*'''Too fast''' The article is barely updated! Per [[WP:ITN/DC]] ''In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death''. We are not a news service, we don't have to get a scoop, it's not a damned race. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Too fast''' The article is barely updated! Per [[WP:ITN/DC]] ''In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death''. We are not a news service, we don't have to get a scoop, it's not a damned race. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::As you seem to have missed above and below, there are no rules at WP, standards, principles, or ethics either. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::As you seem to have missed above and below, there are no rules at WP, standards, principles, or ethics either. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't project your own recent failure to demonstrate these qualities onto the site as a whole. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 12:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:*It ''does'' have a paragraph pertaining to her death, and I had actually attempted to update the article just as I was doing this nomination. So what's the point you're trying to make? [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:*It ''does'' have a paragraph pertaining to her death, and I had actually attempted to update the article just as I was doing this nomination. So what's the point you're trying to make? [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support RD, Neutral blurb''' post posting obviously. Not every former head of state will get full blurb, though we could argue that her influence in the UK and globally was significant "enough". Anyway... --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support RD, Neutral blurb''' post posting obviously. Not every former head of state will get full blurb, though we could argue that her influence in the UK and globally was significant "enough". Anyway... --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Strongest possible oppose - she stole my milk! (OK, this !vote hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell, but I wanted to get it off my chest). Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full listing. Was the longest serving PM of the 20th century, first woman, and had a significant influence both in her country and the world. Currently on front page of NBC News and CNN in large print. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the level of importance we really should be looking for when trying to decide on a full blurb vs. recent death listing. I don't think there is much question which is appropriate here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support immediate posting as full blurb per "a highly significant event [...] may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." --hydrox (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral with regards to referencing the fact that she was Britain's first ever female Prime Minister. If everyone else wants to add it, go right ahead. Kurtis(talk)12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God I said three Hail Mary's, so that should cover any need for an update. (Yes, I know she wasn't Roman Catholic, but I am sure she was a high church Episcopalian.) μηδείς (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support full blurb, but oppose mentioning her gender. That's not why people remember her, nor why she is such a polarising figure. However, the article should have at least a few sentences of reaction e.g. a quote from David Cameron, the Queen etc. Tons of media coverage, so that wouldn't be hard. Someone added it while I was typing this. Modest Geniustalk12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. Oppose mentioning her being female. Even though I hate her, she's known for much more and it would be a demeaning blurb. Formerip (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too fast The article is barely updated! Per WP:ITN/DCIn addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death. We are not a news service, we don't have to get a scoop, it's not a damned race. --IP98 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a paragraph pertaining to her death, and I had actually attempted to update the article just as I was doing this nomination. So what's the point you're trying to make? Kurtis(talk)12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Neutral blurb post posting obviously. Not every former head of state will get full blurb, though we could argue that her influence in the UK and globally was significant "enough". Anyway... --IP98 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Regardless of the vehemence of feeling about her on both the right and the left, she was undoubtedly a figure whose significance for world politics in the 1980s reached far beyond this cold, wet island. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, I did not post this comment. I was actually in the middle of adding a "death" section to her article just as I was posting this ITN candidate, but by the time I hit "save" there already was one. Every other attempt I made at editing the page was edit conflicted to oblivion. Kurtis(talk)12:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: World famous poet, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, and a notable controversy surrounding his death. The event has been covered by major international newspapers (BBC and the Guardian in the UK, Associated Press in the US, Toronto Star in Canada, Le Monde and France24 in France). It's also from a subject (literature) that rarely gets covered on ITN, so it's a nice change of pace.--xanchester(t)05:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I was involved in the Arafat discussion, but completely forgot about it. Withdrawing the nom until the results are declared.