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).
Nominator's comments: This bombing occurred near the location of the April bombing. It is unknown who the perpetrators were, but some sources allege that Boko Haram are behind the bombing. Andise1 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong support
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?
Article looks good now. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of news in the last few days and this story is now stale. Please renominate it when Gulzar officially receives the award and I'll be happy to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I know its late.. I am the only one who was working on the article and i dont have computer. So its tough to do it from mobile. Award ceremony is on May 3. Should I renominate on the same day? Regards -Nizil (talk)
Renominated Gulzar recieved the award. Blurb changed. -Nizil (talk)
Support Really strong article, major improvements made since last nomination. Well referenced, major award, nothing to be said in the negative for this one. --Jayron3217:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whatever, but what I'm saying is that instead of just saying "Gulzar wins award" it's worth introducing who Gulzar is, if it can be done succinctly, to provide context to our international audience. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My position is the complete opposite to that of ThaddeusB in the previous nom - if it was to go up it should have gone up then. Now it is stale - the determination of the winner is the more notable of the two elements compared to the mere formality of handing over the award. That is how we do the other events - the Noble prizes, sporting championships etc. For example we will always post the winner of the Formula 1 championships after the race when the winner has an unassailable lead, not when it is formally conferred at a swanky dinner long after the season is over. This nom strikes me as a second bite of the cherry on very dubious grounds. 3142 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This might be a bit premature, but anyway according to Reuters this "would mark a significant and symbolic military advance by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad" in a city once known as "capital of the revolution". --Mohamed CJ(talk)09:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this was one of the deadliest and longest-running battles in the war, and an end to this is certainly notable. So I will support, even if a ticker will be added. However, I think the blurb should be more descriptive than that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its hardly and end. theyve withdrawn to the suburbs...to think they wount regroup is silly. Also id support some form of a ongoing blurb instead...and since thsi is ongoing/updated we can link to this as part of the civil war
Also replaced POV for fact. (a la that blurb). When we posted the withdrawan from iraq we neever said obama's forces even though he is commander in chiefLihaas (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A 24-hour ceasefire deal is reached in Syria's city of Homs allowing rebels to withdraw from their last stronghold in the central city. (BBC News)(Reuters)
Attacks by suicide bombers on a security checkpoint and a civilian bus in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula as well as a separate bombing near a courthouse in Cairo killed at least four people. (The Washington Post)
The Armed Forces of Ukraine launch a military operation against separatists in the city of Sloviansk with claims of many deaths and two Ukrainian Army helicopters downed. In the port city of Odesa, violent clashes kill at least 42 people, as pro-Ukrainians set the pro-Russian headquarters on fire. (CNN)(BBC News)(Express)
Disasters and accidents
A landslide strikes the town of Hobo Barik in Afghanistan's Badakhshan province with at least 350 people dead and over 2000 people missing. (USA Today)(AP)
Helen, the eldest daughter of Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) murder victim Jean McConville, is prepared to name the people responsible for her mother's death, saying she no longer fears reprisals by republicans. (RTÉ News)
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: Major player in Formula 1 "Spygate" scandal. Death at relatively young age and unexpected. --Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Prior to December 2013, there had never been a locally-transmitted case of chikungunya in the Americas. Now there are 4000+ probable cases and 31000+ suspected cases across 14 Caribbean nations. CARPHA has just declared the disease epidemic across the entire Caribbean region. Article has been whipped into good shape, but of course more work is welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stale/Oppose. Cases of Chikungunya were reported spreading in the Caribbean a while ago. Nobody seems to have died. I'm not even sure this declaration is legit; [1]Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the first case was reported in December, but I hardly think that means the story is "stale". I doubt multiple RS would get a "epidemic" declaration wrong and now is as good of a time as any to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportpending article. Can;t remember if we posted the Washington landslide, but this appears to be 100 times worse in terms of missing and possible dead. - Floydianτ¢18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unquestionably what ITN is. Might suggest - depending on following coverage - this might be a topic for the ongoing tracker as they try to recover bodies (in a similar manner that it took the Oso mudslide to be resolved) --MASEM (t) 19:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as this is one of my first ITN noms, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "ongoing tracker"? Thanks, Matty.00719:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing line is brand new - see WT:ITN... I don't see any point discussing whether an item might on on ongoing when its blurb run is done ahead of time. Whether the story moves to "ongoing" will depend on if the story is still in the news at that time, something we can hardly know in advance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just throwing the idea out there. Obviously far too early to add now and may not be needed in a few days when this story will likely scroll off the main list, but hopefully we'll remember that this could go on there and review the situation then. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case the ongoing proposal was not clear, assessing whether a dropping item fits into "ongoing" is what admins should be doing every time they update the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously far more notable than the ridiculously frequent nominations we see for tornadoes in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, that comment is not necessary or helpful. There are a wide variety of levels of notability that make ITN. (And for the record, mud slides/avalanches in Afghanistan are roughly as common as tornadoes in the US). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we see so many more tornado nominations, all of them described as serious, major events, than Afghan mudslides? And a serious question, how can we judge which tornado nominations really ARE worth posting? They are all supported with the same level of hyperbole and weasel language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the tornado nomination, the consensus is that any natural disaster with >~20 deaths is worth posting. The frequency of the disaster type in the home country is not normally considered. If people have foolishly used hyperbole on some nominations, calling it "worst ever" or whatever when it wasn't then shame on them, but it almost certainly didn't matter to the nomination's success. The death toll alone is usually (always as far as I can remember) enough to post when it hits ~20. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Surely it is time to mention Ukraine ITN again. I think this is the first time the confrontation with the protesters can be characterized as straight-up war. Thue (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already covered within the Ukrainian unrest in the Ongoing ticker. I'd say at this stage of the unrest such events are expectable. Brandmeistertalk17:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to be a significant escalation, with Putin calling for all Ukrania troops to stand down in the south and east, and the downing of two helicopters. This is what's called a hot war, folks. It can always be put back on the ticker later. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb — Reuters reports "at least 42 killed" in Odessa on May 2. [2] See also Kyiv Post, "dozens killed." [3] Should be in ITN soonest. Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a version of the altblurb without the second bolding since it is orange tagged and there is active discussion on the article's talk page about neutrality issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 3 May 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.
