2008 levels. --hydrox (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The prices have got this high for no reason other than the belief that they will get higher. There is no predictable longevity for this record. Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. If you look at the chart (right), rising share prices are the norm with the exception of recessions. The thrust of this story should be that it is a recovery to pre-Financial crisis of 2007–2008 levels. Thus I support, but only with an altblurb (suggested) that adds this caveat. LukeSurltc19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little more reasonable, but it would still be a recovery of pre-crash prices in dollars, which themselves have lost value, not a recovery of underlying worth. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless they had a parade. Did they have a parade? Got any pictures of the "Highest Ever" parade? I'll support if there is a parade. DAMMIT! I WANT A PARADE!!!! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons given. Additionally, if it is higher tomorrow, it will break the record again rendering this note moot. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (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: Müslüm Gürses was a pioneer in the genre of arabesque. He was very popular and influential in Middle East (especially in Turkey) and regarded as a father. --Eng-men (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article but I don't know enough about Turkish music to know if he was notable in it as a field; he was popular but notability isn't just about popularity. For now I weak oppose this as I don't believe he was notable in the field of music as a whole; I am open to revising my opinion. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His life and music was studied by sociomusicologists. e.g. C. Işık & N. Erol, Arabeskin Anlam Dünyası: Müslüm Gürses Örneği, Istanbul: Bağlam, 2002. It is difficult to find sources about arabesque music in English. --Eng-men (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before going up, the article needs a copyedit to clean up stuff like "However, Müslüm Gürses remained all the time silent and resentful because of his father's doing.". Probably the main contributor is ESL but it still needs to be tuned up. --IP98 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral looking for evidence that he passed ITN/DC #2. Audience members cutting themselves sounds like he had a dedicated following, but I'm looking for "widely regarded". --IP98 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unopposed He seems to have been a popular star but neither the Turkish article (which seems to be either translated from, or, more likely, the source of the English article) nor the Turkish press describe him as award-winning, a top performer, or the like. The article is updated, and the grammatical and style issues could be fixed with an hour's worth of work. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least until there is evidence of major awards, or proof that he was the top selling artist, over an extended period, within his genre. Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French officials announce that a soldier was killed in action during contact with Islamic militants over the weekend. It is France's third casualty since operations began in Operation Serval. (BBC)
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.
To the general community: I haven't edited in quite a long time due to being mostly among nomadic tribes these last 2 years so I am unfamiliar with the new system here at ITN but I felt this was odd enough to merit attention here, forgive me for any oversight.
- Apparently Kim Jong-Un himself invited the leaders of The Pirate Bay to move their servers or at least cache their site location within the territorial borders of North Korea so as to protect the organization from attacks by companies seeking copyright damages. The irony here is that a dictatorial country like N. Korea is now apparently offering safe haven to an organization which has dedicated themselves to a sense of the freedom of information, without discussion about the truth of their claims... It is also reported that TPB leaders will be involved in talks with N. Korea leadership regarding letting the people of N. Korea have access to TPB's services.
This is just an odd one so I'll let the community decide if it merits posting or even any discussion.