--xanchester(t)05:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bombing in Qalat, capital of the southern Zabul Province, kills three U.S. soldiers and two U.S. civilians, along with an Afghan doctor. An American civilian dies in another attack in the east of the country. (BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Neutral. Navel-gazing is an issue, but I think that if this gets widespread coverage beyond France, it would be worth posting. Resolute20:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - governments do stupid stuff all the time. This is a pretty minor example of such behavior outside of our world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One article, already restored. Strange behaviour on the part of the French govt though, like, kinda dumb. --IP98 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a more frequent DYK than ITN contributor (it's a lot easier for my pet articles to get in there aside of here, despite the bigger amount of work, if that makes sense), let's stop the notion that DYK is ITN's consolation prize. I know it stays up there on a maximum of 12 hours vs. ITN's minimum of 5 days, but the processes and standards are different... –HTD04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one. I just said it has a "notion". This will fail ITN, and will pass DYK. Therefore... 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with one being a consolation prize for the other, they're two entirely separate processes. DYK deals with new articles that meet a certain set of criteria, ITN deals with articles that are in the news. If you're saying that people should stop pointing articles to DYK if they don't meet the ITN criteria, I disagree with you. In many cases, the article creator/nominator won't be aware that their article is eligible for DYK so it is good to point them there. RyanVesey04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I exactly said, them of different processes. Although you have a point of the nominator not knowing about DYK, though. He might've gunned for ITN, with the article staying for 5 days, instead of DYK with only the top hook above the fold and staying there for 8-12 hours. I dunno his intentions, though, so... –HTD04:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English-language version of the article which was deleted from the French Wikipedia (ie. not the article nominated here) already has a DYK nomination, FYI, and this is being discussed at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posting Wikipedia-related information to ITN has historically been a disaster; Signpost is the better location. SpencerT♦C01:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAVELGAZING. Also, I can't find this as a major headline story anywhere. A short blurb buried in the tech section seems to be where most major news sources are treating this. --Jayron3203:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAVELGAZING (really should exist). Separately, this is very shocking news. Which article? Why? How stupid are they? What's is the Foundation doing about it? Is there an appropriate thread open to discuss this? --RA (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A minor official got a bit carried away. A nasty experience for one individual, a rap on the knuckles for someone from his boss, and a fr.wikipedia page with tiny viewing figures is removed from public view for 24 hours. A non-event. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is just the sort of thing that happens all the time in the West then let's see an example of such minor actions by officials. This would be news if it were in relation to facebook or any other site--the fact that it happens to regard wikipedia, and hence "navelgazing" is irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pretty straightforwaqrd new PM. Lebanon is one of th emost dynamic political systems so this is highly noteworthy, then add in ME stability factor... Only note is im not sure when he will be sworn in but hehas majority support/consensus --Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New head of state is ITN material, typically. However, the updates are somehow thin at the moment. --Tone22:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theres several lines of sourced update in the bolded article (and the PM's article). Thats more than most postings..?Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only real update on this is the sentence "On 6 April, he got 124 of the 128 parliamentary votes to become prime minister and was consequently tasked by President Michel Suleiman to form a government." and that is uncited. Everything else is reaction cruft: most are direct quotes which were plainly copied verbatim from elsewhere. The article about person can be better without those, although it can be added to the government article, as those quotes are relevant there. The article on Barack Obama doesn't have other peoples' reactions during his 2012 election victory, although it did have a quote from him.... –HTD05:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Former head of a national navy arrested and charged in a nother country's court. Thought its notable. Its not charles taylor ubut still.. --Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very little coverage, does not deal in war crimes from what I see; just drug smuggling. Wasn't acting in his official capacity as an admiral from what I can read. Not much to the article, too. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea warns that it cannot protect their embassies in Pyongyang as of April 10. It is advised that all foreign countries consider asking the staff of their embassies to leave. (The Telegraph)(AFP via NDTV)
Doan Van Vuon, a fish farmer who became a cult hero in Vietnam after fighting off an illegal eviction with homemade guns and mines, is jailed for five years for "attempted murder in a case that has stirred public anger over state-backed land grabs." (Reuters)