Obituaries are coming out now though (which is where I saw it) - and he's still dead. This is RD so time isn't 'of the essence' IMO. We have the space and it's hard to overstate his importance - newspaper editors who go to prison for decades rather than compromise their editorial independence get bonus points with me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Latest event is suicide bombing with 18 killed including 11 children, and 50 injured (according to state media). Pro-opposition media reports 15 killed. Obviously this is one in a long series of actions by a range of belligerents, which shows no sign of coming to a conclusion any time soon. This nomination is for the new 'Ongoing' line at the bottom of ITN. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the agreed "ongoing" criteria is that the article should be receiving regular updates. That isn't (and shouldn't be) the case for the main article. The correct target, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January 2014–present), hasn't been created as whoever was doing the regular updates stopped in mid-December. Since a large part of the mission of ITN is to point to quality, updated content, and since "we aren't a news ticker", I must oppose unless someone creates and maintains a 2014 timeline article, or there is another appropriate target that is reguilarly updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. As for the regular updates point, by my count in the last two months the article has been updated to reflect 16 different events, two of them in the last week (not including this latest bombing, which has not yet been included). How regular do the updates have to be? Neljack (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've had far too many nominations fail, which normally would have been posted, on the basis of "not another Syrian story!" This will solve that. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support posting this even without a current timeline article. The main article has one yellow tag (too long to read comfortably) but otherwise there are daily updates and the article has almost 500 watchers. There is no question about notability. The UN has called the war the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of Cold War. Situation remains extremely flux and there are momentous events almost every day. Though if we post this, how long are we going to keep it up? If things remain as they are now the war could still go on for years. --hydrox (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I think the target article shouldn't be the far-too-hefty Syrian Civil War article. There's a tag at the top of that page recommending it be split down, and I agree, someone with a clue about relevant milestones in this area should carve the article up a little and we could have a newsworthy Ongoing article as a result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ford announces that their current chief executive officer, Alan Mulally, will be retiring in July, and that their chief operating officer Mark Fields will be taking his place. (BBC News)
Articles:KV40 (talk·history·tag) and [[KV62]] ([[Talk:KV62|talk]] · [{{fullurl:KV62|action=history}} history] · [{{fullurl:Talk:KV62|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/note&preloadtitle=In+the+news+nomination§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=%3Cstrike%3EKV62%3C%2Fstrike%3E}} tag]) Blurb: A replica of King Tutankhamun's (pictured) KV62 is inaugurated in the Valley of the Kings, while more than 50 royal mummies are discovered in the KV40 tomb. (Post) Alternative blurb: More than 50 royal mummies are discovered in Egypt's KV40 tomb. News source(s):For the tomb: The GuardianBloombergCNN. For the mummies: National GeographicReutersInternational Business Times Credits:
Nominator's comments: The 3D-printed replica tomb is all I see in the news when I simply Google search "Egypt", so it appears to be notable in this field. It also triggered the government to increase Egypt's visa costs by two thirds in response.[5] The 50+ mummies discovered 4 days ago also appear to be notable and I thought adding this with the other story might warrant enough notability to the whole blurb. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Combining these his highly misleading. I had to re-read the nomination a couple of times to work out that there was no material connection between the (genuinely ancient) mummies and the (brand spanking new) tomb. And we don't just pile vaguely-associated ideas together until their aggregate notability propels them into ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well both are in the same location. I can propose an altblurd citing only one story if you insist that there's no link between them. It's just that I don't know which one to ignore. Note: Apparently, the replica wasn't entirely 3D-printed. The technology was just used in the process. Apologies if this was the case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support new discoveries in KV40 (notable and interesting discovery at a UNESCO world heritage site), Oppose replica KV62 (just another tourist attraction - useful in so far as it keeps tourism from destroying the real KV62, but I don't see much interest otherwise) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support just as Balaenoptera musculus says. Let's get an altblurb that focuses only on the new discoveries or a new nomination for just it.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I BOLDly struck the original blurb, which clearly does not have interest, so that we can ocus on teh story with potential. @AlexTiefling and HiLo48: please consider revising your !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A gas explosion in a prison in the US town of Pensacola, Florida reportedly kills at least two people, injures 100 and forces an evacuation. (BBC News)
The Sultan of Brunei has announced a controversial new penal code that will eventually include stoning, amputation and flogging as punishments, as 'Phase one' of Islamic law. (Al Jazeera)
Protesters in the Nigerian capital Abuja hold a "million woman" march over the mass kidnapping of schoolgirls by the Boko Haram terrorist group two weeks ago. (The Guardian)
Nominator's comments: Normally such a record would be shut down, but this feat is so outstanding (considering that the previous record was 61) that I really think it deserves to be ITN-featured. There are only around 50 players who have scored these many in their whole careers. For those not familiar with this field, I would dare to compare this to a soccer player scoring 100 goals in a season. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against posting incremental seasonal records in scoring sports such as when he got the #62 (even if it was soccer); that is unless the record is really notable for a landmark such as is the case here. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal is saying that nominations of this nature are routinely rejected, but that this one might be special enough to warrant posting anyway. Resolute23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's really what he's saying, he's not saying it very clearly, and therefore is distracting from his nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)×2 I read it as "Normally a nomination to post a sporting record like this on ITN would be quickly rejected. However this event is such a significant milestone and so much beyond the previous record that it is worth posting.", and to me at least Nergaal's latest comment backs up that interpretation. Maybe it's a variety of English thing? Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading it as referring to something internal, within the sport, like somehow preventing someone from scoring, and effectively therefore part of the story. But you're saying it isn't? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't part of the story. Snooker is turn-based, once someone is at the table there is no way to prevent them scoring if they pot a ball. The challenge is to leave the balls in such a position at the end of your turn that it is as difficult as possible for your opponent to legally pot a ball (ideally so difficult it is not possible at all). Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to say that normally breaking records in less-popular sports is usually a snow-oppose. In this case, the record is sufficiently outstanding to break through that lower threshold of popularity. Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that coverage is clear. This is being treated as significant and none of the opposes below are relevant, so I don't see a reason not to post. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen snooker played in a pub? I know I haven't. The Senior Conservative club, or perhaps the smoking room of the Dorchester, might be a different matter. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by these reactions. I have seen a bunch of random people play cricked on a side-walk, but that does not make a century record in cricket not notable. I am pretty sure that some of the snooker players these days beat ANY cricket players in terms of winnings and sponsorship. Please go check List of snooker millionaires for your self-education. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the cricked records, I would say that Tendulkar's record would be comparable to 1000 career centuries (i.e. not in a season) in snooker. Nergaal (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems to be a record that is actually cared about in the sport (unlike the last one of these) and not something that is likely to be beat any time soon. However, the article will need improved - the first two sections are basically unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a decent record and a sport which is highly under-represented given the global interest. Recent stories we didn't run have no effect at all on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This IS a great and unique achievement. I was puzzled by the nomination (and I still think the title isn't very helpful), but now I know what it is I'm all for it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems like a significant achievement, and a chance to post about a sport that we don't usually. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to admit that I didn't know the difference between pool and snooker before this nom but after looking at the sources it became quite clear that this is a significant and newsworthy achievement in the sport. AgneCheese/Wine22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Post-posting support Just wanted to mention I'm delighted to see this on ITN. Massive achievement in a popular sport, should be up there. Fgf10 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 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 - Too early. We do not even know if he is arrested really. If he is charged or found guilty of this murder then perhaps.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The arrest is news now(Adams also acknowledged he was arrested); any potential future action might not be, as much at least. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He has not been arrested for the murder, which implies he has subsequently been charged with it; he has been arrested in connection with the case. Even if a charge is brought, it could easily be for something like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It's further been suggested (by SF, admittedly) that the timing of this event is nakedly political. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying he is guilty or innocent; just that he was arrested. Notable political figures being arrested for alleged involvement in serious crimes is notable. It doesn't mean he did it. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the arrest is notable. I've written an altblurb to clarify that he has been arrested "in connection with" the murder (a standard phrasing in the UK at least) rather than arrested on suspicion of being the murderer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on BLP grounds Posting this will give a misleading impression to anyone not familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. An arrest in England does not have the same significance as an arrest in the US or other countries. Really all this boils down to is that Adams voluntarily went to the police and they arrested him so that he would have more rights when he was questioned. But how many readers are going to realise that when they see the blurb? It is an entirely routine step that in no way suggests that the police intend to charge him or indeed that they have any evidence against him. This article gives a good explanation about arrests in England.[6]. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that several of the support votes are based on factual inaccuracies, not surprisingly in light of the blurb. Adams has not been arrested "for murder" or even for "alleged involvement in serious crimes". Neljack (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Neljack. I don't believe we have ever posted a mere questioning by the police before, and for good reason - reporting questioning implies a level of guilt or at least strong suspicion, a serious BLP problem. No problem revisiting if/when he is charged with something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Total BLP violation as drafted. Wait to see if he is charged. Arrest is a technicality and, as written, implies far more than it is legitimate to imply at this stage. Leaky Caldron09:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which provision of WP:BLP does this violate? WP:BLPCRIME states that, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Gerry Adams does not fall into that category. I would be more inclined to oppose this on notability grounds. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP problem is that the blurb would convey a misleading impression to the majority of readers who aren't familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. Neljack (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Readers aren't stupid, and the UK legal system isn't as complicated as you are trying to make out, even for Americans. The police arrested him because they think he ordered this murder, and they have sufficient evidence to question him under caution - which is a decision that goes well beyond mere 'suspicion' (as a layman/tabloid news reader would understand that term). He had no choice about whether or not he was going to go the police station, and he certainly wasn't arrested because the bobbies were terribly concerned about protecting his rights, as a mere procedural concern. If anything, it shows his situation is worse than what sometimes happens when people are merely under 'suspicion', an actual voluntary interview. It means that, by law, everything he has said in the last 48 hours has been recorded, and will be used in a court of law if he ends up charged. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugely notable arrest. I am utterly baffled at the suggestion Wikipedia would be somehow damaging Adam's reputation by detailing on the front page what is already in his biographical article, and indeed across the world media. He got arrested in connection with a murder - it says exactly what it does on the tin, and is 100% true as written. And can we just clear up a few myths here? Being arrested in the UK means exactly the same as it does in the US - it means the police want to question you about something without you being able to leave if you don't like their questions. Yes, you have rights once you are under arrest, but the idea that UK police would choose to arrest you just to make sure you have those rights, is just nonsense. And in the UK, the only reason anyone ever turns up 'voluntarily' to a police station and then gets arrested once inside, is because the police let their solicitor know beforehand that they were going to be arrested soon, and it's up to them whether they want to save them the hassle and turn up at the station under their own steam, or have the police come out to arrest them and then (because in high profile cases like this they would always tip off the press about such an arrest) be snapped being led away from their house in handcuffs. Which is obviously the sort of bad publicity a politician like Gerry Adams would have wanted to avoid, even if it's true that he's 100% innocent. As for the 'connection' business and this idea that somehow this means he's not suspected of murder, come on - this is just standard press release terminology. The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it. He would get a life sentence if convicted, either way. The only useful thing that WSJ article says in relation to this, is to point out that the UK doesn't go in for plea bargains - so the news that he has been arrested means this story now has just three possible outcomes - either he gets released without charge, or he gets charged, tried, and found not guilty, or he gets charged, convicted, and sentenced to life. None of those outcomes can be described as not notable, not given how long he has been accused of being the leader of the IRA and of ordering this murder, hence there isn't really any reason to wait until something else happens before deciding whether to put it on the front page. The arrest is the notable event that set the wheels in motion on this story, everything else from now on is just a consequence. Lokie Dokie (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could say it's a combination of my bioligical make-up - two working eyes - and the fact I went to school and they taught me how to read. What's your excuse for pretending that he's been arrested for some other reason than ordering this murder? Do you have any basis for believing their motivation is something else, other than your own imagination? Lokie Dokie (talk)
This is an encyclopedia, not a saloon bar. We require sources, not speculation. You write an awful lot for someone who has misunderstood the law and is throwing accusations around. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what the hell do you think I was reading with my eyes, if it wasn't not sources? And what have I misunderstood about the law, exactly? Come on, tell us all .... if you're not going to substantiate your own opinions with any facts to believe your pet theory about what motivated this arrest, you might as well do something useful here. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it." So, the entire core of your argument is "He looks like the murderer to me, so let's just throw it up on the front page." 98.180.53.48 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading it again. The core of my argument isn't hard to fathom, but you got it quite spectacularly wrong. If anything, you've outlined the reason why many people are opposing - they seem to believe that the rest of the world is reporting right now that Gerry Adams is a murderer, and only Wikipedia is doing the right thing by completely ignoring it, protecting his reputation, which has of course been completely unsullied by any high profile accusations whatsoever up until now. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, point to a single reliable source that says that's why he's been arrested. We don't report speculation, especially of a serious matter like this. I hold no love for Mr Adams, but you're urging us on to post a headline which (in the first case) would be false, and in any case throws undue attention to what may be either a very early or a very minor stage of proceedings. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a damn good job Wikipedia doesn't report speculation, otherwise you'd probably be over at his biography adding all sorts of dubious nonsense to try and fool people into believing this arrest is for something other than the police suspect he ordered this murder. If you want to contradict that claim, which any intelligent perosn can put together with just a few seconds of research, then I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the source for that, because it's nonsense. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to get to the heart of the issue I have here with your view, it's not remotely speculation that Adams has been arrested 'in connection with' a murder. Anyone who even thinks about claiming it is, is obviously trying to mislead readers of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that right now Gerry Adams is wishing that being arrested in connection with a murder is a minor procedural matter in the UK, but I'm quite sure he and his solicitor know differently. As for this being undue attention, sure, right - that's why the arrest alone (with zero further developments to report) has been the headline news in Britain for two days now, and why it was the lead item on Newsnight. The clue's in the title. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply said, there's a long-standing consensus of only posting convictions. This is to avoid sensationalisation. Without knowing any of the details here, the police can generally arrest anyone on mere suspicions, so giving arrests very high visibility is troubling for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know any of the details, why are you even commenting? If Barack Obama was arrested 'in connection with' a murder tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered sensationalism to put it on the front page of Wikipedia. It would be extremely troubling if an encyclopedia completely ignored such a high profile arrest - and there's no real difference here. Unless you think it's a good thing for Wikipedia's reputation for it to be seen to be pretending Gerry Adams is a low profile individual, or that this is somehow the first time his name has been associated in a highly visible way with criminality. Christ, you'd be hard pressed to find a single serious news source in the last 30 years that was mentioning Gerry Adams that didn't point out that he is suspected of being a high ranking member of, if not the leader, of the IRA. And on that score, if all you needed to arrest people in the UK was mere suspicion, Gerry Adams would have had a very hard life indeed for the few decades. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is a difference between being arrested in connection with a murder the US and in the UK. Until he is charged with anything this is a "too early nomination. But I agree that if he is charged with murder this would definitely be something for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "without knowing any details" because I can't see anything here that would contradict the established procedure relating to criminal investigations and ITN. I don't think an MP is quite comparable to the acting head of state. There's no need to publicize the arrest, because we have the courts to make final decisions on all this, and we generally post each story only once to ITN. I am definitely sure that if he is convicted, it will be on the ITN. It's not about the notability of the person, but established procedure. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Established procedure suggests that someone of equivalent stature/importance has been arrested in connection with a murder before, and it was rejected. A claim I find hard to believe really. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb 1 is quite wrong. The alternative blurb seems correct but I think we should wait at least to see if he is charged with anything (I won't link to criminal charge because it doesn't apply here). BTW there is now Arrest of Gerry Adams which I suspect will get redirected or AFD'd before long. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This arrest (or rather, the fact he has now entered his second 24 hour period of detention), is the lead item on Newsnight tonight. That's not their ordinary news, that's their flagship current affairs programme. I'm watching it right now, and they seem pretty clear what this arrest was for. So, would someone here like to formulate an argument as to how Wikipedia is somehow more high-brow, more ethical, more reserved, more concerned about not maligning the reputations of innocent people, than Newsnight? Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Does that make you feel better about ignoring my criticisms of your theories about why the police arrested Adams? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one pushing a theory. I'm saying we shouldn't post your theory, for which you have been repeatedly asked to provide reliable sources, and you have not done so. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're pushing a theory - the theory that Adams has been arrested for something other than ordering this murder, and thus the implications of it are somehow less serious than the level and longevity of the news coverage it has got in the real world, in the serious media, would suggest. Therefore, your refusal to substantiate that belief at all, in any way, with any kind of source, is telling indeed. Anyone with a brain, even half a brain, can figure out what the source is for my 'theory' (that the 'connection' is that he ordered the murder), so I'm not going to waste my time by providing it here. Just like petulant toddlers shouldn't be rewarded for bad behaviour, specious requests for sources shouldn't be entertained on Wikipedia. Of course, I will offer you my profuse apologies if it turns out this arrest was for, say, simply not reportig to the police that he knew someone was going to commit this murder. I'm only saying that to put meat on just how ridiculous your view is. You might as well be saying this arrest might be for a parking ticket, for all the credence it carries. Lokie Dokie (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this discussion should be closed, as this is not going to be posted right now and there is no further need to draw this discussion out; I'm involved so I can't do it. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No further need? Right. So we can all just pretend that the above discussion is an accurate reflection of the UK legal system, or of the profile/reputation of Adams in public life? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query For those who think that this should only be treated as news by Wikipedia if he is charged, would any of you like to explain the logic behind that? A large proportion of his biography is devoted to the fact he has for many decades been suspected of being a terrorist, a claim which has been repeated in a high profile manner by a wide variety of respectable, ethical and cautious sources, as well as in his biography at the 'anyone can add libel' Wikipedia, the number 1 Google result for his name. Therefore, it seems to me that it takes quite an imagination to believe that it wouldn't be news if he were to be released without charge, having been arrested for, for all intents and purposes, being a terrorist. The only explanation for that would be if you completely misunderstood what being arrested in the UK actually signifies (which is likely, given what's already been claimed as fact in here). If he were to be released without charge, you can guarantee it would completely change the way both he and the press portrayed him, going forward. Similarly, given it's pretty damn obvious that he will be saying absolutely nothing to the police except 'no comment' during questioning, if he is then subsequently charged, what will have actually happened between then and now? The evidence will be the same, the man's reputation will still be the same, his protestations of innocence would still continue, I would have thought, so really, to an outside observer, what would they think was the thing that changed your minds about the significance/newsworthiness between arrest and charge? I am trying really hard to find any kind of logic behind this opposition, and it's just not there. The only thing that holds any water is the claim of precedent, yet I would have thought that Gerry Adams was by far the most famous person arrested in Wikipedia's short life, at least for a serious crime like murder anyway, and certainly if restricting it further to just significant political leaders (obviosly I'm only talking about the jurisdictions where arresting political opponents on invented charges is not considered a legitimate part of the democratic process). Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close I'll agree that this needs attention in so far as we have a more than two-to-one consensus opposing the nomination, and a sockpuppet now posting his wall of text on the issue. I'd do it myself, but I am sure someone else will agree this is no longer productive in any way. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this looks like a sockpuppet; the relative fluency and immediate arrival at a comparatively obscure discussion page are deeply suspicious. Unfortunately, it looks like one can't start WP:SPI without two accounts to compare. Do you have any idea whose hand is in the sock? I am unfortunately clueless. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gerry Adams was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and technically could be held for up to 28 days. If questioning is to continue beyond 8pm today (48 hours after the arrest), however, the Police Service of Northern Ireland must seek authorisation from a judge, who must also decide how many additional days Addams can be held. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:10, 2 May 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.
I did a little to update the article (obviously no where near as much as Bloom), and added myself to the updater, but please can someone tell me if I should remove myself? Thanks, Matty.00717:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although death toll is relatively low, it's a high-profile attack in a sensitive region that made headlines worldwide. Bloom6132 and Matty.007 should be commended for producing the well written article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 2 May 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.
I don't see just the elections taking place as worthy posting. I prefer waiting until results are announced and then add "for the first time since American troops have withdrawn" at the end of the blurb. Mohamed CJ(talk)16:43, 30 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: Hoskins was a well known English actor, who appeared in many films and won several awards for his performances including a BAFTA and Golden Globe. --JuneGloomTalk12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to add this, clicked edit and there it was! Totally support, the news has only just broken but has come from the agent of the actor himself. Miyagawa (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It's good to Support" (quoting from a line of one of his TV adverts), considering he was one of the best known British actors at the time and disagree with BabbaQ because he was then. Donnie Park (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose Really? I don't usually bang the "systemic bias" drum, but we're talking about an English actor who is not known as one of the leaders in his field. Meanwhile, people of greater importance from less covered nations can't get enough support. Just because you recognize the person who died doesn't mean they belong on RD. /minirant – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. Also I looked at his career and awards and he is clearly notable enough in his field for RD, in my mind. You have validity in your mini rant though :P Somchai Sun (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"winning the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for his role in Mona Lisa" Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to this being posted - it seems from the tributes I've read and the awards he received that there is at least a reasonable case that he meets the death criteria - but I do question whether it should be posted less than an hour and a half after it was nominated. In the case of a famous person dying you may get people flocking to post their supports upon hearing the news just after the death has been announced, while those who might oppose may not be coming here to comment upon hearing it (or might not have heard it, particularly if they are in a different country). I think this is a particular risk in relation to be people from popular culture, whose fame often outstrips their significance. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd support this nomination, but posting it 90 minutes after nomination is not a good look, as with another recently. GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be a no brainer. He may be not be Anthony Hopkins or Al Pacino, he's certainly notable enough for RD. As for this being posted "too soon," minimum posting times have been proposed before and rejected each time. Calidum22:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given the number of much more worthy candidates he pushed off the ticker. Otherwise support, even if he wasn't worthy to tie Andy Griffith's shoestrings. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the magnitude of my oppose was directly proportional to the number he pushed overbourd, and still is. You are not going to trick me with your fancy maths. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 2 May 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.