I don't think this is true; rather, it's just a funny hoax (because of the irony of the move). According to CNET, "the service is actually using some sort of IP spoofing. This spoofing makes it seem like the links are coming out of North Korea when they are really being hosted by a site from somewhere in Europe." Anyway, this is interesting, but I'm going to have to oppose. It's not quite ITN material because even if the move were to happen, the tangible effects would likely be very negligible. SpencerT♦C05:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For reasons unknown we posted "kim-dot-com" getting busted for megadownload.com (or upload or whatever the hell that spam banner disaster fake link nightmare site was called). We could probably post this if it was true. Neutral for now per Spencer. Support if covered in a WP:RS. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: It's not everyday that a scientific discovery challenges a principle that regular people are familiar with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, don't believe the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 16:46, k4 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you be a little more specific? I'm no expert, but the findings are being published by Nature are being reported by science news sources (i.e. not mainstream media) as stated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ever seen this? The closer you get to the source of this information, the less spectacular the language becomes. It is not purported by the researchers that they have in any way disproved the uncertainty principle. Instead they have used very smart methods to get around some limitations that the principle was previously assumed to impose. Capturing the subtleties of this is probably beyond the article, let alone a one-sentence ITN blurb. --LukeSurltc17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I was in no way trying to imply they disproved the principle. I think challenging some aspects (limitations) of it is still significant, but I could be wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this like faster than light neutrinos that turn out to be not actually faster than light? To coin a phrase "Explanation of significance please?" The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As far as I can tell, this does not overcome any aspect of the Uncertainty Principle. It's actually an approach to the measurement problem, by using a 'weak measurement' to ensure that the wavefunction does not collapse until the second (conjugate) variable is measured. But weak measurement only works for large statistical ensembles. This would make an interesting but technical article in, say, Physics World or New Scientist, but not ITN on Wikipedia. (However, I haven't been able to read the original paper, just the news reports and press releases.) Modest Geniustalk13:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a well reasoned explanation to your oppose. No cartoons or sarcasm. This thank-you isn't sarcasm either, I really mean it. --IP98 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update FWIW it's not up to us to determine the veracity of stories published in reliable sources. It seems to me that an important scientific discovery was made, and may be more important in the long run than a non-dead pope. I'm a PHP programmer, not a physicist, so I'm not going to stand on a soap box and yell "you suck" at people who are. The article needs an update though, and to go on WP:Main I think it needs one that a lay-reader could figure out pretty easily after clicking the bold link. --IP98 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (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.
Nominator's comments: First election under the new constitution and since the creation of the IEBC seems extra notable. --IP98 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this a general election in a presidential system, where the president and members of the bicameral legislature elected in separate ballots, so it's the blurb is quite inappropriate. Why not
The blurb can be shortened if a party wins all three... uh, ballots, or we can just highlight the presidential elections and instead have "X wins the 2013 Kenyan presidential election." There's a chance of a presidential 2nd round, so we can also highlight the legislative elections now since it appears they're in the FPTP system. –HTD16:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While on the way to the hospital due to complications in a pregnancy, a young Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish couple from a Brooklyn enclave are killed in a hit-and-run; the baby was delivered prematurely by C-section but died the next day of its injuries. The car owner was arrested soon after; the driver was arrested days later after a search. (CNN)
Lauren Silberman becomes the first woman to try out for the National Football League, but her attempt to make a team ends after two kicks with an injury. (USA Today)
