• edit
• history
• watch

• War in Afghanistan
  • A Taliban suicide bomb attack on a Turkish government vehicle in Kabul kills at least one person. (BBC) (NBC News)
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
  • "Jihadi John", an ISIL terrorist featured in many beheading videos, is identified as Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born man who lived in the United Kingdom and was on a terrorism watch list. (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CBS News)
  • ISIS posts a video showing the destruction of Mosul Museum, the second largest in Iraq and rich in artifacts from thousands of years of Iraqi history. (National Post)

• French actresses Marion Cotillard and Mélanie Laurent, and French President François Hollande begin their two-day state visit to the Philippines, where they are to discuss climate change. (GMA News)

• Norwegian police raid the offices of the Catholic Church’s diocese in Oslo, charging the church administration with serious fraud under the suspicion of wrongfully claiming as much as NOK 50 million in state support by presenting fraudulent membership statistics. (NewsInEnglish)
• The Guardian publishes articles alleging that the Chicago Police Department have been running a black site at Homan Square for detained Americans; former justice officials call for investigation. The CPD denies the allegations. (The Guardian) (The Guardian²) (Chicago Sun-Times)
• A United Nations report claims that a North Korean shipping company has been renaming and reflagging its vessels to avoid an arms embargo. (BBC)
• Effective midnight, Washington, D.C. joins Alaska, Colorado, and Washington state as the only places in the United States that locally purport to override federal law and allow the use of marijuana for recreational purposes. (HuffPost)

• The US Federal Communications Commission votes to classify internet service providers as public utilities, creating net neutrality rules. The FCC also votes to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that effectively prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their existing service areas. (AP)

RD:Theodore Hesburgh

• Nominated by The Herald (talk · give credit)

• Support with caveats: While there are lots of other deaths on this day, Hesburgh was both prominent in his prime and popular in his later years. He had been considered as George McGovern's running mate, served on the Civil Rights Commission for 15 years until his dismissal for political reasons, and was involved in developing policy to curb violence on college campuses. The latter two are actually very topical again. My caveats, though, are that the article needs some improvement. Some refs are dead links, for instance. But I want to make clear that Hesburgh isn't just a recently deceased university president. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a story circulating at the time of all that 1970s activity. Q: What's the difference between God and Father Hesburgh? A: God is everywhere. Father Hesburgh is everywhere except Notre Dame. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose it's completely unclear what field this individual was significant in, sure he was popular and all that, but hardly RD-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be glad to clarify for you. First there's Hesburgh's contributions as President of the University of Notre Dame: During his tenure, the University's budget increased eighteen-fold, enrollment doubled, and endowment increased by nearly 39 times, and the University first admitted women. But his contributions go far beyond a humble Catholic university in Indiana. He held some sixteen presidential appointments, including the Civil Rights Commission (which he chaired from 1969 to 1972). He was considered as a running mate by McGovern. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal. He received over 150 honorary degrees (supposedly the most of any person). He was on the February 9, 1962 cover of Time. He was the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1956 to 1970. He was at one time the chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation;. He served as an ambassador to the 1979 U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development (held by the U.N. CSTD). He was the first priest elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers, of which he was president in 1994 and 1995. He co-chaired the Knight Commission for thirteen years. These are only a few selections of the substantial influence Hesburgh had during his life. Much as Bugs says above, Hesburgh was just about everywhere during the prime of his life. That he did fade into relative obscurity in his retirement shouldn't be counted against him here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, sounds like he did a lot of stuff, but none of it so notable that, in my opinion, he qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Notable to Notre Dame does not qualify him for ITN. This gentleman seems to have lived a very full and distinguished life, but it seems fate and circumstances conspired to keep him below the leading edge of celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. The nominator's statement regrettably overstresses Hesburgh's contributions as attached to Notre Dame, when his work went far beyond. Especially in the 70s, but into the 80s and 90s, Hesburgh was a mover and shaker in national policy. His contributions and involvement in education and civil rights were substantial (as briefly noted in my comment above). I admit, I'm not a regular here, but I don't see why this doesn't obviously meet criterion 2 in WP:ITND. Hesburgh's role in higher education, at the very least, cannot be overstated. That he held the most honorary degrees of any person pretty clearly attests to that. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I get what you are saying -- I just disagree. I don't see that any one of Mr. Hesburgh's accomplishments elevate him to the status of someone we would list as an ITN death. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd point out that being on the leading edge of celebrity is not a relevant criterion, but neither is sitting in a lot of seats an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Clearly a polymath, but equally clearly not a leading figure in any specific field. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Avijit Roy