Support The article update is minimal but probably appropriate for this sort of RD nomination. A very influential figure in American culture of the 70s and 80s, with spillover to other English-speaking countries. GoldenRing (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe AV Club has said "[his] tenure as the editor of Mad Magazine transformed it from a goofy comic book curiosity into arguably the most influential satirical voice of the 20th century." Worth a mention. Smurrayinchester10:54, 3 May 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 parochial racist gets caught. It happens. Just because this particular racist is an NBA commissionerowner, doesn't make it better or worse or more or less newsworthy, just more disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is notable not so much for the reason Sterling was punished but the fact that he was; this doesn't happen every day. This is getting significant international coverage, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are team owners frequently given lifetime bans, though? And are potentially forced to sell their team? I might not support if this was a player or fan, but owners seem different. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying this shouldn't be a story, you might be right, but it is nevertheless, and in many places it is a top or near-top page story. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - certainly in the news here. While I see it as a huge overreaction to what I don't perceive as racism but rather a sad useless old man more concerned with his own public image than stamping it out, it's still a rare event in North America for a top league team owner to be forcefully removed and fined for remarks, let alone remarks recorded in a private conversation. - Floydianτ¢19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe team owners were involved with that(and those were not lifetime bans from the sport). As I told TRM, I probably would not support if this was a player. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the biogenesis ITN was relevant, it had an impact on the game, on the results etc, this is just an old man talking crap, blown up because he happens to be an NBA owner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the Biogenesis scandal was posted, I oppose—apparently this isn't the first time he's done this. He was also investigated and sued in 2006 by the U.S. Dept. of Justice for much more than the current fine levied by the NBA. He was again sued in 2009 for employment discrimination. I see no difference between these previous lawsuits, investigations, etc. and the current instance. Just because the NBA finally realizes that he's racist and takes action does not make this story notable in any way whatsoever. 184.146.110.224 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lifetime ban for an owner is unusual for North American sports. The story is very much in the news right now. Calidum20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basketball isn't a major sport in the UK, but the story is well reported over here. Significant enough that we ought to feature it on ITN methinks. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose arbitrary action by private entity acting as a law unto itself that will be played out in the courts. Not like he shot his girlfriend through the bathroom door--which we still haven't posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Private entities can levy whatever sanctions or punishments upon their members or employees that they see fit, for any reason that is not illegal or against a contract; I don't see why that is a reason to prevent posting this. I haven't read about any pending court cases in this matter yet. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sears can ban you from its auto repair shop, but it can't bill you $2.5M and force you to sell your car because you told your girlfriend not to cavort with the pit crew. This will go to court, when it does we can post the results. Until then it's a private entity with a tort claim against a living person. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NBA has a Constitution which allows these sorts of actions, which the owner would have to agree to abide by. The fine is the maximum allowed per that document. Sears doesn't make you abide by its constitution to be a customer. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I assume you don't actually understand the point I am making? Or that you simply disagree and there's some issue of psychological gratification or compulsion behind continuing this? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can assume whatever you wish. It is of little concern to me, just as any assumptions I would make about you are of little concern to you, I assume. I've moved on from this. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major scandal/resulting action at the highest level in the world's best league in a popular sport. Has relevance beyond its setting. Radagast (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The story is unique based on the reaction, not just the racist statements themselves. President Obama commented,[8], major business sponsors pulled out[9], and league took the extreme response of publicly stating they will seek to force an owner to sell.[10]—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless wiki-content improved. This is a hard one. There is nothing that significant about this story really. People get banned from commercial establishments all the time. The president commented, okay, and a very sizeable fine was given by the league. I could weakly support this on those merits, but the wiki-content here is very slim (three paragraphs, and who is "V. Stiviano"?) --hydrox (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parochial racist gets caught. Oh, somebody already said that. It happens in my country too. Never hit ITN before though. Why is this one important? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's certainly "in the news", but I don't know if this rises to the level of importance to be featured on ITN. Canuck89 (have words with me) 02:15, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For me it is straddling the line between a business story and celebrity tittle-tattle. I might be tempted to support the former but clearly not the latter. My position was decided when I read of the supposed "sanctions" that had been applied - he is forbidden from even making contact with any NBA player. Does anyone think that that would be legally enforceable? Or even constitutional? It's not unusual for people to claim authority for actions that they do not possess, but without a rational analysis of what these claimed sanctions mean in reality it has to be an oppose. 3142 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be legally enforceable? The NBA can decide who is at its facilities and games and who can communicate with its employees/members. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your employer does not have the right to direct "You will not meet X. They certainly don't have the right to determine whom a third party may or may not contact. Attempting to do so would probably fall under freedom of association making this action utterly meaningless. 3142 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of association only means that the government cannot make such a restriction; private entities like the NBA can tell its owners who they can and cannot associate with, or ban them from their property. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several opposes are saying that this happens all the time without giving any examples. This is the owner of an NBA team banned for life for attending NBA games including those of the team he owns, for racist behaviour. I'd like to see someone post an apples-to-apples analogous event. It's not just some random fan banned for life for hooliganism. And it's a lifetime ban, not just a ban for 5 or ten matches or whatever.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to side with Rambling Man. A significant story, but very much a local interest event. It may well be big in America, and I appreciate the coverage may be more intense over there, it's just the coverage elsewhere barely goes beyond a headline. Parochial it very much is. doktorbwordsdeeds06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a "local interest event", this is getting a lot of worldwide coverage. The NBA has players from around the world, not just the US. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that anon who was saying the UEFA Champions League quarterfinals has to get in because it's the biggest sporting event of the moment? Yes, it was the biggest sporting event of the moment, but even BBC Sport's World Sport made this their banner story instead of Real Madrid's thrashing of Bayern. Perhaps if Bayern put up a fight it wouldn't be the case, but in almost cases of a Champions League game day, it's usually the lead story in that program. Not so this time. And that's BBC, in a country where basketball isn't popular. –HTD09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A day after Sterling banishment, this is still a fixture in BBC's sport program. This is remarkable. The BBC almost never covers basketball, and has an endless stream of football, rugby and cricket, the second followed in about 15 countries, the latter followed in about ten countries, but virtually ignored elsewhere. This pretty much shows that "the lack of interest" argument is complete and utter bullshit. –HTD23:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am puzzled by the opposition to this. Like Johnsemlak I would like to see some examples of this "happening all the time" as is claimed. This is also getting lots of news coverage around the world, including in the big basketball nation of India (see above). Pardon the sarcasm, but this clearly is not a "local" story. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, when was the last time an owner of a sports team was ever banned, and is now at the point where the league is forcing him to sell due to non-sporting reasons. Has that ever happened? –HTD08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm asking. A sports owner being forced to sell on reasons other than sports is unusual. As for being the first, at least on this circumstance, of course it does! First African American baseball player, first man on the moon, heck even the British man to win Wimbledon since Fred Perry was important. This isn't "the first person to say racist remarks", this was the "first sports owner to be stripped of his ownership because of saying racist remarks". Forcefully stripping an owner of his team is something that has to be rare, even for other reasons. –HTD09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the sort of equivalent league I know most about, the Australian Football League, most clubs aren't privately owned. But particularly after Nicky Winmar made a point in 1993 of showing racist members of the crowd his dark skin, the league cracked down on almost anything racist by almost anyone associated with the game, even including spectators. It's been a very successful program. Perhaps the significance of this is that American basketball might be finally catching up with the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, cracking down on spectators and even players should be easy. Cracking down on owners, not so much. At least American sporting events don't have regular occurrences of fans throwing bananas at the playing field, or have Athletic Bilbao's "policy" of only using players from their place. –HTD12:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see this as a notable development. And, 331, you've said your bit. There is a limit to how often you need to repeat it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unsolicited advice; however, like everyone else here, I will make whatever comments I deem appropriate to make. Feel free to ignore them. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad the Grizzlies left Vancouver. Just wait until the Euros get their own franchises... if players can put up daily transatlantic flights. –HTD16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a bit disappointing how most of the oppose rationales basically boil down to WP:IDHT. For instance, the claims of "local interest" are clearly contradicted by the numerous international news sites included in the nomination header. It's one thing to oppose this on the grounds that it's receiving disproportionate coverage for what it is, but at least make the opposes valid.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basketball is not that popular in the UK where I happen to dwell (though I am a Lakers fan - sorry if that offends anyone), however it has been all over the news here, mostly from people debating the racist comments this guy made - but racists get exposed for what they are all the time. That isn't notable. What's notable is that this guy has been banned for life from the NBA, been given the maximum fine possible and will more than likely be forced to sell his shares in the Clippers. That is news whether you like it or not...--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even those who are fans of the sport would struggle to name the owners of NBA teams. The reason for his removal is unusual, but it's still just a change in back-room staff for a sporting team. That's just not significant enough in my book. Modest Geniustalk13:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning on the fence on this, but it is definitely more than just a "change in back-room staff". The ironic thing is that I suspect that a weaker action from the NBA would have been ITN worthy for the fallout that would have occurred. The NBA was on the verge of open revolt because of Sterling. Anything less than a lifetime ban was going to be trouble. Overall though, this is one of those stories that makes me wish ITN had separate tabs for things like sports, politics and general news. It is one of those mid-tier stories that could be posted in a secondary tab. Resolute14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with BabbaQ above, it's just a national story. Granted, Wikipedia is mostly read by US users, but there may be more newsworthy material than this waiting to be posted. Küñall (talk) 03:59, 1 May 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.