Nominator's comments: Medical story getting a lot of press. Could be a significant event in this history of HIV/AIDs treatment. --LukeSurltc12:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already added it to HIV/AIDS and User:Jmh649 removed it and said not to as the media isn't a reliable source, see the page history and talk page. So oppose from me as an ITN bulletin unless someone disagrees with Jmh649 and thinks it does belong there. --occono (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding of the story was that she was cured using standard drug therapy, which perhaps should be the main focus of this nomination. I'm unsure about how to portray this on the main page without falling afoul of it being misinterpreted as medical advice. It's a good, happy story though so I'd be happy to support with the right wording. CaptRik (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "lotta press" on a slow news day, and story is bullshit. Girl was born to mother with AIDS, given high doses of drugs. Now she has no sign of the virus, but there is no evidence she ever had the virus. This case only was discovered because the mother stopped giving the kid her meds, so they had to test the kid. Abductive (reasoning) 16:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just wrong. The child did have positive HIV blood tests from samples taken shortly after birth [2]. They started treating her as if she had HIV even before the blood work was available to prove it (which is one of the differences here, since traditionally infants aren't treated until after the blood work comes back positive), but nonetheless there was confirmation that HIV was present early on and is apparently not active now. Dragons flight (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all reported in a non-peer reviewed conference talk (or poster). The positive test after birth may have been wrong, especially if it was a quick-and-dirty ELISA -- I can't even find the abstract of the presentation. This seems to me to fail WP:V, not WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves me, positive tests for maternal antibodies in newborns have subsequently turned negative over time. Is that the case here? Certainly not seeing where this amounts to an active and practical cure. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They found HIV genetic material in the infant [4], including positive HIV tests from blood taken at 2 days, 6 days, 12 days and 20 days after birth. By 29 days the viral load was undetectable on standard tests, which is a fairly typical reaction to antiretroviral therapy. For adults, an undetectable viral load is not a cure, because the virus will quickly rebound if antiretroviral drugs are discontinued. In this case, therapy was discontinued at 18 months, and yet the virus remained undetectable on standard tests even a year later. Ultrasensitive tests conducted on the child 6-12 months after the end of therapy found minute traces of HIV RNA, but at levels that were considered not indicative of an active infection. Essentially, the child remained at a healthy state similar to what antiretrovirals can accomplish but without apparently needing any additional drugs. They are calling it a "functional cure", on the basis that if the virus has not rebounded by now then there is a good chance that it will never do so and that the child may remain healthy indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk)
Anyway, this "functional" cure relies too much on accident and happenstance. The mother didn't get pre-natal care and the rural hospital in Mississippi didn't give antiretrovirals, so the real hospital gave a huge dose two days later (enough time to allow the virus to have been introduced at birth). If the virus was introduced at birth, then this is rather like a needlestick injury to a healthcare worker--they are typically given big doses, and the virus dies off before establishing itself in the CD4+ T cells. Then the "mother" runs away with the kid, and stops giving antiretrovirals, until the authorities capture her. Now they have to test (in order to charge the "mother" with various felonies) and they find a nearly undetectable viral load. So this is totally not a situation in which a person with HIV is cured. Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead author of the study explicitly rejected the post-exposure prophylaxis interpretation on the basis of the early blood tests showing an established viral load, not something you see in needlestick patients who successfully avoid seroconversion. Also, the Berlin patient, who you just linked to, is also described as a "functional cure" because traces of the virus are still detectable in his body but the infection doesn't progress, though in his case the reason for the functional cure is clearer. There was some hope that the Berlin patient might have been a complete (or "steralizing") cure, though that was later found not to be the case. Lastly, there is no indication that the mother was "captured" or accused of any crime, and to suggest such would be a violation of WP:BLP. Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a talk at a conference, and the reviewing which abstracts are accepted as talks is not the same as peer-review for a journal. Grant applications are also 'peer reviewed', but again it's not the same thing. Modest Geniustalk21:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst a remarkable case, apparently some people really can recover to the point where viral infection is at undetectable levels, and this has been known about for years [7]. It was removed from our article on AIDS because of this, so we won't even have an update. I don't think this is the breakthrough that some of the media seem to be making out. Modest Geniustalk21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the HIV epidemic has two facets: the terminal nature of the disease, and the communicability. This (and other, older developments) addresses the first facet only. This person will probably not die from pneumonia or organ failure or any of the other common infections that eventually overcome HIV patients. However, communicability is another problem entirely, and I highly suspect that this person would be able to communicate the infection. Due to the biological nature of the virus, even "small amounts of viral RNA, undetectable in clinical tests" can lead to infection, so long as it's a full-length RNA and it finds its way to a new host. The "new" portions of this news are already known from other cases, and the "new" portions of this news do not address the second, as yet unresolved, facet. On a personal level, it's great news for the baby, and I would actually really like to get articles such as HIV to the frontpage, but it would be better suited for FA, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.61 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - terrorist attacks are quite common in Pakistan these days, so I would like to see a justification for posting other than just the death toll (which is only 3rd largest of 2013). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree. Were this posted, at that rate we might expect 18 bombings listings for the year in Pakistan alone. We should probably also take into consideration whether any of the victims had prior notability in their own right. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the significance of major events like this should not be diminished by similar events that had occurred before. This is a major terrorist attack that killed dozens. The blurb should probably mention that the attack targeted the Shia minority. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - any article which deals with such a large number of deaths should get a mention at ITN, however the article is at a stub stage, would be better if it is a bit longer.LegalEagle (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A judge declines to throw out the case against actress Lindsay Lohan in which she is accused of lying to a California police officer after a car accident in 2012. (Star Pulse)
Comment I can't speak to the notability and have no opinion of this nomination at this poinr, but a death in a military action would normally get a full blurb due to the wider context. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? What is this "fuckpot" comment? What does "fruitnful as this shit" mean? I suggested that I liked the reword of the blurb. Lihaas, you need to retract your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zeid was the occupier of Timbuktou and destroyer of its shrines. Belmokhtar headed the Algerian refinery siege where 800 hostages were taken and 39 Westerners killed. Fox news (don't know who wrote the piece) said they were the two pillers of Al Qeada in Africa. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The top lieutenant of Al Qaeda in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever seems to get killed by security forces every other week. I think it's a slippery slope deciding which of Al Qaeda's regional middle men are significant, and which aren't. I also see the significance of the ringleader of the In Amenas hostage crisis, so neutral. Strong oppose RD if suggested (it's not been, but just in case). --IP98 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OPPOSE the tv media (cnn, al jaxZ_) are only reporting chadian claims thereof. There is not affirmation. See both sources. Chad also has a COI in claiming this as it is leading the n. mali operations claining success justifies further opeerations
Well perhaps Al Qaeda or the UN or similar. But I'm guessing that there are certain elements operating here that wouldn't accept anything. As a reminder, the proposed blurb did say "announce they have killed", nothing more. Ho hum, I'll take my "fuckpot comment"s away from this nom right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An appearance would be a disproof, that's what they normally do. There are ongoing DNA tests on Zeid's corpse. This should be posted once either claim is verified since it's the wider military action that makes this notable. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed France 24 is reporting the death of Zeid has been confirmed,[8] but that of Belmokhtar is being denied. I have created an updated altblurb and suggest we post that now. It can be updated if Belmokhtar's death is confirmed. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major milestone in an ongoing conflict, and I'm taking the confirmation on good faith. Good, timely article which is exactly the sort of content we should be highlighting. Modest Geniustalk21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opposition to the posting, but I think it would be a good idea to directly state that it's Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in the blurb, rather than simply having that become clear in the link. AQIM is a separate organization from what most people think of when they hear "Al-Qaeda", being a formerly completely-different group which (to use a crude analogy) was given a license to use the Al-Qaeda "brand" for the terroristic equivalent of "marketing." I therefore move that the blurb be changed to "AQIM confirms..." rather than "Al-Qaeda confirms..." for reasons of accuracy. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer using "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" instead of AQIM, since I don't think the latter is a well-known abbreviation. Would it start with "The Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb confirms..." or "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb confirms..."? SpencerT♦C06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hugely opposed, but it's extremely wordy and the press is certainly just saying AQ in their headlines. I don't think there's any huge damage done to our readers with a concise piping as is. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update A search of "belmokhtar confirmed" at google news is giving only 4 and 5 day old articles "unable to confirm". μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Unfortunately police violence is quite common both in South Africa and other nations; I would be willing to support if major riots or other demonstrations occur because of this. SpencerT♦C16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The article is sufficiently updated. This seems more notorious than notable. The video makes it unusual but "lurid" is not one of the ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (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.