• Nominated by Bencherlite (talk · give credit)
• Updated by BengaliHindu (talk · give credit), Aashaa (talk · give credit) and Aronzak (talk · give credit)

Note, his story moved to the number 1 spot on the front page of the BBC. Also on the front cover of NBCnews.com "U.S. Blogger Hacked to Death by 'Islamist Radicals'" and independent.co.uk below the fold. Interesting because people are campaigning for the release of Raif Badawi, and the ability of bloggers to use modern technology to challenge conservative ideas is of global interest. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The BBC positioning as first story must be for people outside the UK - the UK version is still a Labour Party pledge on tuition fees. Bencherlite 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The story is on the front of bbc.com, and bbc.com/news, and using Hola unblocker's UK VPN, I see it's the second story on bbc.co.uk under the "news" tab, after "germany votes to extend financial aid to Greece". -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm at a desk in London. It is still the fifth story on the website and it is also the fifth story on the BBC iPhone news app, but the fact that elsewhere in the world it's shown as the top story shows its importance worldwide as opposed to the domestic stories that take the first four places (Labour tuition fees, Gary Glitter, Jihadi John and Lloyds Bank dividends). Bencherlite 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I could support this if he were a notable figure before the assassination, but his article was only just created after his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The website he founded, Mukto Mona was involved in protesting 2013 killings and imprisonment of bloggers - see Ahmed Rajib Haider#Islamist attacks against atheist bloggers -- Aronzak (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently his assassins thought he was notable enough to be worth killing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support- Got worldwide coverage. Google news search results 15,000 news articles. - Rahat (Message) 06:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - seems to have recieved plenty of coverage worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Lots of coverage, good article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not just a terrible crime but an example of a trend of violent suppression of atheist opinion, and associated with significant protests. This is continuing to receive lots of coverage in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters without Borders have condemned his killing, comes during rising repression against journalists and bloggers across the world. The article should now be in better shape. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It is certain that the event is not an ordinary murder. --Egeymi (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support has received worldwide attention (yesterday it was the most read article on Guardian), is an important issue relating to freedom of speech and the article is in decent shape. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RD: Earl Lloyd

• Nominated by 331dot (talk · give credit)

• Heard this in the sports bulletin on BBC Radio 5 this morning (the British national news and sports radio station, for those of you unfamiliar with it!) - and can't remember the last time I heard the death of a retired American (or indeed any nationality) sportsman being mentioned in this way, so leaning towards thinking that this indicates a high level of importance in his field even if his career was less than outstanding (I note he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a contributor not a player). Bencherlite 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose the recently RD posted Charlie Sifford could be considered a comparable? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• This one is a bit confusing. The NBL integrated in 1942. In 1949, after the BAA and NBL merged, they played one season under a color barrier. Lloyd was the first to play a game after that, when the joint organization was known as the NBA, but he was not the first to be signed or drafted. Instead, his team's schedule started ahead of the other three black NBA players at the beginning of that season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but it's just a death of another American arsehole. Do you really think that we should post this because he was the first Black player in the NBA as well as on the championship team? No indication that he was one of the greatest players in the game implies no chance to consider this to go on the main page.--Droneanddrone (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• It seems like two-thirds of your contributions consist of griping about "American shit" or an "American arsehole". Please reconsider your language. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is also no requirement that only the greatest players are posted; it is those who are very important to their fields. You don't have to be a great player to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Pioneer, Hall of Famer - and also, to counter the extremely offensive comment immediately above. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support He'll always have a place in the history books, and his death has received a decent amount of media attention. That said, his debut really wasn't comparable to Jackie Robinson in baseball (something Lloyd himself emphasized in pretty much every interview I read). Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Baseball Bugs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose perhaps the "supporters" have failed to read the article, but it has (and has had) a bright orange maintenance tag at the top of it for OVER SIX YEARS. E.g. the "NBA career" section has one citation referencing just a single fact. On top of that, it has unreferenced quotations and it has nothing of his death other than the fact that he's dead. In short, the article is crap and way off the quality we should be posting to the main page. As for the notability of the individual, it seems borderline (as an outsider who doesn't hold individuals like this in any affection). He won very little in his career as a basketball player and it's notable that his induction to the over-hyped HOF was not as a player. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Baseball Bugs --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Article quality is severely lacking. His college career looks like it was excellent, his professional career significantly less so - and there's nearly no references or citations in the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• No one has said he should be posted as a great player(he is not in the Hall of Fame as a player) but that doesn't mean he isn't important, as the sources I posted state. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