Support. The article discusses the major point in a sufficient manner, the high death toll fulfils the notability criteria, global coverage, however we can wait for 12 hours for clearer estimate of death toll. LegalEagle (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per notability. NO reason for it to wait for another 12 hours. Any change in blurb could be adjusted later.Regards, theTigerKing20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Building collapse in Tanzania, 36 dead, no comments at all in 5 hours after nomination, no opposition, not posted. Building collapse in India, 42+ dead, posted 4 1/2 hours after nomination. Discuss. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanzania building collapse was ~15 dead at the time of nomination. That level of deaths is borderline, so perhaps people were hesitant to comment as they were neutral on it. I know I was (and supported when death toll rose). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am still not convinced that building collapses are rare disasters, but I supported Tanzania which a similiar death toll, so I'll support this one as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not reflect that yet. The numbers should be consistent. But sure, we can update the number eventually. --Tone06:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Palestinian, Naji Balbisi, dies from injuries he suffered during a clashes with Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Tulkarem, a day after his cousin, Amer al-Najjar, died in the clashes after they tried to firebomb a checkpoint. (CNN)(The Times of Israel)
In Jackson, Mississippi, Jeremy Powell, 23, a suspect in the stabbing death of a 20-year-old male, and Eric Smith, a Jackson Police Department homicidedetective, who had been conducting the police interview with Powell, are found dead in a 3rd floor room of the department, according to Jackson Police Chief Rebecca Coleman. (AP via NBC News)
Nominator's comments: From the first lead paragraph: "He is the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, as well as the first to be awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RD Support - Although he was an undeniably notable movie critic, I'm not sure that Ebert meets the level of significance that I require for a full posting. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, or RD if that's what there's consensus for. I just saw this and came here immediately to support. While obviously primarily famous in the US and Canada my guess is he was the world's most famous film critic at the time of death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
S for full blurb I would argue that he isn't arguably the best known movie critic ever (his partner Siskel being his only competition), I believe he is one of the most influencial voices in Hollywood over the past 40+ years. Plus, he and Siskel's "Two Thumbs Up" became household terms.38.100.76.228 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Full blurb, please...except I do have do admit bias living so close to Chicago. :) All of the Chicago news websites are leading with the story, though naturally his former employer, the Sun-Times, is likely to have the most complete information. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ready for posting yet. The update is not nearly large enough to the article to warrant its posting, even for a death. Let's wait until we get some reactions.--WaltCip (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. He sounds suitable for the ticker but, I'll be honest, I've never heard of him or "two thumbs down". Please try to consider the nomination from a worldwide perspective. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Update -- this has only two bare sentences that could make one good compound sentence. There's plenty in the press about his movie festival still being held and comments on his passing. I have removed the RD designation since there is obvious support for a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull as noted above. The article is not ready and there is no clear consensus to post a full blurb. I cannot get the point beyond speeding up the posting regardless of the discussion here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see User:Jayron32 updated ITN. I've undone that change based on the correct concerns raised here. We can wait another half an hour while the article is suitably updated for a full blurb. Not to mention the blurb selected was hardly encyclopaedic in my opinion, that's why we discuss these things before posting them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that when posted, at 20:28, there was significant support for it. Most of the opposition came after that moment. --Jayron3220:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that we had no agreed blurb and the nomination template was just for RD. I was trying to gain a consensus for a full blurb but you posted anyway. What's wrong with waiting half an hour? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. You continue to be correct. That hasn't changed, and I'm not going to concede that you were wrong here, so I don't know why you keep arguing, because you are still the one who is in the right. This isn't a competition, you know. It would be best to get this correct rather than to make it some kind of race. --Jayron3220:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A full blurb? are you kidding me? Absolute shame on all of. What the hell is the point in RD then? His death is not wide-reaching or impacting.--85.210.110.120 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of RD was to reduce the occurrence of the same old "Name dies at the age of..." blurb. But we left the door open for full blurb features when the case is exceptional, and this guy certainly deserves it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted: "Film critic Roger Ebert dies after a long bout with cancer." I'd hardly call that a full blurb. I might have amended it to say "Chicago-based American film critic Roger Ebert dies after fighting cancer for over a decade." I hate to come out grossly pro-american and offend people, but I think it's a matter of influence - he was highly influential to Hollywood, which is (for better or for worse) highly influential worldwide. If you think that that's too much of a pro-American bias, then I support the RD designation only. (stupid edit conflicts) --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as well. Certainly merits the mention. Also caution to wait a bit for the article to update. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb His death is not major world news with ramifications. The whole point of the RD ticker was to avoid such hooks. Whenever we have had discussion about what deaths might still merit a blurb in the RD ticker era, the threshhold has been much higher than this: it is quite ridiculous that we did not nailed down the level of distinction before RD started: even more so that we still have not done so. Full blurb in less than 45 minutes from nomination for a marginally known figure seems unduly hasty. But if full blurb used, please find another phrase: he did not have a "bout with cancer". Kevin McE (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if support re-emerges for a full blurb, I've prepped a crop of a picture (I was doing this between the initial widespread support and the later pulling after people came by later to oppose, the time necessary to prepare the crop was when the consensus shifted). It's at File:Roger Ebert Crop.jpg. --Jayron3220:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd asked for a discussion about a full blurb, and a few minutes later you went ahead and posted one without consensus on any blurb. Please be more patient. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you are correct, except for the bit about there not being consensus. At the time, in my judgement, there was consensus for a full blurb. --Jayron3220:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Or possibly not, discussion in the talk archives is inconclusive if that was really him or someone just going by "REbert."] --JohnDBuell (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, I'd just like to point out that when he said he was sick yesterday, his article views spiked to 42,240. It seems to me that this deserves full blurb status, but put it in RD while consensus continues to be hashed out. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that makes over 4700 pages viewed more frequently in the last three days. I don't think that really supports the full blurb. And don't cite the 800,000+ Twitter followers either, seriously, because how many of those actually regularly read his posts? I'm turning with the growing consensus, the greatest notability here is a) Chicago and b) the US as a whole, not the rest of the world. -JohnDBuell (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb. Normally I see news of deaths and go "meh". This one actually caught my attention as the name was familiar to me. Meets WP:ITND #2, he need not meet criteria three (death has global significance). Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb per Kevin McE above. It's exactly for deaths like this one why the RD was established. Ks0stm: WP:ITND criteria always apply, for RD deaths as well. I don't think this is such a world-shaking event that it would warrant a full blurb under any circumstances. --hydrox (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck the Standards This should not have been posted, it's not updated. And according to the RfC, nomiations that get votes for "either ITN or RD" count as votes for a full ITN blurb. So if anything this should have gone up as a full blurb. But fuck the rules. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To use that reasoning in that manner would be akin to saying that we shouldn't promote any high-profile death at all. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a facetious comment. Going off hits is stupid in the first place, but especially so when the article has already been linked from the front page. Formerip (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full listing. Probably the most notable figure in his profession; widely known and had a significant influence. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the death section should be expanded to include some reactions from notable people. When that happens,I am willing post as a full blurb (unless consensus changes) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
POV in blurb To say "Pulitzer Prize-winning" is too much US-centric since the prize is awarded in the United States to people from this country. I would sincerely appreciate more neutral blurb. Including prizes in the blurb is only possible if the prize is international and can be awarded to any person in the world (e.g. Nobel Prize, Pritzker Prize, Fields Medal etc.). Simple blurb like "Film critic Roger Ebert dies at the age of 70." would make more sense, as mentioning something that is limited to one country doesn't help too much in claiming his international significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Americans are eligible and have won Pulitzer Awards. In any case the Pulitzer Prize has been worthy of mention on ITN and thus I think is worthy of mention in the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support post Full Blurb consensusEven IMDB had been running the RD as a red colored flash in its home page for ore than 5 hours.Regards, theTigerKing20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and remove as absurd! Really notable people are not posted, while an American obscure film critic I've never heard of is posted. Another example of blatant US centrism on the main page. Would we have posted the death of a film critic whose articles appeared in the Belgian newspapers? Danish newspapers? Russian? Chinese? French? No, of course we wouldn't. The posting of this article is a disgrace. Mocctur (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Mocctur never hearing of this" is a valid oppose, either. What you consider "really notable" might not be considered so by others, just as you don't consider Mr. Ebert notable. His reviews have been seen and read by tens of millions (many more than the population of Belgium), he coined the concept of "thumbs up" or down for rating films, has several awards and recognitions (a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, unusual for a film critic). 