Something like this (the debt ceiling, the financial cliff) seems to happen every other month now. I'll abstain from !voting this time because I've made a concious effort not to follow the news for this tiresome iteration. LukeSurltc16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. US financial health has big consequences for the world economy. As LukeSurl indicates, there has been a whole row of mostly Republican-manufactured debt-crisises, so you could argue that it is "standard". But since this one seems to actually go into effect, unlike the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis which it is an extension of, I think it is news. Thue (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the article needs expansion in the Economic effects section, as that is what makes the sequester a big deal. GDP information is given, but it would be really nice to see how this will affect the debt to GDP ratio in the article. In addition, how will this affect scientific/technological research? UPenn is reporting a 34-42 million dollar hit [10]. When you extrapolate that over all of the universities receiving federal funding (of course, many universities are receiving less currently), it's a massive hit to research in the country. RyanVesey16:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a law that was passed two years ago by the Congress and the President. Its going into effect is not news. If there's some sort of major settlement we could possibly post that, when it happens. Listing it before something happens would be like announcing nightly that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The impact of sequestration is not immediate. Things will simply go wrong economically at a steeper trajectory than if Congress hadn't come up with this stupid idea two years ago </soapbox> – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congress passes bills for the president to sign. Don't want a bill, don't ask the president to sign it. Don't like the bill you were given, don't sign it. It doesn't matter, but hey. --IP98 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the nominator hopes for this to be taken seriously, it would help if we knew what is to be/has been sequestered by whom from whom. Some sort of blurb suggestion might have helped achieve that. A brief glimpse at the article gives the impression that some country or other is experiencing budget cutbacks. I think most countries have had the same, and reject the suggestion that we should post one among so many. Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"No biggie" is blatantly wrong. We're looking at a decrease in the GDP growth rate from 2% to 1.5%. There are some reports of a drop to 1%. $85 billion in cuts is not "no biggie". RyanVesey20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose posting this as I said, but I very much agree with Ryan and disagree with those saying "no biggie". This is potentially devastating economically, though not in a way that lends itself to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could link the studies that show the potential impact, which would be severe, but then I might start thinking about my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We posted austerity measures passing in Spain or Italy or the UK or some EU country or other as part of last years "OMG EU debt is supr newz" craze. I would have supported the US version of the same thing if the fiscal cliff had actually taken full effect, instead of being turned into this last minute piece meal drama-a-thon. We'll likely have another round of debt ceiling sillyness later this year, and without a clear cut event to post, there is nothing really suitable for a blurb. --IP98 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supportiff it happens, but oppose if a deal is done. Significant austerity measure in a major economy. Obviously we would need an informative blurb and an updated article, which will probably take a while as deadline passes and the reactions roll in. Modest Geniustalk22:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cuts are 85,000 million dollars out of a 1,100,000 million dollar deficit, less than 2% of the entire budget, and they have been scheduled for a year and a half-plus. While the entire budget is 20% bigger than it was when Obama took office. This is hardly news, just politics, and bad politics. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Dozen or more dead when the Malaysians, who were besieging a village that was taken over by the members of the Sultanate of Sulu, who were claiming Sabah as part of their possessions. The Malaysians were still paying "rent" to the sultanate, which had previously ceded the North Borneo dispute to the Philippine government. --–HTD12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do believe the standoff has ended; at least that is what the police were saying in the article I read earlier today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Late last night there were reports of 15 dead (12 from the Sulu sultanate and 2 from the Malaysian police) but I guess they've sorted things out already. Reworded the blurb. –HTD04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe drop the "multiple-week-long" from the blurb? It seems a little long to me. Or it could be fine. Just IMO. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I think the blurb should be revised so that it differentiates the group attempting to assert dominance over the affected regions from the actualSultanate of Sulu. Casual readers may be confused as to how a 19th century sultanate is currently embroiled in a conflict with the Malaysian government when it apparently hasn't existed as an independent state of any sort since 1917. Worse yet, a simple glance at the blurb might create the false impression that there is currently a self-governing entity known as the Sultanate of Sulu — for instance, people may walk away believing that it is an autonomous territory within the modern state of Malaysia. Kurtis(talk)10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the blurb. Let me know if there are further problems with it (an article rename would not require the blurb to change). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's proper to call them rebels. "Invaders" may be a more valid word but that's putting too much credit on them. It's more proper to call them a "private army". –HTD17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ammar Harris, a suspect wanted in connection with a shooting and following car crash that killed three people and wounded five others on the Las Vegas Strip, is detained in Los Angeles, California. (BBC)(KLAS-TV)