More than 50 royal mummies have been discovered by Egyptian and Swiss archeologists in the newly opened KV40 tomb in Egypt's Valley of the Kings. (National Geographic)
Microsoft announces a major vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11 that could enable hackers to gain access and user rights to its customers' computers. (BBC News)
The search area for the missing aircraft in the southern Indian Ocean is expanded with any debris likely to be found on the ocean floor with the minimum time anticipated for the search eight months. (TV New Zealand)
U.S. RepresentativeMichael Grimm is taken into federal custody on charges relating to a failed restaurant business and allegations that he made false statements. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: U.S. and U.K. governments (and their respective agencies: Dept. of Homeland Security and Computer Emergency Response Team) have issued advisories to avoid using Internet Explorer until fixed. The bug could lead to "the complete compromise" of an affected system. --70.26.173.33 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly cynical comment Having ceased support for Windows XP a month ago, if Microsoft wanted to even more persuade customers to upgrade to a new OS now, a massive security flaw in XP that wasn't going to be fixed would be a great strategy, wouldn't it? Also, I'd like to see a technical source from with the IT world, as well as those more business and public oriented ones. Something that told us more about the real nature and seriousness of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However much it pains me to say so, HiLo is correct that IE is a feature of WIN8, not a separate program. Just go ahead and try to delete it using uninstall from your control panel. You can deactivate it following a purposefully arcane process that has nothing to do with any actu deinstallation. It will still be there. They tell you you can then "reinstall" it. It doesn't reinstall fresh, it simply reactivates the deactivated files already on your hard drive. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo was talking about XP, not Windows8. That he can't tell the difference between an operating system and a bundled program that runs on the OS is probably something to do with our systematic bias. Stephen10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, hard words, but thanks for a good laugh anyway. Note that, while I don't think IE was ever essential to XP kernel-land, it is not possible to entirely uninstall IE from XP ([11], [12]) because Microsoft (deliberately to make it hard to remove?) tied it into some fairly basic user-land desktop components. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a flaw in your logic - your suggestion would be more plausible if the flaw only hit IE versions 6 - 8, i.e. the ones that XP supports. Then if you were very cynical you could assume Microsoft might be trying to get them to upgrade. However, since in this case it is apparently present in all versions of IE right up to the latest then upgrading to Win7 or 8 wouldn't make any difference, if anything it might turn people off upgrading by showing the same vulnerabilities exist in all the versions of Windows. I think that was what Stephan was trying to get across. 92.30.133.120 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Whether or not one considers the web browser to be an integral part of the operating system (and Microsoft controversially argued in court back in 1998 that itwas), both IE and MS Windows are published by Microsoft, which obviously controls them both. If this is a marketing strategy though, it seems like a footbullet one to me. So Weak Support. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good point. You must have missed the point that I have already pointed out that Microsoft will fix the Win 7 and Win 8 versions, for free. They won't fix XP any more.
Because a huge proportion of people till use XP, and this is the first time that bugs associated with XP won't be fixed for free by Microsoft. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on process If editors could avoid being rude about other editors as part of their comments, that would be a good thing IMO. I'm not just referring to this nomination. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Nutlugs, the fact there's a security flaw in IE is never news, it's been a daily routine update service patch nonsense since the dawn of IE. What is the story here? Is it that those users still using XP will be royally shafted or is it something else? I'm not getting it yet.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Microsoft releases critical fixes for all the IE versions almost every patch Tuesday. These do not get mentioned every time, then why this time? It seems the reason for more news coverage is that Microsoft is Not going to publicly release the fix for WinXP. This would be the case going forward. So I think this event is quite regularly occurring, but just because it got wider coverage, we shouldn't include it in ITN. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't refer to "patch Tuesday" for nothing, this is a monthly occurrence. The only difference now is that it occurs after the end of XP support but that is old news and not the underlying item. 3142 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a woman in her 80's call me about this in a panic today since she'd read it on her front page. I think wikipedia is a good place for people to come expecting objective coverage of this and the wider context, it's perfect for our mission at ITN and at WP. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – another Microsoft IE bug? really??? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:42, 30 April 2014
Support I'm commenting here from Internet Explorer. I hope this edit gets to be saved before New Year's Eve. Küñall (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Microsoft have done an about turn on this and announced it will be patched for XP after all[13]. This bug is not otherwise exceptional in any regard so therefore it seems to me any notability it may have had is utterly destroyed. 3142 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 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.
What's wrong with avoiding taxes. That's what accountants are for. Does this mean evasion? If so, can we use proper English? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're allowed to spin, then I'd go with "Rich man shirks massive tax bill, evades social and moral obligations" or maybe "One law for rich, another for poor". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though legal, tax avoidance is widely considered to be immoral (I can provide WP:RS for that if needed, or see Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion). Stories don't need to be illegal in order to be notable here. This is a particularly egregious example of tax avoidance - some sources are reporting this as a record amount for UK personal tax avoidance. Large corporations avoiding tax - and the campaigns against them - definitely do make the news round here, although obviously YMMV depending on the editorial priorities of the news media that you read. IMO this is notable for F1 fans because money from F1 is being channelled into this shady offshore trust. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all perspective. If what he did is perfectly legal, what we have is "man doesn't voluntarily give a billion dollars to the government which he wasn't required to give them in the first place". That we want him to have given that money over is beside the point. If it is legal to avoid it, that's the exact same thing as saying he isn't required to pay it, which isn't news. People not doing things they aren't required to do isn't news. Now, if there was a law broken, or a fine levied, or a trial forthcoming, we may have something. But being pissed because he's not voluntarily paying money that it's not illegal not to pay is not a news story. --Jayron3212:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'sonesideoftheargument. RSsaythereisanother. I think it would be too digressive for me to make the argument here, but there are plenty of WP:RS for tax avoidance being widely held to be immoral - it's not a WP:fringe view. Not everything that is legal is right or un-newsworthy (e.g. see lots of our other news stories about legal things).
The other angle on this story is that HMRC was wrong to settle for only £10m on a potential tax bill of £1.2bn. HMRC are pretty much admitting it was a mistake and saying they've changed their process. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:26, 29 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.
Oppose I oppose shootings that kill a few schoolkids in the US and, equally, I will oppose a grenade blast that kills a few schoolkids in Pakistan. I can't see why the fact that children rather than adults were killed should automatically confer greater significance on it. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No article of its own, not a significant enough incident to be mentioned in the linked articles, let alone have a lengthy update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose no article and this certainly doesn't qualify as significant enough to impact either the Karachi or the hand grenade article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 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.