331dot (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral RD, Oppose blurb, oppose pull It's up now, it shouldn't be, but it is. Per WP:POPULAR page views is irrelevant. Claims of US-centrism are absurd. The best thing to do now is to push through 5 better stories and bump this off the bottom. --IP98 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page views should not be the sole criterion for an ITN posting; but they are an indication of a page that others are likely to want to read, per "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news"(from the ITN page). 331dot (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected militants throw a grenade at a vehicle carrying paramilitary security officers in southern Pakistan, killing three people and wounding three others. (AP via ABC News)[permanent dead link]
Comment: The entire article, while meeting the content requirements, is based on only one source (albeit a reliable one, New York Times). While not trying to say that "The updated article must have X sources!!!", I think that there should be a couple others, if possible. SpencerT♦C05:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I was working on it, hence my "work is ongoing" comment... I probably should have just waited longer to nominate... Thanks for pointing out a couple good sources and adding the infobox.--ThaddeusB (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Only person to have won an Oscar and the Booker Prize. Well known for her collaboration with Merchant Ivory. --JuneGloomTalk21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that. ;) I've had a go at updating and expanding the article. Just in case it comes up, she was still writing before her death and her last story appeared in The New Yorker on 25 March 2013 [3]. - JuneGloomTalk23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good update, long list of awards. Not seeing anything in the article which shows how she is "widely regarded as having a significant impact on her field". Being prolific != important. --IP98 (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Anthony Burgess and Graham Greene won no Bookers between them. Dennis Hopper and Peter O'Toole have an honorary Oscar between them. It is terrible that she has died. But would every Booker be considered just because they won a Booker, Oscar likewise? Sometimes "a very important figure in his or her field" gets no awards at all. I think that is worth considering.
Support. Member of the prolific and highly regarded 3-person Merchant Ivory film-making team. I was sad to see her name show up on my watchlist as recent death; others will want to read about her when the death notice appears on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to vote no, but the article is updated and the subject is quite interesting, and certainly notable for her accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Merchant Ivory have clearly had a significant and long-lasting effect on their field, which is a highly significant one (cinematic drama), and Jhabvala's exceptional record of awards is a reflection of that. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be careful when posting an item under ITN/DC #2, that the article establishes how the person was "widely considered very important in his/her field". Many of the supports above rationalize her importance, but it isn't up to "ITN regulars" to decide. Jane Henson was part of the Muppets, but that wasn't enough. Ralph Klein was a loud voice in Canada, but got "Albertan provincial politics is not a big enough field...". Jerry Buss barely went up, even with numerous NBA owners and players calling his contribution to the league important. This woman won two academy awards and wrote some short stories. Where are the reactions from other screen writers? Coppola? The Coens? It's not up to "us" to decide who is "important enough" for ITN. This will go up, it has consensus to post, but it really shouldn't. --IP98 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "It's not up to "us" to decide who is "important enough" for ITN." so who is it up to? I'm not sure we need a reaction from "Coppola" or "The Coens" to establish the fact that an Oscar-winning Booker Prize-winning artist has significant support here for ITN. If you think we need more people to contribute at ITN, that's an entirely different discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coppola and "The Coens" are Oscar-winning screen writers, so their reactions to her death, and their opinions on her impact on the field of screen writing are infinitely more important than yours or mine. I picked those names from a long list at Academy Award for Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), any one would do. Same with fiction (booker or Pulitzer or whatever, some recognized authority in the field of fiction). The point is I don't think anyone here is qualified to determine if an individual is "widely regarded as very important in his/her field", without at least having some quotes from prominent participants in that field indicating that the person is important. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so perhaps we need to change the criteria to state that the individual is "widely regarded as very important in his/her field by his/her peers"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting is the higher award than an Oscar for a screen play? The Nobel Piece Prize? The criteria now are notability and an update, and we have those and consensus to post. Of corse adding the Coens' or Coppola's comments can't hurt article, but they are not needed for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To IP98, yes, your answer matches my suggestion, you should seek to have the criteria changed to include "by his/her peers" if you believe the editors here are not qualified to determine the importance of an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "Coppola or the Coens", or anyone else, has a microphone stuck under their noses and are asked for their thoughts on the death of RPJ or anyone else who has recently died, basic good manners obliges them to eulogise with the result that such comments are not reliable as a measure of importance. Such comments rarely add substantial benefit to articles, as they are not measured and balanced comments. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shrugs The article doesn't establish explicitly how this person is widely regarded as very important in his/her field. A laundry list of awards may allow us to infer importance, but I don't believe we're qualified to do so. We don't agree, honestly I don't care. Regards. --IP98 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not posted? It is updated and has clear consensus. 00:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, this deserves to be posted. Roger Ebert (whose recent death is posted) made a living writing about the work of people in her profession, and I bet he would have said she deserved a mention here: [4], [5]... (And what happened to the idea that ITN should endeavor for geographic diversity and inclusion of under-represented topics? Here we have an accomplished WOMAN who was at home on three continents -- and whose work spanned all three and the relationships between them, their people, and their cultures...) --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong Oppose We can't comment with high probability whether conditions for cold wave would sustain for remaining part of the year.Regards, theTigerKing15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would possibly support individual stories, the cold wave could be mention in the blurb. --Tone15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anything as this is not global as referred to in the article's title. For me living in Macedonia there is no dispersion compared to other years. Some news point that there are cold waves even with snowfalls in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, but it doesn't mean that Europe has been globally affected. As for the case with India, there should be separate article documenting the weather conditions only in this country and given the casualities and damages it seems worth supporting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sticky looking out ones window is an inadequate evaluation of a global event. 2013 global cold wave seems like WP:OR to me, chaining together a string of record cold temperature events in select locations. Honestly, I think maybe that article should be submitted for AFD. --IP98 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there are specific examples of a major effect of this alleged cold wave (like large crop losses, or a large number of casualties/deaths, etc.) we can discuss ITN items for those specific examples. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Quoting the New York Times: "The fate of Kaesong is seen as a crucial test of how far North Korea is willing to take its recent threats against the South. Its continued operation was often seen as a sign that Pyongyang’s verbal militancy was not necessarily matched by its actions.". Note that Kaesong was also closed 3 time in 2009. We haven't posted anything about North Korea's retorics yet, as we thought it was just retorics. But the closure of Keasong and the reopening of the plutonium reactor are significant. Thue (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - final something worth posting in seemingly endless series of "we want war" moves by North Korea. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Support - Now that's more like it. The narrative was that North Korea couldn't be going to war since they were still keeping Kaesong open.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
In my understanding, which may not be 100% correct, it was 50-50 in the very early days. Jane then greatly reduced her activity to concentrate on raising the couple's children making Jim the primary force during the rise to popularity. When the kids were grown, she re-assumed a more active role and after Jim's death in 1990 was the primary force keeping the franchise moving forward. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Hm, I think the article needs quite a bit of expansion to be ready. If she is known primarily for her work on the Muppets, then the article does not do her justice (there is only one sentence about the Muppets in there). SpencerT♦C06:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as giving her too much credit is not necessary in this case. Wikipedia should rely on facts and sources about her career and notability, and not to be a place for contesting if it was 50-50 with her husband in the early years. Even if it's true that the two shared it equally, the world recognizes Jim Henson as the most important puppeteer and the only creator of the best-known product The Muppet Show. There is no notability here until someone proves what she would be specifically remembered for.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm slightly in agreement with Kiril here. Or more specifically, while I have no comment on what the 'world recognises', neither The Muppets or The Muppet Show mention her at all and as discussed above, her article barely mentions the muppets either. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest two minor amendments to the blurb: (1) insert "General Assembly" after "United Nations"; and (2) replace "ratifies" with "adopts". I think we ought to be clear about which organ of the UN was acting, and ratification is when a state becomes a party to a treaty. When the General Assembly approves a proposed global treaty, the language that is used is that it "adopts" it. Ratification by states still has to occur (but since the great majority have already voted for it I don't think we're jumping the gun in posting this, especially considering that there wouldn't really be a suitable alternative occasion for posting it because states will ratify it at different times. Neljack (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The resignation of the minister is not a major event as the crisis itself. Moreover, the resignation would not effect the crisis as such. Moreover, suppose the government falls next, it would again make an ITN nomination. The event is though notable enough.Regards, theTigerKing15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the cyprus financial crisis is very notable, and it seems hasn't been posted here before. With the crisis being characterized by many small events (bank closure, negoations, deposit tax etc) it seems reasonable to highlight the crisis by reference to this resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.5.99 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In simple words, the resignation will not impact the crisis. We cannot post this blurb so as to compensate the fact that the crisis wasn't posted in the ITN.Regards, theTigerKing19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not compensating, we simply post the crisis. And where do you get from that this has no impact on the crisis? Look at the articles, the reasons for this resignation are severe and damaging to the political elite of the country, thus having an impact on the crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.5.99 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NomEvergreening of pharma patents has been undermined by the judicial decision, has huge impact on affordability of life saving drugs especially in developing countries, propels generics but arguably undermines innovation. LegalEagle (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The judgment does not allow for patented drugs to be sold without royalties (though that is possible under compulsory licensing), the present judgment looks at whether adding a superficial change (for example a chloride of a compound which has lost its patent protection) to an already known compound grants new patent protection (the concept is known as evergreening). Novartis v UoI is also important in Indian context because it was a test case for various similar litigation scenarios. For a working details of the case pls refer to spicy IP. LegalEagle (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that was fast... I'm not objecting per se, just noting that we usually wait until there are either more comments or more than 13 hours have passed since nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a landmark ruling? The Indian Supreme Court accused Novartis of evergreening and told them to take their patent and shove it. Is this really a surprise? --IP98 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose belatedly apparently. The Pharmaceutical_industry_in_India vs patents is an old story. Imatinib is an important drug, but the result of the suit isn't a surprise, and the results won't impact other cases. Compare to Diamond v. Chakrabarty which had much more important implications (or this. Anyway, I guess it's too late since this was posted, and there is no real reason to pull the item now. --IP98 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is little doubt that Diamond v Chakraborty is a landmark judgment (it was held that living organism can be patented and has since been seen as a textbook standard around the world), the present Novartis judgment is important as it weaves a counter story where patent protection is denied for superficial modification to a compound in public domain. The case is important because firstly it elucidates on the practice of evergreening, secondly it differentiates between increased efficacy and incremental innovation, thirdly it draws a line/balance between public policy (especially in a developing country scenario) and monopoly rights and finally in Indian context the case challenged a new section in Indian patent act 3(d) [which has already been controversial with many claiming it is noncompliant of TRIPS]. This case would definitely impact other ongoing cases and many academic posts have already called this case as a template for future judicial pronouncements internationally on rejecting evergreening of pharma patents. LegalEagle (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Um, how does this get posted so quickly?) I'm not sure our readers would understand the significance of this given the blurb, and I'm certainly not sure this is even newsworthy. I suggest if we have any further opposition, we pull it. Please allow a consensus to develop, not just act on two people's opinions within the space of four hours when 3/4 of the world isn't online. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I'm still struggling to see how this is newsworthy, sure it's published in a number of websites, but nothing "front page". Also, we usually wait for a definitive support rather than two in four hours and nothing. But it's been posted, I'd suggest it's pulled but perhaps I'm on my own. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from finer legal arguments over how the case affects IP jurisprudence worldwide, cost of a certain life saving medicine dropped 20 fold and likely to have a ripple effect on a variety of other/similar drugs. LegalEagle (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment has 4 parts:1) Notability of the event: I can go on and on with references from the leading and respected journals/news channel websites. If you want, reply a Yes to this comment and I will take the pain of mentioning them as well. 2) Front Page coverage: If one event is receiving umpteen coverage and has generated headlines, it must be big and worthwhile. Not necessarily front page in a few publications.3) Newsworthiness: If someone has the energy to go through the references, one can easily understand why the judgement is a "landmark" judgement("landmark was one of the reasons why you opposed previously"). No brainier needed. 