Nominator's comments: Largest flare up of violence in Bangladesh in some time. Protest is likely to continue for days and have lasting repercussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Issues I could support this, but it has multiple major issues. The 22 deaths mentioned in the lead are not referenced in any updated article--the real headline here is Delwar Hossain Sayeedi sentenced to death. That article is very poorly written, often not in grammatical English. I'd attempt to improve the style, but given the rapid competing edits of partisans, I am unsure it would be unwasted effort. The article has a neutrality tag. That tag should probably be removed since there is no discussion or explanation of it at talk. Without the 22 deaths being referenced here or in another article I am loathe to invest the time. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus should be on 2013 Shahbag protests rather than on the individual because the aims of the movement is far broader than merely protesting against the war crimes, the movement aims at reversing the increasing religious radicalisation of politics. The blurb also skews the news in favor of the convict, because the original protests started demanding death penalty for war criminals. Tehelka has dealt with the issue in detail [12]. Furthermore the 2013 Shahbag protests is unique in recent South Asian political history. I would like to propose an alternative blurb: Thousands protest in Bangladesh demanding death penalty for war criminals.LegalEagle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the proposed altblurb is that the protests started Feb 5 and aren't "in the news" per se. The sentencing of Sayeedi and the resulting violence is what is in the news today. I have no problem with using 2013 Shahbag protests as the bolded target (avoiding the mess of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi would be good) and/or using a different blurb, but whatever is used the blurb must reflect current developments to the story . --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you on the proposed alt blurb and support it. However I do disagree that the protests are not in the news, unfortunately the mainstream media attention has been patchy (though a google news search bound by dates would give close to 600 news item from Feb 5). The protests have not captured the imagination of western media like Tahrir square did, but an independent objective evaluation/comparison (in terms of aims, number of protests, number of days etc.) would show that the 2013 Shahbag Protests can become a pivotal point in the history of Bangladesh and South Asia. -- LegalEagle (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the 2013 Shahbag protests if it had the minimum update for the current violence and met notability. I would also support Delwar Hossain Sayeedi upon execution if he had a leadership role in the military at that time. Sort of a prison camp guard vs prison camp commander debate. Yes, I realize there were no camps, but I'm just trying to get the point across. --IP98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the altblurb over the first one. But both articles still need major work. I went to the Shahbag article to see if it was ready, and found the lead an incomprehensible jumble. I tagged it and have suggested how to improve it on the talk page. If someone with knowledge of the general issues can give the a better division into sections I will be happy to address other issues like grammar, etc. As it is now I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to 2013 Bangladesh protests to reflect their wider scope. This still needs lots of work, but it should go up. Question do the non-bold links in a nomination have to meet the same standards as the main link? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I have gone through the article up to the lead sentence of the "International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) of 2010" section. The ITN nominator might like to show a little good faith support towards updating/cleaning/prepping his nomination at this point. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Faith Thaddeus seems to have made various good faith improvements to the article. But there are still various uncited references, and the entire article has not yet been reviewed. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect article is not the requirement for ITN posting. The article meets the requirements as is, and the update itself is well cited. Of course you are allowed/encouraged to make whatever improvements you see fit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready I strongly support getting this posted, and I and others have put a lot of work into it. But large portions of the article, especially from the ITC 2010 section down, are not in grammatical or even readable English. For example, "We take the oath that we will remain vocal both on the streets and online until politics of war criminal Jamaat-Shibir is not banned and nationality of their members not cancelled." This really needs to be addressed before posting. (One possibility is hiding sections until they are fixed.) I want this posted, but not as is. (Sorry about the accidental blanking on my last attempt at this edit.) μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have hidden and deleted a lot of material, but I still haven't gotten up to the "Development of protests" section. Some help improving, deleting or hiding below that point would be good. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready: Between μηδείς and my own efforts, a huge amount of unsourced and random crap has been removed from the article & everything has been copyedited. The article should now be good enough to post by any reasonable standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready --agreed, there are some citation needed tags but they are new and should be allowed to stand a bit. This is not perfect but it is quite ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post Please there is support for this without opposition and a lot of work was put into bringing the article up to snuff. Can we either have this posted or an explanation why not? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb on the main page reads: In Bangladesh, widespread protests result in more than 50 deaths after Islamist politician Delwar Hossain Sayeedi is convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death. The article which it links to is the Shahbag Protests. In my opinion the blurb is misleading. The Shahbag protests are completely peaceful, it is the counter protests which are violent and have caused the deaths. I think the blurb needs a rework so that it reflects the news properly. LegalEagle (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (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.