Support - A lot of destruction, certainly in the news up here, death toll isn't all that substantial, but the number of towns levelled seems to be. However, wait until tonight (EST) at least to post or you'll get those stark raving mad Europeans in here (even though sleep is for the weak). - Floydianτ¢17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - article is very light on prose and has multiple completely empty sections. It is certainly not fit for posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, an (unfortunately) far too common event. As I have stated over the years, with at least some agreement from others here, ITN should not be posting every tornado breakout. There will be much worse ones in the coming months. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the score or so of people killed here were far less important than the score or so of people killed by Cyclone Ita. Given it only happened in the US, and in Red States especially, lets wait till one of the tornadoes makes it from Alabama to Toronto, then we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This will probably be a growing story in the next few days with unfortunately many more deaths. Perhaps posting something like a, a series of tornadoes kills xx during a major storm outbreak. (well, not that, but something like that....) Rhodesisland (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Willing to post, however, the article is seriously lacking some prose. At the moment, there's just a big table and many expand tags. --Tone13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could use a little more prose, at least two nice paragraphs would be good. People will indeed be coming here for comprehensive, non-sensationalist cover. I'll be busy outside the holodeck today, so forgive me if I can't devote too much time. But this should go up ASAP once we've got the prose. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (a) article is woeful with maintenance tags and entirely out of date (b) if we keep wanting to post regular US weather, we could use an ITNR for such common events with at least one tornado outbreak causing multiple fatalities in the US every year for the past few years. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I concede that the article could use some work and (b) are you serious? You know what else happens yearly but always makes its way onto ITN? The results of sports championships for MULTIPLE different sports and leagues, etc, yet storms that have now caused 34 deaths aren't notable? Give me a break. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read it. I suggested that commonplace annual weather events should be placed onto ITN/R. I don't recall stating it wasn't notable, just that it happened frequently. Accordingly, I'll give you that break you've requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready The summary and mayflower sections (now in complete sentence form, more that surpass the three paragraph requirement for a new article. Altblrb mentions currently reported 34 Dead. There are arbitrary expansion needed markers, they can be removed by the posting admin if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has well more than the required prose content, no visible tags, over 30K in content, and reflects 35 deaths from 7 twisters as well as two drownings and destruction in almost every state from Nebraska to Louisiana to Florida with the North East to be hit today. Consensus is 7 to 2 in favor of postings. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every year several of these events seem to be nominated. No evidence this is of any more significance than any of the others. Tornadoes are obviously common in those parts. Maybe too many have been nominated. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what some people seem to say about these things several times every year. Either you're wrong, or a lot of people have been writing an awful lot of crap here every tornado season. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And....? We post sporting events every single year and those don't change at all. It's a notable event regardless of how often it may happen. Dozens of lives have been lost and tens of millions of people have been affected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Ongoing "historic" floods in and around Pensacola, Florida as a result of the storm system. Needs expansion to cover the flood-event but the system is becoming more and more damaging as it continues eastward. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)*[reply]
Not ready - article is still light on prose... Perhaps it meets the bare minimum, but considering half the text is unreferenced (and orange tagged as such), it is definitely not ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article has not a single citation needed tag. Every listed tornado is referenced in the leftmost column, as was the section that section that was temporarily marked as unreferenced, since it had been removed from the chart without the references being repeated as well. Not is there any rule that senetences and commentary within charts do not count ast text, but even ignoring that question, as of this edit all ITN requirements are exceeded. This is ready for immediate posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question My points above were ignored. We do seem to get several nominations every year for American tornadoes. This seems to have been posted on the numbers, which is pure systemic bias. Non-Americans have no way of telling if this really was more important than any other tornado nomination. I doubt if many Americans can tell. Can we please do this better? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak on behalf of what Americans know about Tornado outbreaks. You sound like someone who's never left Los Angeles. We east of the rockies invented the word from the roots much "ado" about things being "torn" up. If you need help understanding the impact, read the article, and look on a map where Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida and Louisiana are, and consider these states and the areas they bound are all suffering flooding related fatalities and damage, if not lethal tornadoes. The impact here is much wider than that of Hurricane Sandy. And storms like this occur every two or three years on average, although some single tornados are much worse depending on the map and bad luck. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing this posting. I have no idea on it and am I'm expressing my confusion. I am concerned that we seem to see an awful lot of nominations here for tornadoes. Some of them must have been rubbish. I seem to recall posts like "A particularly devastating and noteworthy outbreak" several times last year. Were they bullshit? How do we pick the really worthy nominations in future? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, HiLo, then just do be assured this is a major less-than-once-a-year system, with much wider spread impact than Sandy, just not the storm surge of that storm which devastated coastal towns. There's no set way to measure these things. sometimes you have an outbreak in only two states that kills 80 people. Or just one tornado that kills 40. Sometimes there are 6 dead in a system that hits 8 states. Sometimes hurricanes spawn 100's of tornados. This doesn't compare to the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak with 324 dead which, I believe, was the worst since the 70's, but it certainly compares to Cyclone Ita, Hurricane Sandy, and most notable spring outbreaks. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we have ever rejected a natural disaster that killed 35 people in any country. The US has a fairly large number of such tornadoes (perhaps 2/year on average), but I hardly think 2 stories a year on tornadoes is a huge number. Much of Asia has flooding that kills dozens of people multiple times a year and those stories have always been posted when nominated too (3 or 4 last year alone)... Basically, there is an unspoken rule that >~20 deaths=automatically notable enough (unless it is a traffic accident). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a little muddled. Lead says "at least 35[1] fatalities.", infobox says "45 (+1 non-tornadic)" deaths and tables add up to 33. A little awkward and clumsy, needs some alignment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I believe the notability of this is what qualifies it for ITN, not whether the executions will be carried out or not. And not everyday do 683 people get a death sentence, especially when it is the top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood among those sentenced. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a similar event to this was proposed recently, and the consensus at that time seemed to be that this is only notable if the sentences are carried out. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Badie's article is orange-tagged and a more general target would be preferrable anyway (the other 680 people matter too). Unfortunately, the unrest article is also orange-tagged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a stand-alone article is a viable solution. We have many articles on individual trials - no reason we can't have one on a "mass trial". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as a largely one-off kangaroo court. Don't want to sound oxymoronic, but they've done this fairly frequenctly in the last 1 year and Egypt IS NOT standing out in the news. (as for kangaroo court, I have no idea whats it is upto but can doubt its independence from the executie [15])
Let me partially rephrase tht. Basie is high-profile, but lets wait to see if its carried out. In the latter case, id hugely support it.Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: highly notable. To say that it was a "kangaroo court" is to say that it didn't follow due process; but its not having followed due process doesn't preclude its actions from being significant. It Is Me Heret / c20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Presumably, it's unlikely all the sentences will be carried out, but the handing down of the sentences in this dubious, to say the least, procedure is, in Middle Eastern context, significant enough for posting, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:50, 29 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.