::* Fair enough - but this leaves me completely mystified as to what the man actually did that makes him notable - if it wasn't as a player, than the opening section should be re-written to reflect just what he was most known for in his career, I would think Challenger l (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Boy, I really did miss something - first black player in the NBA - that makes him notable enough - but the article still needs a TON of work. Challenger l (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - notable enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FCC Affirms Net Neutrality

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Wuerzele (talk · give credit)

• Support - I haven't been following this too closely, but it looks like big news and a landmark decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - An important decision. Swarm 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a huge victory. Forbes says it's bigger than when Misplaced Pages (and others) went dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Is Misplaced Pages going to be blacked out in protest against this as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Before we have a rush to post this, where's the update in the article? Would it be the one-sentence sixth and final paragraph in the lead of the article? What about the fifth paragraph of the lead, which talks about this vote in the future tense? Where's the material in the body of the article about this? Bencherlite 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed we shouldn't rush to post this. It needs an update. The section "Proposed 2014 US FCC policy" has an expansion tag, but that looks like it might be removable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards supporting, but first: is anyone able to give an answer as to whether this is the first net neutrality law to be passed anywhere? Formerip (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support with condition that it is noted that net neutrality is not the sole rule applied to broadband service. There are, at least allegedly, hundreds of other regulations that shouldn't be glazed over with the blurb. Joshua Garner (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of other things the FCC voted on today that are aligned with the idea of NN (such as this also applying to mobile data plans, that providers can't block local municipalities from installing their own services, etc.) and these should be included in the NN in US article, but I don't think there's room to cover all that in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • How about something along the lines of "...as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules..."? Joshua Garner (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I would not be opposed to the "including" verbage. Adding as alt-blurb for this and Isanae's suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not a native speaker, but the "including" part sounds rather weird. I'd change it to "...broadband is reclassified as a utility, which includes enforcing net neutrality..." However, this just makes the blurb messier. I'd drop "including" entirely. Isa (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I think this is not right. One thing they voted on today was to classify broadband as a utility, which thus allows them to enact NN because that's basically the requirements of a service called a utility. They also voted on several other issues that all align with the approach they were going - that broadband should be treated as a utility, however none of these other votes were on that specific point. So it's not that "including" NN rules, in this manner. It is not that these other issues aren't important, but everyone was on their chair about the broadband classification ruling. Our omission of these other points doesn't mean they aren't important, but this specific decision was the ITN item. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I think that the distinction is relevant to blurb readers. Only part of the utility Title II rules are being applied: from the NYTimes, "...the new rules are an à la carte version of Title II, adopting some provisions and shunning others." The situation is complicated, and stating only one effect of the rules (net neutrality) unjustly ignores the broader impact of this reclassification. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Blurbs have limited space and this vote is complex. In this situation, I'd mention the most popular effect of the decision and assume that interested readers will visit the article for more information. I understand your point that this makes the blurb incomplete, but it does not make it inaccurate. Isa (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is important. SeraV (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose yes it would be big news if this won't be taken down by some judge in a few months. Unless I am missing something, there will be some endless litigation following this 3-2 decision. Until something like Supreme Court decides on this or it actually comes into force, I suggest to wait on posting this. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is pretty much a sure thing that there's going to be a challenge to this. However, it should be noted that the FCC had has attempt to do this a couple times before but had to change their approach here (specifically the reclassification of broadband as a utility, something under their power) as to be able to set the NN rules, and so any challenge is going to likely be a SCOTUS case, and if and when that will happen, we don't know. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not everybody knows what the "Federal Communications Commission" is. Can we get the country name in there somehow? Something like "In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service." Isa (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Added US to the FCC part, which should make it clear on the country. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support due to significance not only within the US, but globally as movement grows to implement this type of regulation. I agree with JoshuaKGarner that it would be preferred that the article mention what Title II regulations apply here, as it looks like they cherry-picked authorities in this decision. However, I don't think that needs to be mentioned within the blurb, and I don't think that it necessarily needs to be included in the article at time of posting. Additionally, please link to the section for the bold link, not just the article.Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support provided the article is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Article is lengthy but the update is a bit skimpy. I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit. But I agree that this ruling is important and worthy of a posting on ITN. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Administrative note: There is clear consensus to post this, but there are referencing issues on the article that need to be addressed before this gets posted to the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  It looks like there are sufficient sources in the paragraph now, anything else needed before it's posted? Nakon 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Section 5 still has an unreferenced tag on it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thing. It was written in 2008 and has been unreferenced since then. Isa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Apparently the regime has wasted no time in blocking many overseas websites from access to the US, in violation of the principle of no prior constraint. This is a huge, extralegal power grab. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Which regime? And do you have a link? I'd like to read about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, not the NK regime. The overseas sites being down seems to have been a glitch last night, perhaps due to the internet outage out west, the sites are back up now. That in no way downplays the importance of this huge power grab, the details of which the FCC is keeping secret from Congress. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• SupportMonopoly31121993 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support issues like ACTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership make US relevant overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Very nice, @Coffee: thanks for posting. It would be helpful though if the word "utility" could be wikilinked as utility. At the same time, the last three words "for the service" can be omitted to save space. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Leakey