Strong support. An event unparalleled in the last 600 years. While Benedict's announced intention to resign was posted some weeks ago, the throne of St. Peter becoming empty (sede vacante) is a world historic event in its own right. This proposed item is about the situation after the resignation. Note: Not to be posted before 20:00 Central European TimeMocctur (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on rarity, reader interest, and equivalency to head of state. Suggest the nominator get working on the update so this is ready at the appointed time. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt: The Pope is a head of state, and is unique in being a subject of international law personally, a status held by noone else. What this means is that a state no longer has a head of state, the world's largest church no longer has a leader, and a unique subject of international law no longer has an officeholder. Mocctur (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sympathetic to the supports and opposes here. The bottom line for me is that this is of huge reader interest, and that a vacant see with a live ex-pope is an even rarer event than the Chelyabinsk meteor. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose, the throne of St. Peter becoming empty is hardly an unparalleled event. It happens every time the Church has to pick a new pope, most recently in 2005. This update is basically "Benedict XVI officially steps down", when we've already posted his resignation. Resolute18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't remember if we posted his resignation. If we did, then oppose this, if we didn't, then I support this as a suitable blurb could notify our readers of the significance of the first papal resignation in over 600 years.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Death or abdication is irrelevant. We posted his resignation. We'll post again when there is white smoke. There is absolutely no reason to post incremental updates in the process. --IP98 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before Mocctur so inappropriately refactored my comment, I opposed this nomination on the basis that we had already posted the resignation. I still do, only moreso. Strong oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "refactored", are you referring to the part where he was resolving an edit conflict? You posted in a section that he deleted just seconds before your comment went through. His reversion of your edit was a, no the, reasonable action to take and I see no reason to subtly accuse him of malintent. -- tariqabjotu18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on rarity, but I dunno how you can write a ITN-size update without getting accused of WP:RECENTISM... and if it's even possible to write one when he basically rode a helicopter to his summer home to stay there once his apartment is up to standard. –HTD19:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps wait for the beginning of the Papal conclave, 2013, and use that as the main article? We already featured his resignation once already, so a bit silly to feature the exact same thing again. Thue (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support How can this not be mentioned? This is the first time in 600 years that a Pope has resigned. Yes, we covered his resignation a few weeks ago. And yes, we will have a new Pope in a few weeks. For those who are opposing based upon that, consider how many articles we have about the Olympics every two years? But this is a MAJOR story line of more or less unprecedented level. I guarantee you that every major news outlet will have this on their main page. It doesn't matter if the site is US, British, German, French or what have you. None of those sites is thinking, "Gee we don't want to over cover this event, better bury it in section D." This is THE story of the day. About 1/5 of the world is Catholic, so it is far reaching.38.100.76.228 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Olympics can get a few more blurbs: the ice hockey final is at ITNR, and some notable feats make it to ITN too. Then again, there had been 56 modern Olympic Games in the last 607 years, as compared 2 papal resignations... –HTD15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, prefer a snipette that indicates the upcoming conclave. I think most people who are going to look into this are going to wonder "what's next?" How/When will the next pope be selected?50.201.228.200 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Note, so as not to be mistaken for a different user, this is the same person that posted 4 minutes ago 38.100.73.228. Guess my IP changes with every post.74.124.47.11 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three step posting is not something I could envisage supporting for any succession, no matter how unusual. This is as much an inevitable consequence of the resignation as an inauguration is of a presidential election. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The announcement by the pope that he would retire was news enough. We don't need blow-by-blow updates. We are not a news organisation. Nothing to report until the new guy is announced. --RA (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that we posted the announcement, I think we are missing the point here, it is the top news story around the world. There will be a large number of pepole coming to WP to find information on the process, to have no easy link from the main page is just silly and reflects poorly on us, this is a case that we invoke WP:IAR and post a link, maybe only for a day or so. LGAtalkedits20:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is, when we posted the abdication, it was obvious he was going to abdicate. And that a new pope would be chosen. Right now, nothing whatsoever has changed from that position. The pope has now resigned. We now wait for a new one. What is the significance (in addition to the original abdication) of today? In a few days we'll be posting "new pope" news, after all...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we restrict Oscars and Olympics and various obscure sports to one post each every year, that is fine with me. Not having the no 1 news story of the year on the front page, an unprecedented case, is just ridiculous. As pointed out, no article will have more readers than Pope Benedict XVI today, and maybe even this year. Mocctur (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That few days may be as long as a month. There is no solid time frame. As for Rann's argument that this is no different than a president stepping down. Yes it is. First, the number of people impacted is significantly larger. Second, this is more or less unprecidented in modern history. Third, usually when a president steps down, the VP assumes the role as a result. Here it is unknown. This is THE biggest news story of the day---ever credible/reliable news source has decided to carry it on their main/front page because of how big it is. Nobody else is worried about the fact that it will be news again in a few weeks---do you have any doubt that when this year is over, this will be one of the 10 biggest news stories of the year? Possibly the biggest. As such, people are going to various pages to see what is going on. They come to WP for the same reason; but with the hope of getting a more neutral view than some of the main sites. I find it incredulous that it is even up for debate. [same IP as above regardless of how WP types it]38.100.76.228 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because there's no new news to report here. We had a post that said "Benedict would resign on February 28" There's no need to post a second time that says "Yup, just like we said he would, well, he did". When a new pope is elected by the conclave, then we'll have something new to report. --Jayron3220:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why on Earth would we post this? The fact that he resigned makes it inevitable there would be sede vacante. The only thing to post would be the new pope, and perhaps the start of the Conclave. Fgf10 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose 331dot said it exactly, and so did Fgf10. We knew there would be a vacancy. There was a brief one after John Paul II died too. Did that not count as a sede vacante? I'm no expert on The Church. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every papacy is followed by a period of sede vacante, as the papacy never moves to another pope automatically (like, say, a peerage might). GRAPPLEX22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Big news, yes, but only as recurring coverage of the exact same story we've already posted. We'll have a new pope soon enough to post, so it's not like we're leaving the issue alone. But this would just be a repost of the "Benedict abdicates" posting. GRAPPLEX22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted the announcement of his resignation, and we will certainly post the vote for his successor. Two listings in a few weeks is plenty, there's no need for a third one. Modest Geniustalk23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We already had a listing when Benedict resigned. This story would only be 'holding copy' for the press... some news to fill the blank pages pending the conclave deliberatation. Best wait until a new pope is elected, when we can rely on definitive copy. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke01:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same difference. We don't need to post his impending resignation, then his actual resignation, then the start of the conclave, the deliberations of the conclave, the selection of the successor, the installation of the successor, etc. etc. Every step of the process is not an ITN worthy item. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for another posting on this subject until the white smoke appears. Canuck89 (converse with me) 03:07, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - It look's like the resignation story isn't going to be adopted. Sorry Benny 16, when you're out, you're out. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We did post the resignation: here. If you felt it should have been posted now and not when the statement was made, you should have suggested doing so then(and some did, but not enough for consensus). 331dot (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would have been better to post this than to post the anouncment. But we did post the announcement, and we are going to have to post when the new pope is elected. Taemyr (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_02_(cropped).jpg)
.svg)