Nominator's comments: India joins a select club of states with this new capacity...could possibly lead to an arms race noting Pakistan tested its nukes a mere days after India. --Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an interesting story but all I'm seeing is an unreferenced "The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014." claim in the "update". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 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 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: This is the first time since 1994 the Presidential elections and a Parliamentary election in Macedonia to be held on the same day. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - elections are ITN/R, so its rather pointless to "debate" the item before the results occur. The only factor to whether it is posted or not is the quality of the update, which obviously cant' be judged at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Macedonian media have announced victory for Ivanov in the presidential and bare majority for VMRO-DPMNE in the parliamentary election. The official results, however, will be announced tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two well-known and influential former popes; getting lots of news coverage; interesting symbolism with the "liberal" John XXIII and the "conservative" John Paul II canonised together. Neljack (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. The articles are updated. There's a separate article about canonization as well but since it's very short at the moment, I prefer not to include it in the blurb. This can be changed later. --Tone10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and post-posting weak oppose. I suppose I don't really care, but I have to wonder if we'd post similar declarations by other large religions, after just 1.5 hours of no oppose !votes. ToBk (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this has been in the news all week. A nice, super rare chance to post religious news. I was planning to nominate it, if necessary. Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, and we do often post noms that get 4 quick supports and no opposes (that means 5-0 support including the nominator). μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they're controversial they can be pulled. There was obviously no way the highest award given by the world's largest institution to two of its prior leaders was not going to be posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that's an acceptable process. We are supposed to operate by consensus. "No consensus to post" is very different to "consensus to pull." GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. It appears that in South Korea the president is both head of state and head of government. Seeing that, and consider the article on the ship itself is already linked as part of the new 'ongoing field,' I'm leaning towards opposing this. Also, the article on Jung Hong-won is entirely insufficient for posting on the main page. Calidum02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated - major development in the MV Sewol story. Naturally, the "ongoing" item will disappear if this succeeds. I suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to oppose for now; I have now read that the PM has only offered to resign, it has not been accepted yet [16] so we should wait until it is(if it is). 331dot (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article should say why he resigned (public pressure, etc.), not just that he did. The update is currently inadequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of Prime Ministers of South Korea shows there's some significant turnover on this position; Park's 2 immediate predecessors bad an average of 4 PMs each, although this would be Park's first replacement since she took office more than a year ago. –HTD04:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. seems to me this needs to get posted as part of the overall story. The PM has resigned, it has been accepted, and turn over of the office isn't really applicable because of the reason for this particular resignation. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Officially throwing Tsvangirai out of the party "fractionalizes" the opposition and will increase Robert Mugabe's political hold --Mvblair (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Unless it is a party actually in power, I don't think we typically post changes in leadership of political parties, especially if effects in the relevant nation are minimal.(Mugabe is still running the country and will continue to do so) I think that's the case here. I'm willing to reconsider given more information, but I don't support this right now. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because he's one of the few possible rivals to Mugabe, who is in effect a dictator. IMO it's more notable than a change of leadership for an opposition party in most countries because the political situation in Zimbabwe is different to that of more democratic countries. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose internal factionalisation and bickering within a party is hardly notable news. Nevermind that the MDC is now delegitimised as an "official opposition".Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - article needs work (short lead, orange tagged section, infobox still says Tsvangirai leads the party). Tsvangirai's article could be an alternate target, but it is not updated and has serious issues, so probably not. Since we do not normally post political infighting, I would at least expect a high-quality article if we are going to make an exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 27 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.
I don't know how I feel about this. It's definitely interesting, but I'm not sure the news is important enough for ITN. DYK wouldn't appear to be an option here, I don't think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because finding this type of trash doesn't seem that important, even though it's kind of cool. Like, ahem, Bongwarrior said, it might be a great topic for "Did you know...?" if it were expanded quite a bit. Mvblair (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not really helpful to suggest something would make a good DYK when the article is already large and not new. The only way such an article could hit DYK is by becoming a Good Article. DYK is about recognizing content work, not merely interesting facts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is interesting, different and a big story in the history of video gaming. It is in the news and the article is in good shape, we aren't taking away a DYK, and there is no more important story this would be denying space to. To my mind it is therefore exactly the sort of thing that we should be posting on ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to support this as I'm one of the editors for it and it does reflect a major event in the video game industry, but I would want to see more international coverage of the event to justify it better for ITN. (It is a shame this is unable to go DYK , that's where I would have pushed it.) --MASEM (t) 00:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a classic example of the interests of a typical Wikipedian, rather than the general public. Archaeologists find all sorts of fascinating things in past peoples' garbage all the time. We ignore almost all of it. To post this trivia would put our systemic biases fully on display. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that women, non-technical people, non-college graduates, young and old video game players, non-Christians, (you get the point) wouldn't be interested in this? How do you know that? (English speaking is kinda required). 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Further, systemic bias is an argument to post stories relevant to those groups, not to prohibit ones that the "average wikipedian" might be interested in. They are here, too. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point is that, not surprisingly, an internet project like this attracts a disproportionate number of people who are interested in tech stuff. Neljack (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that means we shouldn't have the occasional story that might interest them? It's not like we post video game stories every day, or even once a month. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have a decent article on this, a news story to highlight it, and a subject that many readers are interested in. Seems like a good candidate for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sure, it's not the most important story going right now. But it's getting pretty good coverage as 331dot's links show. We have a pretty good article on the subject. And it would be nice to post something that doesn't involve mass deaths or kidnappings. Calidum03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Considerably wide interest from an industry which we rarely post (even then only the greatest successes). That a company considered it more profitable to bury games and systems rather than sell them... well, I'm sure those who are versed in business theory could find something to analyze. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a counter to systemic bias claims: according to the archives ITN very rarely posts stories about about video games, the only ones I can find were Call of Duty: Black Ops in 2010 and Grand Theft Auto V in 2013, both for breaking sales records. Of course video games appear more often in other sections of the Main Page, but how often is there going to be news from this sector to post, especially news that isn't just one game making more money than a previous game...? 92.30.173.5 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as archaeological discoveries go, this would not appear to be a particularly important one. I don't think it gives us any great new insight into the past. In fact, I suspect it will have very little impact. So I can't see how the significance criterion is met. HiLo48 is also on the money with his comment about the average Wikipedian v. the average person, something that particularly needs to be borne in mind when evaluating tech stories. Neljack (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that "life on Planet Earth" be affected to be posted to ITN, only that something be in the news which can highlight an article that readers might be interested in. My point was that video games are not an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atari led the home videogame revolution, and its demise in 1983 was huge news that would certainly have made ITN when it happened. This is like "finding the body". Opposes because it is trash are like saying we shouldn't post 9/11 because the towers were then just ruins, or if Jimmy Hoffa's body were found it was just a run of the mill skeleton. The story here is the illumination of a very notable 31 year-old mystery. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you've graduated at least secondary school, you might ask for a refund of your tuition on the basis of not having been taught the difference between an analogy and an equation, Doktorb. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should consult a dictionary to discover the difference in meaning between "link" and "equate", μηδείς. And does the government really charge schoolkids tuition fees in America? Surely even the US isn't that crazily right-wing? Neljack (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding that the U.S. has private colleges, governments in other countries charge for tuition as well. The only difference is that they do so in the form of across-the-board taxation. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Too trivial" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and shouldn't be enough to prevent this from being posted. This is a news item with (what even some who oppose this concede is) a decent article to highlight, which is the purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Too trivial" is a judgement we frequently make here. Mainstream media frequently cover Hollywood romances and babies, and in my country recently, royal tours. Thankfully, we don't post them here, They are too trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between opposing something because we are not a tabloid news ticker and opposing something because it deals with video games, which is essentially how I interpret most of the opposition here. I don't see why video games are any less valid a subject to post about; millions play video games of all nationalities, ages, races, and genders. Further, in dismissing this as "trivial" the fact that we have a decent article to highlight about a notable historical event (the main purpose of ITN) is being ignored. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly hold that opinion, though I disagree. Without an explanation as to why, "not notable enough" could also be IDONTLIKEIT. I won't regurgitate the arguments that have been made already. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I just don't get it. Atari couldn't sell a rotten title so they sent the ones they couldn't sell to landfill. Someone's dug through the landfill and found them. What's the story here exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was not certainty that this dump of games existed, and it is representative of a notable time in the history of video games, the 1983 crash. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Is the uncertainty supposed to create some sense of excitement about this? I still don't see it. I'd guess that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about what's in most landfills around the world; the only slightly surprising thing really is that they had any idea at all where to look. I'm still not seeing it as a big deal. Perhaps I was too young in 1983 to really get it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:44, 30 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.
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_4K-AZ65_Antalya_Airport_June_18,_2016_(cropped).jpg)
_2013-01-30_07.jpg)