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.

• Nominated by Bencherlite (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · give credit)

• Support top honour and rarely awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per nom but also for the hilarity of the names of both the living VC winners..--Stemoc 12:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What's hilarious about them? Modest Genius 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support article is in decent shape and 15 occurrences in 70 years, ten years since we posted one; hardly means we'll be overrun with nominations in future years. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks to Stemoc for uploading and adding the picture. Bencherlite 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Rare event, target article in good shape; Victoria Cross article is very good thus in line with our commitment as an educational resource. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Handing out 15 medals in 70 years would be interesting and relevant if it was the only medal given out by the British military. There's dozens of similarly "rare" events happening every day. Picking out this one just looks like standard military history bias with a little British slant thrown in. Shame on y'all for not applying a bit more critical thinking. Peter 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's an odd point of view. The award of the VC is rare as it gets, especially to a breathing human. The fact that other medals are awarded is not really relevant here. Could you provide us with, say, just a dozen of these "similarly "rare" events" that have happened today? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This needed more time for discussion from other parts of the world -3hrs is far too short. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been ITN, but we need to avoid this considering the timing and geographical topicality of the story (read: middle of the UK day). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed. The result of this very recent thread shows that a little more time should be given before events are posted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  I also agree. I'm not saying "pull", but it's funny how Brits often complain when an American item is posted quickly at a time when they're not on their computers, and then this happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Well what are you saying about this nomination then? Is this just an opportunity to have a make that gulf just a bit wider, or are you actually suggesting this shouldn't be posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  (e/c with TRM) I have no problem with more discussion taking place, but please let's not turn this into a Brits-v-Yanks discussion, which would be particularly ironic when Leakey won his VC in part for risking his life to save an injured US Marine Corps captain. Bencherlite 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'm saying exactly what I said, which is that it was posted too quickly. I also can't help but notice that it's not receiving any U.S. coverage. Irony re: what Leakey did duly noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Perhaps you missed the point again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  What point is Muboshgu missing? This was posted far too hastily and anyone ought to be able to see that, whether they support posting or oppose posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Come on, keep up. The point is that it is a perfectly valid ITN. You don't like it the way it was posted. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Keep up with what? Stop being so patronizing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Keep up with the discussion. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  It took you forever to acknowledge that part of the objection is that this was pushed through too quickly. Don't tell us to keep up. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? It's amazing that you haven't objected at all to an item that I posted after just four or so hours. Because it didn't relate to anything British. Utter hypocrisy. Do some research, keep up, and stop whinging. Or go to RFA and become an admin and do all this yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Whatever. Believe what you like. I no longer care. This discussion isn't going anywhere anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks, bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pull this item'. It is not world news, and it is a political problem as well that wikipedia would choose to rpresent specific countries military medals and not others. Demonstrates worse judgment that usual even for ITN. Posting it with only four supports and after such a short period of nomination is further aggravating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to be "world news" to be posted to ITN, as well you know. Which other "specific countries military medals" of this nature have been overlooked? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Post-posting Support per WP:NOTBURO. --Jayron32 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull even the nominator admitted this was not a clear–cut case, so it certainly should not have been posted after 4 votes and 3-and-a-half hours, especially since no case has really been made for the international significance of this event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  See above " Please do not ...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." International significance has never been, is not, and never will be a standard for making ITN decisions. It's fine to have a valid reason to oppose; perhaps the article quality is not what you'd expect? Oppose for those reasons. But complaining that this didn't happen in enough countries or "internationally significant" is not an actionable oppose reason that should sway admins to make a decision. --Jayron32 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  If what I wrote above qualifies as complaining, then the world has turned upside down. At any rate, I don't think this military award is significant enough for ITN and I certainly don't think it should have been posted so hastily. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  You were the one who said "no case has really been made for the international significance of this event". That isn't required. Thanks. (P.S. If you fancy it, you could picture this is a Brit risking his life to save an American in Afghanistan... doesn't get much more international than that!