4)Definitive support: I agree with you on this. The nomination should not have been posted too early. But it can't be a reason for pulling the entry out now without providing any logical justification.Regards, theTigerKing20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to TheTigerKing though I disagree with the phrase "landmark" (honestly was it any surprise that the Indian Supreme Court would rule against a US multinational?), it is published in a WP:RS. I base my support/opposes on the updated article, which doesn't elaborate on how this will impact other similar cases in India or the "developing world". I think that section could be broken up to a subsection (the April 1 2013 update is just hanging off a huge paragraph) and have some of the implications added. Or spawn a new article just for this case. In fact, I like that a lot better. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LegalEagle is right about this being a significant decision relating to evergreening. It has had the effect of Novartis India CEO declaring that it will no longer do research in India. From a chemical perspective, the decision means that trying to patent a polymorph of a known substance is not patentable in the absence of evidence of efficacy, which cuts off an easy approach to evergreening. It should (IMHO) be the legal position world-wide, but who knows if that will ever happen. Evergreening is a massive waste of effort in research, distracting the search for genuine new medicines in favour of seeking trivial changes to generate additional profits from existing discoveries. I oppose the suggestion to change the link to the new article, however, as the imatinib article satsfies ITN requirements and the new one is nominated for DYK. EdChem (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide attacker blows up a tanker lorry at the police headquarters in the Iraqi city of Tikrit, killing at least nine people. Three people are killed in a separate shooting in Baghdad. (CNN)
Apple Inc. publishes a letter, signed by CEOTim Cook, to Chinese customers, to address the growing controversy over the company's warranty policies in the country. (CNN)
Oppose, it's about a decommissioning which is much less notable than the creation of a new record-breaker. Besides, the petaflop limit is "merely" a point on the decimal numeral system, with little impact in itself on the development of computer performance. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need to reconsider that on the day robots start to protest on the streets for the right to vote, but for now I think we can safely oppose an RD. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this had come out a bit earlier, then RD: Roadrunner would have made a good April Fools RD, but agree that putting a supercomputer in RD is stretching it a bit. Meep meep... ZOOM! MChesterMC (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose per Mikeal for blurb.*An interesting suggestion though for RD I would support it. Lets not restrict RD to people or animals always.Regards, theTigerKing15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Possible April Fool's item?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nominator's comments: Nominated in the spirit of April Fool's Day. First teenager with Down Syndrome to reach Everest Base Camp - not a massively important achievement, but pretty interesting and definitely getting good coverage. Nominating for one day appearance on ITN only. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as highly misleading. To say that someone has climbed Mt Everest is to say that they have reached the peak, not merely that they have climbed on the mountain. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. You can say it's "too deceptive" if you like, but climbing to base camp is indeed climbing Everest in a literal sense of the words (and takes quite a bit of effort I might add). In fact, several news sources have used those exact words ("climbs Everest") in their headlines. "Summits" means reaches the peak; "climbs" does not, even if it is often used that way. This is exactly the kind of "unexpected meaning" that a large %age of April Fool's DYKs rely on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the word choice, I still believe this person should get to the top to be noted here(if that's even their goal); there are many mountains of all sizes that are difficult to climb. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I certainly would have not nominated this normally... I was only objecting to the "blatant untruth" claim, not the lack of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Burma's first private newspapers in 50 years
Support - perfect April Fool's item - notable, but unbelievable. However, I suggest more April Fool'sy blurb such as "Newspapers return to Burma after 50 year absence," --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing April Fool Day about it at all: important stage in 'perestroika' of the country. In a formal tone, newspapers don't hit anything: they become available, or they go on sale. Kevin McE (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, significant move towards more openness in a country renowned for being anything but open. With ThaddeusB's blurb for the remainder of 1 April, a more formal one thereafter. I agree with Kevin that newspapers do not 'hit newsstands' (whatever one of those is). Modest Geniustalk18:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb that falsely claims that newspapers have not been available. That is not merely misleading, it is a downright lie. Kevin McE (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