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, Jayron32 already pointed out that international significance is not required. I'm still not convinced that this award is significant enough in the UK for this nomination to be posted. Even if it is worthy for ITN, I still have a major objection to it being posted with such minimal input, considering that the nominator himself said it wasn't a clear-cut ITN case. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Odd. It's the highest award for gallantry available in the UK, and is rarely awarded to living people because usually they die in the course of their duty. Your objection is based on not understanding the significance, that's your problem, not ours. Read Victoria Cross, it may educate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  My objection is also based on how hastily this was pushed through, but you keep disregarding that for some reason. If it is significant enough, great! But when it gets pushed through like this, the whole situation smells bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Well your objection is noted. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Post-posting Support. Rare and historic achievement. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull I've seen the word "parochial" used by many a Brit to oppose an American nomination. I wasn't going to say pull, but then I looked through some sources and I'm surprised that this is only covered by British sources. The New York Times and CNN don't have anything on this. This isn't a WP:ITSLOCAL oppose, since this concerns a British soldier in a war in Asia, but I'll say it's still too "parochial" a story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Time magazine (which I think is American) and the Singapore News (which I think is not British) have it - did you find them? Clearly not. Bencherlite 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I did not have time to search every single source, no. Google News showed me only British sources, and it's still odd to me that NYT and CNN still have nothing on this. I will revoke my !pull, but still think this should've been an open discussion for longer than it was before it was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Also now in Holland and Spain. Bencherlite 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull. It has no place on ITN. Yes it might be rare, but since when do we post military awards? Also, the posting was far too premature, this is what the Americans normally do, the Brits shouldn't be doing it as well! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Regardless of your perceived prematurity of posting, why would this have "no place on ITN"? Since when "don't" we post military awards if they're significant enough? Especially when it's in the news internationally and represented a military award that is hardly ever given to a living person who was serving in Afghanistan who saved an American... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not perceived, actual. Apart from that, for one, how is the 'saved an American' relevant. Also, Soldiers get decorations, big deal. Point me out when we last posted a decoration, of any country. The last thing wiki needs to do is cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society, it's getting to dangerously American levels already.... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is that "we haven't posted anything like this before, so we shouldn't start now"? Perhaps you'd like to modify the ITNC guidelines to ensure we don't post anything to "cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society" despite the fact this has nothing really to do with UK society, just UK forces in Afghanistan who act so bravely to protect others. You don't like war, we don't like war, who does, but ITN isn't the place to try to right great wrongs. You know that, don't you?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - it's different and notable.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, given their rarity I would say the award of a VC to a living person is notable enough for inclusion in ITN. Bob talk 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull This was a) posted far too early. b)It doesn't belong, yes it might be rare, but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway important to us. c) does this now mean that we are going to post other military awards just because they are "rare". SeraV (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, find one that's as rare as the VC with its context and we should consider it. Do you have any examples? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Soldier gets military decoration. Big deal? Move on. Seriously though, , , , indeed most of the highest gallantry awards are just as rare as victoria cross. SeraV (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. By all means tell me when we rejected an ITN for a military honour as significant as the VC to a living individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, so we never should reject them then? Perhaps we should but it in ITN/R then. SeraV (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. ITNR has nothing to do with this. Are you sure you understand how this process works? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And I thought you were the champion againts systemic bias here, obviously that is only when it is in your interest. SeraV (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's User:HiLo48. Keep up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But he is dead and buried (at least he is not here). We need a new champion! SeraV (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep posted. Significant awarding of a high military honor that is rarely awarded. International angle only adds to the good reasons to post this. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull - Clear example of English Misplaced Pages Systemic Bias. There are dozens of "rare" highest military awards for various countries (see Template:Highest gallantry awards). The awarding of such "rare" medals, however, is not rare in the global context. The only reason English Misplaced Pages editors are aware of this particular award is because they live in the UK and are no doubt bombarded with it in their local media. It has no significance to the rest of the world, however. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the US equivalent of the VC? I guess there is (less than) zero coverage of this story in the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand there is systemic bias but I don't usually see it described as a UK bias. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

it's usually considered anglophone bias, which includes UK. Martinevans, Medal of Honor is equilevant of vc in US. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Post-posting support. This is a very rare event (a couple per decade), of general interest, and the article is good. If I remember correctly, we have posted recipients of the Medal of Honor (a similar US award) in the past. I agree that the item should have been debated for a while longer before posting, however most of the pull !votes above seem to be objecting purely because this is a British award. Modest Genius 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we really want to post every single highest gallantry award from every single country from now on. Because that is what we should do to avoid systemic bias here. SeraV (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not like these are given out every day or even annually; if they were, we likely wouldn't be here talking about it. If you have another similar medal awarding which gets just as much attention, I would be happy to consider and support it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But they don't get as much attention, not in the west. That's what systemic bias is about. That doesn't mean that they don't get coverage in their country of origins or that they are somehow less valuable. I really just doubt that we would post Nishan-e-Haider here, or even that anyone would bother to nominate it even. SeraV (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that's ridiculous. It seems that Nishan-e-Haider has been awarded only a handful of times in half a century. Of course it would be worth nominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well agreed if this nomination is allowed to stand, but I am doubtfull someone actually would. SeraV (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you could do it, should it happen. So stop complaining about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Luckily I am not only one who complains about stuff here. But your point is noted. SeraV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Were you offering to write that Highest military honour in every single country article? How else would we know what to nominate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Um, no. We aren't purely objecting because it's a British award. Some of us are more than a little put off by how this was rushed through. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too, which is why I said so. But that should lead to more caution in the future, not to pulling this item. Modest Genius 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep posted per status quo, as I see no compelling reason why it should be removed. I agree that this was borderline qualified, and that it should have been discussed for a longer period of time; however, at this point it would take a consensus to remove. Admins are allowed to be a bit bold. That does not make this precedent, and that does not mean this short of a discussion should ever be done again for such a low-key, non-ITNR item. Mamyles (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull Systematic bias. wctaiwan (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Which system... the UK, the English Language, the West, the nominator's, the poster's, or which? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anglophone / western world. The concern has been addressed above; suffice it to say I agree with those who think posting this does contribute to systematic bias, and disagree with those who think it doesn't. wctaiwan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

News stories that appear in the West/ English speaking world often concern English speaking people? Should there be a requirement at ITN for non-English (or even non-Western) news item coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note - Obviously an important award, but this might set a slippery-slope precedent. From the award's inception in 1856, until now, the average is about 8 or 9 of these per year. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Grossly distorted by 627 awards in WW1, 111 in the 2 years of the Crimean War etc - as the fact that it was only awarded three times for Afghanistan and once for Iraq shows, the VC simply isn't handed out in any like the same numbers as it was in the second half of the 19th/early 20th centuries. If they were dished out 8 times a year, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Bencherlite 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's now such a rarity, especially for someone who lived to receive it, then it seems fine. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Leave posted. This is probably borderline for posting, but it is certainly acceptable, and this page does not benefit from continued rehashing of decisions already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Note part of the significance is that this individual is still alive to receive his VC. When calculating awards per year, it should be modified to calculate awards to live recipients per year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

and why does that makes this more significant exactly? I doubt those who died to get this were any less gallant than those who lived. SeraV (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you need this to be explained? The significance is that he survived to be awarded his VC. It's super rare. It's not a comment on the gallantry of those who died, more it's a comment on how super rare it is to do enough to be awarded a VC and still be alive. You're either deliberately missing the point or you haven't read the VC article. Either way, I suggest you stop posting comments like that as it really isn't helping your cause.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're quite right, SearaV. The dead soldiers never seem to make the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's going to be lost in transmission....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, super rare? That's sweet. Do you realise how inane you sound like? SeraV (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Post-Posting Support I'd certainly expect an American or French medal only given 15/70 years to be posted. Plus, if acts of terrorism are posted, acts of heroism fighting the Taliban should also be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull it - Larry Silverstein agree. Moorrests (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pull it. This item is laughable. Or should we take it that we are going to post it each time a Norwegian receives the Order of St. Olav? Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because no one cares about Norway and its Order of St. Quisling. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pull it Couldn't agree more. This must be a joke.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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 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: