Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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).
A UN official on a Swiss television station says the UN has "concrete" suspicions that the rebels have used Sarin gas. The UN later released a statement in response stressing that it has not reached any official conclusions, and has yet to have acquired proof that either side used chemical weapons. (The New York Times),(BBC)
Bank of America agrees to pay US$1.6 billion to insurer MBIA to settle a long-running dispute between MBIA and two companies Bank of America had since acquired. (The New York Times)
U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Krusinski, who was in charge of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, is arrested on charges of sexual assault. (ABC News)
Support full blurb - the death of any former head of government/state is notable (regardless of whether that country is English-speaking) and especially for a 'well-known' country like Italy. The death has received large coverage in the news, appearing on the front pages of news websites such as the BBC and "The Guardian". Obviously it is extensively covered in Italy. -- Hazhk13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
RD only unless there is a huge media storm in next day or so. From inside UK is probably not best place to compare extent of coverage with death of Thatcher. Kevin McE (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: article currently has zero info about his death, or personal life in general. It also has several "citation needed" marked sentences. Article thus should not be posted at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
RD only, his political involvement was relatively minor in those last years, so the political impact of his death is relatively low. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, he was Prime Minster of Italy three times. I know it's nothing compared to playing Robin Williams' oversized son on TV or performing at Woodstock, but is it not enough in it's own way? Formerip (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: The World Snooker Championship is the most important ranking tournament in the sport, which is traditionally played at the end of every season. It is also listed as ITN/R. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Support based on article quality; the summary of the tournament is relatively complete, and this is ITNR so it doesn't need any support on significance. --Jayron3214:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: This is my first ever ITN nomination, apologies if I have made mistakes but please explain and I'll try to correct them. Diff for cumulative update pointing to section where most material was added. This is the first time Australia has ever made someone an honorary citizen. It has been covered by the BBC and The Times in the UK, by a German broadcaster, and by Asian and US-based web news services so I suggest it has had global coverage. I admit to a lack of ITN experience but I thought this was worthy of consideration. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak support Article is good quality, update is sufficient, and there are links to news items. Withholding full support until the orange level tag is resolved. That needs fixing, but as soon as that problem is fixed, the article should be worthwhile to put on the main page based on its length and overall quality. --Jayron3214:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose He had no personal connection to Australia, this is about politicians doing what politicians do. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the noteworthy part is not supposed to be Raoul Wallenberg being honoured yet again, but Australia creating an honorary citizen for the first time. Formerip (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose A nice gesture, but what use can citizenship be to somebody 65 years after they died? Citizenship is to do with rights and duties, and rights and duties cease with death. Gesture politics: do they have an election coming up in Oz? Kevin McE (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Eight people are dead after a suicide bomber rams an explosive-laden car into a convoy carrying Qatari officials through the center of Somalia's capital Mogadishu. Al-Shabaab claims responsibility for the attack. (Voice of America)
Support There is a list of rights that women in Saudi Arabia are requested to attain and every movement towards its accomplishment is a good starting point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Update to article contains nothing that is not in the blurb, no clarity about degree of encouragement/compulsion to participate, no detail about whether competitive, not unprecedented for Saudi women to be involved in sport, a minor issue compared to other restrictions on rights. Is this list that Kiril refers to some authoritative document? Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Blurb should include some note on the final percentages, noting how close it was and whether or not a two-thirds majority has been achieved, as both these points are extensively discussed in news stories. CMD (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
* Comment The General election article looks to be comprehensive and fine, but it needs updates on the result, both in the lede and prose in the result section. Regards,Iselilja (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment. While it seems that no significant worldwide coverage on the matter exists, there have been many reports on Twitter of recounts called in ridings where the BN was trailing, followed by an electrical blackout and then extra ballot boxes handing the win to the ruling party. Also interesting was that the ink used to stamp voters was easily washable after two hours of voting, and the widespread allegations of flying in Bangladeshis to cast phantom votes. Many Malaysians seem to be calling this the most tainted election in what was supposed to be a very close race. Very interesting! EricLeb (Page | Talk)20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, I've changed the blurb to link to the stand-alone article for the election, which requires final results and updated reactions. And MalaysiaKini is reporting that the opposition won seven net seats, therefore the government is still denied a 2/3rd majority. EricLeb (Page | Talk)20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong support Malaysia is a country with a large English-speaking population and this election is likely to set the country's course for the next 5 years. Even if the article needs work, this should go up on ITN today to avoid WP:BIAS. Matt's talk10:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Article:Saradha Group financial scandal (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At the request of the Assam government, India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) begins an investigation into India's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse, which has so far resulted in several suicides and an estimated loss of 4-6 billion USD. (Post) News source(s):Daily Mail Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: 4-6 billion USD lost, biggest ponzi scam in India, 4 committed suicide, political nexus, daily street protests, blanket media coverage in Eastern India, wide coverage in India, described by one observer as 'The entire Dakshin Barasat today looks like it was hit by a cyclone. Every home has a bankrupt depositor or a fugitive agent. People who were friends have turned enemies. Happy households have become miserable' it perhaps echoes Alexander Popes quote on stock bubbles 'churches sink as generally as banks in Europe'. In my opinion merits a mention in ITN. originally LegalEagle (talk). Blurb and references updated by Tenebris 16:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
On a trivial note, the blurb is way too long; it should be something like "India's Central Bureau of Investigation begins an investigation into the nation's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse." More importantly, what is the date of the event in the proposed blurb? As discussed previously, many of the important events in this story are too old to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone recommended he renominate with a newer blurb since the blurb that had support was too old to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I think this is pure bureaucracy. People were probably supporting the story, and I doubt anyone would object to a blurb that focuses on a significant development in the story, even if it's not the same significant development they were presented with. There's no reason to waste time waiting for all those people to give their approval to a different blurb. If a couple people agree that this is a significant aspect of the story, this can be posted with a date of April 30. -- tariqabjotu03:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Activists claim that 77 people are massacred in the Syrian city of Baniyas by government forces; the government claims it was fighting against "terrorist groups." (BBC)
39 people are killed during religiously motivated clashes at a funeral in Wukari, Nigeria. (Bloomberg)
Hundreds of protestors gather in Chinese cities to rally against planned large-scale industrial projects. (Bloomberg)
Disasters and accidents
A train carrying toxic flammable chemicals derails and causes a major fire near the Belgian town of Wetteren, killing two and wounding forty-nine. (BBC)
Support for RD in principle. Notable for being credited with founding a genre of music, recognized with awards, and has critical acclaim. Wondering if the article could be a little longer, perhaps expanding it to include a list of what he composed. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
One doesn't have to do with the other; having a prior existing article on Misplaced Pages is not an indication in and of itself of notability, nor is it a requirement for ITN(or ITN/RD). 331dot (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose at current - surely if the subject is notable enough to appear on RD then more than 3 paragraphs can be written about him. I'm willing to be persuaded by a more complete article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Length was also one of my concerns, which is tied to its newness. It was barely long enough for DYK when I checked. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If being "a very important figure in his or her field" is going to be taken as including a sub-genre of a local adaptation of a musical style that only ever had a handful of professional exponents and died out after about ten years without ever making an impact beyond its native culture, then we really need to redefine ITN/DC2. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons such as "FFS who?", "are we going to post the death of every member of bands that had an impact on a subgenre now?", "writing a love/pop song does not make you internationally notable", and a generic "not sufficiently important". --IP98 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Support reasonably popular adult contemporary singer, better than nothing. Update deserves recognition. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Major horse racing event that is on ITN/R. Sources will be added to the nomination when the race is completed and there is a winner. Andise1 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose why is this nominated before the results and updates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
This was nominated just a few minutes before the race had begun which meant the results would arrive shortly after this was nominated. I also am really confused as to why you opposed this nomination because it was nominated before the event actually took place. Regardless of when this event is nominated, it is still on ITN/R and still very notable. Andise1 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support per ITN/R. In the age of "no minimum update", the update is more than adequate. --IP98 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently not ready. Among the requirements in this case (a newly created article) are 'three well-formed paragraphs' which I don't see at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose based on update, which does not sufficiently summarize the event. When the race itself is relatively completely summarized, then ITNR should take over, but the article is not sufficiently updated yet. --Jayron3204:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Removing opposition. Update is now more than sufficient, ITNR so it doesn't need my support for significance. --Jayron3204:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Support per ITN/R. The Kentucky Derby is surely the first thing that comes to my mind when talking about horse racing. With its long tradition and significance for the sport, there should be place for this one once a year on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Article updatedNominator's comments: Probably an attack to stop transfers of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Direct military intervention into the Syrian civil war by a third party is unusual, and therefore notable. Thue (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - needs update the section has a single source. The statement On 30 January 2013, about ten Israeli jets bombed a convoy believed by Israel to be carrying Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Lebanon. is not backed by that source. The paragraph says but unnamed US official said that the likely target was a weapons site. but the source doesn't say that. Needs some work. Welcome to Israel 38 0 days since a violation of international law. It's not a race, maybe a few paragraphs and different sources would provide a better explanation and improve confidence in the content. Lihaas points out that it's happened before, and we can't start a "Recent Israeli Attacks" ticker. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The January 30 attack is linked to its own main article with plenty of sources, so I did not find it necessary to quote sources for the short summary of that article. Thue (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Reinstate the Civil War sticky? This seems to have been in the news increasingly more recently than it had been over the early months of 2013. --LukeSurl10:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support as a major developing story with decent media coverage. The blurb is fine saying "unknown target(s)", but it's not our job to figure out what might be the target of this attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support A military attack by one state on another is certainly sufficiently important, particularly in the context of the situation in Syria. Neljack (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel bombs someone almost every other weekend. It's routine for the IDF to violate their neighbours territory, destroy structures, capture people in international waters or foreign nations. Did they intervene on the side of the government or the insurgents? No. They did was Israel does, attack someone without provocation to protect their interests. FutureTrillionaire is absolutely right: "The impact on the war is rather insignificant.". --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree that, deplorably, Israel commonly attacks other states, but I don't see that as diminishing the importance of this. It certainly got extensive international media coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A second attack is reported, this time on a chemical weapons research . In light of this update, I support mentioning one or both of the attacks. Mohamed CJ(talk)07:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this second attack is really big, a Syrian journalist interviewed by RT reports that 300 soldiers were killed . Mohamed CJ(talk)14:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Support pending a major update - by which I mean several more high value paragraphs describing what has happened from a NPOV and with several varied references. If this serious matter is to go on the Main page it has got to be our best. Jusdafax08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Support This is now the lead story on nytimes.com. Regardless of its effect on the war, Israel attacking targets within Syria is big news because it may lead to a broader war.--Chaser (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment suggest forking this section to it's own article. This obviously (though regrettably) has support to go up. --IP98 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
After watching today's slow but steady edit war on the article as a whole, I agree that a dedicated article on the 2013 Israeli Air Strikes on Syria would be a good idea. Interestingly, one of our ITN contributors who !voted to oppose this story is responsible for one of the deletions, and I am responsible for reverting a deletion by what appears to be a WP:SPA. This won't be easy, and NPOV will be elusive, I fear. Jusdafax00:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Support this is important enough that the only excuse for not posting it would be that we already have a sticky--which we don't. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Syria seems to be more in the news recently than it has been over the early months of 2013. Significant events occur frequently, mostly armed attacks with large loss-of-life but also other types of events. Will probably continue for months. Propose that we re-instate the Syrian civil war sticky sticky to address this. --LukeSurl13:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment We use to introduce a sticky on the main page only when there are numerous different items relating to a single event that warrant inclusion, and thus avoid ITN focus on the same story. Unfortunately, the nomination about the Israeli attack is the only one related item for now, so it's not necessary to insert the sticky again. I don't deny that many events are ongoing in Syria, but we don't have sufficient amount of nominations for them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "Syrian civil war" is an orange tagged mess. The article is huge, with no easy way for readers to find recently updated content. The "timeline" articles (example) are running death toll tickers. 1) There is simply no good article to feature on the main page. 2) These civil wars can go on for years (this one has) so what would be the threshold to remove the sticky? The end of the war? I really think that readers of WP are better served when specific events with their own quality articles can be featured, such as the mosque in Aleppo, the rebels capturing that regional capital, and now maybe the Israeli airstrike. --IP98 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as per IP98. The Syrian civil war article in itself hasn't changed that much lately, except for the April-to-present section, which may be relatively hard for a newcomer to find in such a large article. Rather, I think there should be an increased tolerance towards individual ITN nominations that include "In the Syrian civil war...", "In the Damascus offensive...", "In the Battle of Aleppo..." or similar, giving a more straightforward approach to recent events. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing has changed since the sticky was last time removed. Oppose until increased coverage can be demonstrated by reliable sources. --hydrox (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Bangladesh's finance minister, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, downplays the impact of last week's factory-building collapse on his country's garment industry. (AP via News24)
A top investigator probing the disaster says that vibrations from four huge generators placed on the roof of the building caused it to collapse. (AFP via News24), (BBC)
The UK Independence Party wins 140 seats, achieving 25% of the votes in areas where it fielded candidates, the party's most significant results to date. (BBC)
An international team of scientists announce the discovery in China of a new meat-eating Theropod dinosaur, Aorun zhaoi, dating from 161 million years ago. It is the oldest Coelurosaur known to date. (Design & Trend)
Massereene Barracks murder trial miscarriage of justice
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose not significant, many people sadly suffer from "miscarriages of justice" and many people suffer (on both sides) as a consequence. (Not sure what we're "warning" the nominator about? Remember WP:AGF?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per TRM; nomination seems to be in good faith, not sure why the nominator needs to be warned. Major NPOV issues as well. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - not a fan of miscarriages of justice, but this is simply not notable enough (The imprisonment of a man in NK below is more notable, and I Opposed that). Dunno why the IP should be warned either - I think a neutrally-toned note would do if any.--85.210.102.96 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updatedNominator's comments: On the ITN talk page, some people have expressed interest in featuring more positive stories and/or more stories that would interest our readers but aren't necessarily front page news. My first nomination in this vein was weakly rejected on the basis that it wasn't a real breakthrough/important record. Both are air critiques which I believe this nomination does not suffer from. This is a legitimate breakthrough (culmination of 12 years of research; published in Science) and (unofficial) record that multiple people\groups having been striving for. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Support Ah yeah, this is rather cool. Article is crying out for a picture, could we get one? --LukeSurl09:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose incremental update in the on going effort to miniaturize robots. Same category as the tiny film below: same dog, new trick. DYK? It's a new article with a decent hook. --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that its an incremental update except in the general sense that all science is built on previous accomplishments. Achieving flight on this scale poses unique challenges that have never been overcome before (by humans anyway). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak support. I though they were calling it the Robofly. Anyway, I find this achievement interesting and having many future uses. Regarding images, I found two that are available under CC-by-sa license . Mohamed CJ(talk)15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Those diagrams only have a loose relation to what's been created here. Much better to get a photo (fair use?) for the article. LukeSurl17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
From the researchers: "Unfortunately, the steady progress that has been made in miniaturizing robots over the past decade is of little help to us because the small size of the RoboBee changes the nature of the forces at play. Surface forces such as friction begin to dominate over volume-related forces such as gravity and inertia. This scaling problem rules out most of the mechanical engineer's standard tool kit, including rotary bearings and gears and electromagnetic motors -- components ubiquitous in larger robots but too inefficient for a RoboBee." - again, the RoboBee is not merelt an incremental improvement over previous efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Support Big jump compared to how flying machines looked before. And I think ITN ought to aim at reporting stuff from a few % of Science/Nature's articles. Narayanese (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. New ground gets broken in engineering all the time and there's no indication that this is particularly momentous (e.g. where is the significant news coverage?). It may be cool, but that's not a rationale for posting. Formerip (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, disasters happen "all the time", famous people die "all the time", sports teams win championships "all the time", countries have elections "all the time", etc. Why is it that some subjects get treated differently than others? We post 2-3 disasters a week and a similar number of deaths of notable individuals, yet only 2-3 science stories a year. What is our obsession with death? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Are we overloaded with stories about death? Absolutely, and I do see that as a problem. Perhaps the closer will take that into account and perhaps they should. But I don't think it means I have to support, regardless, anything that would lighten the mood. Formerip (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary support because it's awesome and would be a welcome change from all the death and destruction currently on ITN. Article definitely requires a picture, though. — TORTOISEWRATH17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Removing ready tag. Procedurally, the nominator shouldn't add it. Also I don't see a real consensus for it. (no comment on the merits of the item itself). Hot Stop17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A 6:3 ratio (at the time, now 7:4) is generally considered adequate consensus. Marking ready is just a way to call attention to the item, so there is no reason an involved party can't mark it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. What makes this invention different from all other countless "neat" inventions released during the year? And the article itself points out crucial flaws: "the robot is too small to for even the smallest microchips"; "the researchers haven't figured out how to get a viable power supply on board ... Instead the robots have to be tethered with tiny cords that supply power and directions." Completely impractical and certainly not notable at this stage. Flying robots are quite the niche topic to be focussing on, particularly when they don't actually fly autonomously! EricLeb (Page | Talk)21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
They are automated. The circuitry is attached, but part on it stays on the ground (b/c it is too large at current). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Note given we can hardly expect the admin who created this article to promote himself another admin could perhaps look at doing so. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support - Interesting, informative, has eventual applications in military and search and rescue, and the article is in good shape. I also support the concept of keeping ITN from an ongoing series of disasters and otherwise grim items. Jusdafax22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this? The first line of the article describes this as "a tiny robot capable of flight". Spencer02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
All sources, including the peer reviewed Science paper ("Controlled Flight of a Biologically Inspired, Insect-Scale Robot") call it a robot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages 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. --Donnie Park (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm a Slayer fan, but this isn't noteworthy enough for ITN. There are hundreds of guitarists who are more influential and well-known. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support? ... pending update Need reactions to death. Both Hanneman and King were ranked #10 on Guitar Worlds "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists of All Time". Hetfield, Hammett and Mustane are all in that same top 10, so it would seem he passes ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hanneman has writing credits for more than half of the bands work. It's all Hanneman/King or Hanneman or King. In the era of "there is no such thing as an update requirement" I'm switching to support. --IP98 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support update seems fine given that there's not much else to say besides the circumstances of his death, which is covered adequately. He's a key member of a highly influential musical act (Slayer is one of the "Big Four" thrash metal bands, which is a fairly important genre of music worldwide). Good RD fodder. --Jayron3223:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. A lengthy and successful career with multiple albums certified gold worldwide, seems a good choice. GRAPPLEX00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Not a Slayer fan (never really digged thrash), but you have to admit that he wrote some pretty pioneering tracks. Is his contribution notable? Well, not at this scale, no. EricLeb (Page | Talk)01:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think this illustrates one of the problems with RD criterion #2: how to define what the relevant field is. Was Hanneman "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of heavy metal music? Probably. Was he "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of music as a whole? Probably not. It all depends on the way you define the relevant field, and it's not clear how to pick which one to use. Neljack (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd vote in favor of lowering the standards. This death is interesting, Saw Slayer several times in concert, they were my ex's favorite group, love Seasons in the Abyss. But it doesn't meet the current standard. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I think whether he meets the current standard depends on how you define the relevant field. On reflection, I have decided to support, since I've supported other people on the basis that they were very important in their area of music and similarly sportspeople on the basis that they were very important in their sport (as opposed to the whole of sport). I think to do otherwise would impose too high a bar and make comparisons difficult - how do you compare heavy metal musicians and opera singers, swimmers and basketballers, etc?Neljack (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Question is Hanneman less notable than an Indian playback singer from the 70's? A folk singer from the 60s? An album cover designer? An NFL announcer? A former conductor for the London Symphony Orchestra? Those were all posted RD noms from April? I'm pretty sure a metal guitarist can be added to that last. Come on. --IP98 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Is your list of comparisons intended seriously? Yes, this guy is less notable that any of those examples of people we have posted. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely it is. Does every conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra get a pass, but every lead guitar player from the big four of thrash get a forget it? Really? --IP98 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't give you an answer to the general question, but on the specifics, Colin Davis seems to have been generally considered one of the people most accomplished in waving a stick at a room full of musicians of his generation. Jeff Hanneman appears to have been generally considered part of the rhythm section in a band nowhere near as good as Anthrax. A prize to anyone who can name the "big eight" of thrash without looking at the Misplaced Pages article. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Exodus, Testament, Kreator and ... Flotsam and Jetsam? That aside, one of The Andrews Sisters (a woman with no notability outside the group) was put up with no fuss, so opposition here seems a bit inconsistent. There's surely no argument that the band is notable (record sales alone should account for that without needing to get subjective), so if the precedent is to let that count for the members surely it applies here too? GRAPPLEX02:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I changed to support. "Nowhere near as good as Anthrax" needs a source, and Hanneman was also one of the two major song writers for the band. --IP98 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support Notable (has his own article) and he, or his band, are probably known by a decent amount of people who use wikipedia so it's a no brainer for me CaptRik (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support I'm not a huge fan of Slayer, but the influence Jeff and his band have had (and continue to have) on music and metal music in particular is not obscure or irrelevant in any way, shape or form... Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Picking up a guitar and playing it really fast does not make you internationally notable, no matter how many Americans may think so. 68.101.71.187 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
What an incredibly stupid comment 68.101. The constant efforts to make everything about supposed pro-American bias is really annoying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - What; are we going to post the death of every member of bands that had an impact on a subgenre now? YuMaNuMa14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Muboshgu. In the article on him I don't see any evidence of a significant impact, such as awards, Hall of Fame, or even comments from other figures in music (or even heavy metal music) about his notability. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Support - We aren't talking about a full blurb but rather a small one line mention for RDs. I hate Slayer but someone who founded the highly influential band and was a key part of their success until his death deserves a mention. If it was someone who joined the band later on, or the band wasn't of significance importance of its genre, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh and its a GA to boot. Secret19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
What evidence can you cite that Hannemann (or the band) was "highly influential"? There is currently little in the article to suggest that- and if the band was what was influential, any influence would need to have been at least partially due to him. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong support Considering Slayer is a FA, as are at least 4 of their albums, with the rest of their discography and the Jeff Hanneman page all being GA's, I'd hardly question his/their notability. Robvanvee10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I just revisited the article to see if there was any way I could justify changing to a support vote: something is better than nothing. But there is no awards section, no influence section. No comment by critics or fellow artists on his importance or his passing. Were such material added I could change my vote. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ready now that 1:1 passes for consensus, and with the notability concerns discussed, I think it's time for admin attention. --IP98 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. BBC News still has this as their top entertainment story, which suggests adequate international notability, particularly in the absence of competing RD items. Agree with Medeis that the update could be improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak Support. I don't listen to much music, but I've at least heard of Slayer even if I have never heard their music. The death of a founding member of a popular band seems reasonably fitting ITN. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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: Key turning point in North Korea - United States relations, top story in many major news websites including BBC, CNN and New York Times, among others. Also slow news week for the most part. Secret18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose On its own the story is not notable enough, and in truth this seems to be part of a ploy, as was the earlier saber-rattling this year, to get sanctions lifted. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose interesting, but not sure this is actually ITN-worthy. Many people get seemingly unfair criminal sentences at the hands of regimes determined to prove a point, this looks like one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment It seems like yet-another incremental update in the DPRK-USA spite, but I would consider supporting if they are sending Jimmy Carter in to try and negotiate a deal, as some sources earlier claimed (later disputed by the man himself.) --hydrox (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose simply not notable enough in the grand scheme of things. Unlikley to have the same impact as the 2009 incident, (Random: I've seen Laura Ling and my mother knows her sister-in-law) so don't expect much. (Also - I think Carter is a bit too frail to do anything like that!) --85.210.102.96 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Question should we wait until he is murdered in prison? That seems to be the threshold for posting a full blurb for an item convict which our crystal ball tells us will be an incremental update in the long running history of antagonism between two nuclear armed states. --IP98 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. North Korea does this kind of thing every now and then to try to gain concessions, not likely to result in any change in relations, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages 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. --Suyog13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes its RD as well as in news nomination. I have added News sources If something is wrong please let me know this is my first nomination, I am new to it. Thank you --Suyog16:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. This isn't any ordinary death of someone in prison, but a death of someone with a lot of controversy around them in two countries. Getting some coverage outside those nations as well. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support RD, but woudl also consider a full blurb if one was proposed. In this case, the death itself is a big deal (i.e. subject's existing notability is not only reason for posting), which is why I would consider a full blurb. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support ITN, this case had massive implications between Pakistan and India, and his death/murder is likely to strain further relations between the two countries. This doesn't qualify for recent deaths as it wasn't a natural death and it was still on the news that case. Secret18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose RD neutral as for full blurb--this is the sort of death that requires a blurb since the person himself is not inherently notable. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support inherently notable to well over a billion people. Ignorance of the notability of the subject should not be a reason for opposing posting at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Is Singh a sitting head of state or highly influential in his field? No. Hence he fails RD. I said nothing about him failing a full ITN nomination with a blurb, and others above have agreed with me. Raising accusations of ignorance seems beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree he doesn't meet RD, because the case is much more important than the person, and Medeis you know RD isn't used for sitting head of states", retired maybe, but they get full blurbs. Secret19:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support his death seems to be generating significant in-depth press prominently placed in many reliable sources of news. I'd be fine with either RD or blurb, given the unusual nature and highly sensitive manner of his death. --Jayron3219:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I would respectfully avoid the use of "condemned" without clarification, do you mean death row? Also "dies from an attack" is really grammatically weak, perhaps "dies after being attacked in prison" (which is more active and more accurate?). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Horrific, but only in the news because of his notability. We would have to start a "Recently Charged" ticker (and given Lindsay Lohan a sticky). --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Whilst a huge deal for those involved, this has no impact whatsoever beyond those people. Individual criminal case involving a minor celebrity. Tabloid fodder. Modest Genius11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with IP98. Not internationally significant by any means. (But when and for how long did Savile appear on ITN?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, TRM. If so, then I don't see how Hall deserves a place. And he has yet to be sentenced (if that makes any difference). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Not that much significance inside the UK, to be honest. I still have very little idea who this man is. But the reason we didn't post the Savile story was that no charges were brought: the creepy old bastard was dead before the claims emerged. (At least, before they emerged in the press in their current form.) So that's very much apples and oranges. The reason the Hall story is being reported prominently is that it's a specific outcropping of a large and inchoate story about the criminal sexual proclivities of media personalities of past decades. (There's another story in the press today - charges, not conviction - which is also part of the same business.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose People outside the UK would had said "Who is he?" can't see how he is that significant enough to do so. Donnie Park (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Flash floods leave 16 people dead and 3 others missing in Saudi Arabia, with authorities urging citizens to avoid low-lying wadis. At least two others were killed in neighboring Oman in some of the heaviest rainfall in more than 25 years. (Al Arabiya)
Heavy rain and a whirlwind sweeps over eights districts and towns in Lào Cai Province, northern Vietnam, destroying 52 houses and 2 schools, ripping roofs off of 1600 houses, and damaging crops of local people. (Talkvietnam)
A May Day protest in Seattle, United States, escalates into violence, causing injuries to eight police officers and damage to storefront property. (Seattle Pi)(CNN)
Article updatedNominator's comments: There has been some interest in featuring more positive stories and/or more stories that would interest our readers but aren't front page news. In that spirit, I am offering this scientific research which I realize is not earth shattering stuff, but is pretty interesting and has been certified as a Guinness world record. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
weak oppose, while kinda cool this is not a significant development in science or technology. As a world record it fits into the category of "records created to aid a publicity stunt" rather than something that has been contested for decades. --LukeSurl08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Take it to DYK. Perfect candidate for there but atom manipulation at this level is already a well-known techology. --Tone08:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I would have taken this the DYK myself if (when) it was rejected by ITN. Thansk for savign me the effort though. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I would like to thank ThaddeusB for brining this to our attention. I won't comment on it's "ITN worthiness", but it is a very interesting piece of news, and a fun way to show off technology that's really beyond the grasp of many people (including myself). If anyone is interested, IBM has uploaded the video to Youtube, here. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a neat piece of outreach, but hardly a major breakthrough. Moving individual atoms around like this has been done for many years. Modest Genius10:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Police in Dhaka clash with factory workers protesting the disaster and advocating for capital punishment to be administered to the factory's owner. (BBC)
An Israeli air strike on Gaza City kills Hitham Maskhal, a well known Palestinian militant and injures another in the first such attack since the November ceasefire. Both suspected Palestinian militants were part of the militant group which fired rockets at the southern Israeli city of Eilat two weeks ago. (BBC)
Tentative support. The article is a GA, a pleasant surprise when I saw it. But the update is somehow scattered all over the article. Maybe some reorganization would be in place? --Tone15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - a major development in subject of a GA and environmentalist legislation and lots of other things and this is just generally good for ITN and did I mention Support? (Ugh, caffeine.) — TORTOISEWRATH03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Support: Notable and rare story, plus the article is in good shape. Alas, I was observing the Cherry Tree in my garden today, FULL of Honey Bees. 85.210.102.96 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The article on colony collapse is quite informative but has just one line on the EU ban. IMO the article should be updated to have a bit more info on the ban.LegalEagle (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Support, notable even if insecticides aren't actually the cause (although I don't support some other EU steps such as price deregulation). Brandmeister16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Is the cause proven? This would seem to be like posting the arrest of Pistorius, which we didn't, while the jury is out. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoids had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar and that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality --IP98 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Is that from an article? Can you give the source? I am not really a strong oppose here, it's just that I read last week there were doubts of an actual connection. Of course I didn't write the cite down expecting this nom. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. An enactment of this scale, supported by scientific research into the ecological impacts of a major substance used in the European agriculture industry, is highly significant. ~AH120:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This sort of an off-topic question, but if the EC enacts a ban on something, does that mean all member states had to agree, or just that the EC imposed it and all member states must comply? --IP98 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"15 of the 27 member states voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoids despite opposition by countries including Britain" Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reference Here's a NYT article on the American study finding no single discernible cause.
Article updatedNominator's comments: 4-6 billion USD lost, biggest ponzi scam in India, 4 committed suicide, political nexus, daily street protests, blanket media coverage in Eastern India, wide coverage in India, described by one observer as 'The entire Dakshin Barasat today looks like it was hit by a cyclone. Every home has a bankrupt depositor or a fugitive agent. People who were friends have turned enemies. Happy households have become miserable' it perhaps echoes Alexander Popes quote on stock bubbles 'churches sink as generally as banks in Europe'. In my opinion merits a mention in ITN. LegalEagle (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong support: I was going to suggest it too! The article does not mention the number of affected people. If that can be included, the blurb will be more interesting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment - the nature of a ponzi scheme is such that the amount "lost" was really transferred into other people's hands (i.e. those who got in earlier & the scam artists). As such, I really would prefer a blurb that doesn't make a claim about amount lost. Perhaps something like:
ALT: The largest ponzi scheme in the history of Indian collapses as Saradha Group founders are arrested.
Also the article suggests the scheme has collapsed entirely by 18 April and the Sudipto Sen was arrest on 23 April, so unless I am missing something this story is already stale news.
Finally, on a quick galnce the article appears to contain a lot of personal opinions and speculation, which is a form of POV pushing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Although the scheme had started to unravel from 18th, but as with most financial scam, the extent of the loss was not fully understood for some time, in this case on or around 26th. Therefore in my opinion it is not yet stale news. As for the POV, I am sure we can chuck out material which is not supported by reputed sources.LegalEagle (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support significant event and strong article. One small point, if we are going to refer to suicide victims by name (which I don't think is absolutely necessary), we need a specific reference, by name, for each victim. Ascribing suicides to a particular singular cause is often problematic, so I would suggest replacing Saradha Group financial scandal#Suicides by victims of the scam with short, non-specific prose. LukeSurl07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment as to when one would actually date this story, it's somewhat arbirary unless we pick a blurb that focussess on a partuclar development. Probably April 23, the arrest of the main culprit, would be a suitable marker. LukeSurl10:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support in principle, major financial news which is only slightly smaller than the Bernard Madoff scheme. However I agree that there's a concern over the date. It's not clear from the article what exactly has happened in the last week. Modest Genius11:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The reaction section deals with what happened in last week. Happy to update any more info if you would raise any specific concern. I think that the crisis is an ongoing one and would be difficult to peg a date for it. LegalEagle (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The oldest item on the template is currently from 24 April, and they're listed in chronological order. So if there isn't an event with a date more recent than that, this is too old. Modest Genius19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
On 30 April, the legislative assembly passed a special law (with retrospective effect) to investigate and prosecute the ponzi fund promoters. Pls refer to ALT2 and ALT3. This can qualify as the most current development (I tried updating the article, but the sheer number of new developments just overwhelmed me), if you have time can you please try to copyedit the article. LegalEagle (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
If this was about the actions of the legislature the blurb should reflect that..... plus that law looks sorta mighty. A legislature investigating and prosecuting suspects? Isn't that a bill of attainder of some sorts? This has to be clarified. –HTD14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The law which was passed is not a bill of attainder; the ponzi funds were using a loophole in the regulatory system in India, the law primarily wants to block any loopholes. Previously the ponzi fund mangers could be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code, however the government wanted to increase the quantum of punishment (as a deterrent) and widen the criminal responsibility to agents of the promoters (who may not have been directly involved), the law also simplifies the process of attachment of property gained from criminal endeavours. The law was being debated/pending for the last 10 years but was passed within a week after the fund collapse.LegalEagle (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well that explains it. At first glance the law was aimed specifically to the suspects. –HTD14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think a suitable blurb, especially focusing on the arrest of Sudipto Sen should be used. Further, a proper copyedit need to be done before putting it on main page. Amartyabag13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Unless we can justify a date in the past week, this story would pre-date the 2013 Dhaka building collapse. Thus, even if "posted", it would be too old to go on the template, thus this discussion would be moot. It's a shame as the article is quite good. LukeSurl16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) started its investigation in state of Assam yesterday, the WB assembly passed a law to investigate and prosecute ponzi fund promoters.
Support as a significant financial story from India. Ponzi schemes and their reflection on the investors are a very big deal anywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Question: Can someone refresh me on how ITN handled the Madoff scandal? When was it first posted? –HTD14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the talk page templates the Madoff scandal was mentioned twice on ITN: 14 Dec 08 and 12 March 09; The 14 Dec blurb most probably was: Bernard L. Madoff is arrested by the FBI, charged with cheating investors of US$50 billion through a Ponzi scheme. discussion at look under Dec 13; The 12 March blurb was: American businessman Bernard Madoff pleads guilty to 11 charges surrounding his US$65-billion Ponzi scheme. The discussion can be found at look under March 12. The scam had unravelled in the first week of Dec 08.LegalEagle (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
So following the Madoff precedent, we'd post this if the suspects have been caught and if s/he/they plead/s guilty (or not guilty). Has any of these events happened already? –HTD16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: I dunno if it's possible to post this twice. Madoff swindled $65 billion. This one's $4-6 billion. –HTD16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This time the guy was caught on 23 April, but if we go by that cutoff date then the news will not feature on ITN as it would be 'stale'; my initial proposal was given the rolling nature of the scam the blurb should say something like big ponzi scheme caused loss of money and post it at the top of ITN, however the consensus opinion is there should be a cut off point, so I gave an alt blurb that special law was brought to investigate the scam. This law was passed on 30 April, which make the article eligible to be posted on ITN. I find that no one has per se opposed the article, so I hope as soon as we can agree to a blurb we can put the ready marker.LegalEagle (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The suggested blurbs at the template above should be revised to suggest that a law has been passed as a result of, or after, the arrest took place. The revised blurbs you suggested are clumsy at best; it suggests that the law was passed for the sole purpose of the prosecution of the suspects and would've not been applied to anyone else: This is how "Special laws are enacted to investigate the largest ponzi collapse of India." reads to me, especially with the use of the phrase "Special law". Your other alt blurbs, alts 1 and 2, don't emphasize any milestone to the event: "Government investigates largest ponzi scheme in India"... well, they should, right? –HTD17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggested alt blurb:
"The Parliament of India passes a new law proscribing heavier penalties on ponzi scheme fraudsters after the largest ponzi collapse in India unravels."
This is somewhat crude, but this emphasizes that the law was passed not for the sole purpose of prosecuting the suspects in this case, but for future and apparently past suspects too. –HTD17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
When was the last time ITN posted about subnational legislation? Heh. 17:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What about (ALT4): "Central Bureau of Investigation starts investigating the largest ponzi collapse of India." To give a brief background, under Indian laws federal agencies can only start investigation when the state government requests it, in this case two different state governments requested it. And to reiterate my earlier point, the focus of the blurb is the scam and not the incidental news.LegalEagle (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just how often the CBI investigates? How many cases a year? Is a CBI investigation an event in itself?
We already missed the opportunity on reporting the scam per se. If you want to report on the scam per se, come back when the suspects have pleaded (have they?) or just accept the fact that the incidental news would have to be the focus of the blurb. "Central Bureau of Investigation starts investigating the largest ponzi collapse of India." isn't news as much as ITN is concerned. CBI investigates the largest ponzi scheme, parliament passes the largest national budget, company suffers largest loss, football club buys most expensive player (lol this actually made it into ITN). These are normal occurrences; these bodies are expected to do that. –HTD18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
CBI investigation in itself cannot qualify as a significant event. Making the law by calling a special session of the assembly is somewhat significant but definitely pales in comparison to the scam itself. (ALT4A): "The West Bengal Legislative Assembly passes a new law proscribing heavier penalties on ponzi scheme fraudsters within a week after the largest ponzi collapse in India unravels." As for trying again for ITN when the accused plead, I doubt if the editors then would agree that the news is significant.LegalEagle (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the rub in this nomination. All those who supported this who were outside India supported the original blurb found above. This is actually an easy support. The thing is would these same people accept a blurb focusing on the events after the arrests, such as the CBI starting its investigation or even the passage of law by the West Bengal assembly?
If Madoff was posted when he pleaded, it is very much valid argument for this issue to be posted too once the suspects enter their pleas. How long will that take? If none of the intervening events are notable enough we would really have to settle on the pleadings, then maybe the judgment of the case so that it'll be posted twice too. –HTD19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
First precedents have little value on ITN, Second I tend to agree with you that the ALT blurbs focussing on post scam news are not 'significant'. Hence I would recommend that unless the editors feel we can go with the original blurb (or some variation there of), let us pack up the discussion.LegalEagle (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that, but the facts of this case, or least the fact that it is a billion-dollar ponzi scheme, may warrant anyone to invoke the Madoff precedent, although it's just above 9% of the money swindled in the Madoff case. If it's stale now, we can always attempt a new nom once a significant development happens -- in this case "significant" meaning the development has to directly involve the suspects, such as entering pleas -- unlike the new developments where the suspects are merely spectators (passing of a new law) or at best, passive participants (new investigation). –HTD19:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Copy edit done. I won't touch the "Aftermath" section until it has calmed down a bit more. (Probably someone else will get to it before I can get back to it.) I do have a question about number units. When "billion" is referenced in the lede, is it long form or short form? I did the second conversion in the lede based on the first (original) conversion ratio and short form billion. If the long form billion was intended, adjust the second conversion by 1,000. - Tenebris 14:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Question - why has this not been posted? Not one person opposed the posting (which is nearly the definition of consensus), article is substantial, copy edit is done. - Tenebris 02:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The supports are unanimously for the events described the blurb, which are older than currently oldest item. The suggested blurbs elsewhere are incremental updates and have not been supported. –HTD03:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The following proposed blurb is supported and specifically dates to 30 April, which makes it more recent than at least two of the current ITN postings. I support posting this now because this is the kind of story that later vanishes off the international radar for much the same reason that the after-effects of Haiti's earthquake vanished off the international radar. The notability of the original event is clear, but memory is short.
At the request of the Assam government, India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) begins an investigation into India's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse, which has so far resulted in an estimated loss of 4-6 billion USD.
- Tenebris 03:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd recommend to copy the template above and paste it with a new blurb after this message so the people can judge if the blurb is acceptable. The people above supported the suggested blurb above and not the new ones that had since been proposed. –HTD03:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Done.
Incidentally, what you describe automatically creates a systemic (NOT personal) bias against large-scale stories in third-world countries which break over a slower period of time and do not have a clear beginning or end. When these stories initially break onto the headlines of international news, ITN discussion is based on which exact benchmark should be used, and the story is delayed as a result. By the time agreement is achieved, the original blurb is too stale for ITN. By the time the benchmark has been achieved, the story is no longer front-page news outside the third-world country, no matter how large or how many million poor people continue to be affected. At the same time, an equivalent first-world story would still be making headlines, even after that kind of delay, so -- strictly following the rules of ITN -- the first-world story would make ITN, but the third-world story would not. - Tenebris 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.223 (talk)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: New king in the Netherlands is a once in a generation event. -- Hektor (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Right above this the instructions say: 'Please do not... add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.' So well done, when midnight arrives the bot will break and do something stupid. Delete this section and wait until the day when the event actually happens before nominating. Modest Genius21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've temporarily moved this to the 29th to avoid bot-breaking. We can move it up in a couple of hours. LukeSurl22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is ITNR (the succession of a head of state "where head of state is not an elected position") and a very noteworthy event for The Netherlands. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support as ITN/R, with something like the alt blurb. Perhaps, if it desired to make it a bit shorter, "Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands on the abdication of his mother Beatrix." In other royal successions, we usually mention the death - and since most new monarchs succeed through death rather than abdication, if we don't mention the abdication people might think that Queen Beatrix has died. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support, subject to update and moving of article to Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands once he is officially King. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support, Willem-Alexander is now King and his article has been moved. The articles are in the process of being updated. thayts t 08:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support, but I prefer the phrasing "Willem-Alexander acccedes to the throne of the Netherlands". If your a monarch you accede you don't just become one. --Andrew12:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting. I'll go with the first blurb for the time being, we can modify later. Also, someone upload the photo, please. --Tone12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I think too that the circumstances in which he became king are relevant too. This isn't an ordinary, "the queen is dead, long live the king!" thing its the result of an abdication, which is noteable. I know we covered it when it was announced but it's relevant again now. Strange how two people have renounced their thrones this year; hope Lizzy don't follow suit --Andrew16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Prosecutors discuss a plea deal (avoidance of the death penalty in exchange for a likely sentence of life in prison without parole) for the surviving Boston bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Police have taken DNA from Tamerlan Tsarnaev's wife and are exploring the brothers' connection to two deceased Russian extremists. (NBC)
Article updatedNominator's comments: No idea if this is going to get posted, but I figured it was worth a shot. Landmark event in sports worldwide, not just in the U.S. Major milestone for gay rights, and could possibly pave the way for other athletes worldwide to follow suit, as the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL are highly influential in not only sports, but society and culture around the world. Similar to past achievements such as that of Jackie Robinson and Billie Jean King in sport. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Question (and I think this sort of thing is good and should be posted, by the way), you say "active" player in the "four major NA sports leagues", that's not really clear to me as a non-North American. And who else came out from those leagues, and when? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In other words, he is the only player who is actively participating in either the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL to openly come out as gay. Others have either kept it to themselves or close family/friends while playing, or have announced it long into retirement, for fear that it would have a negative effect on their professional careers (for example, teams avoiding signing them because they are gay, out of discrimination), or their livelihood (other players discriminating against them, public discrimination and ridicule). I don't believe that there is any kind of list to my knowledge of athletes who have come out as gay post-retirement because of these same reasons, but likely we will likely see some names in news articles of athletes who have either advocated for gay rights (such as Brendon Ayanbadejo) or who have came out following their retirement. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the article on this subject on TSN, John Amaechi (NBA), Esera Tuaolo (NFL) and Billy Bean (MLB) have all come out post-retirement. Also, there have been a few retired MLS players who came out recently, as well as several WNBA players. --PlasmaTwa217:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The main point of the "four major sports leagues" is that this is the first time an active player in a team sport has come out, at least in North America. There's been all sorts of consternation about how players would not like having to share a locker room with a gay teammate. A handful of players have come out after retirement (Billy Bean is the first that comes to mind, also John Amaechi) but not while active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it was more the "four major NA sports leagues", that doesn't actually seem to include Canada in the link, I'm just a little uncertain the current blurb phrasing is spot on (nor accessible to everyone across the globe...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(Muboshgu, please watch out when replying. You erased my comment when you posted) Oppose because this really is an American-centric item. That gets thrown around a lot, but Collins is not the first athlete to come out as gay while competing. There have been several notable athletes worldwide who have come out while playing - Gareth Thomas specifically comes to mind - so I don't see why weight should be given specifically to a player because he is the first in North America. --PlasmaTwa217:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
While you're correct in that he is not the first to do so worldwide, the four major North American sports leagues arguably have a far more global reach and impact (in both sport and culture/society) than the Welsh Rugby Union for example. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. This article is a trainwreck, it would be better if we could find some other milestone than relate it to some arbitrary "top four leagues in North America" concept. In other words, if he was the first ever active NBA player to come out, then I'd definitely vote support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
He is the first ever active NBA player to come out.
Since he is the first active player in one of North America's big four leagues to come out, then he is by definition the first active NBA player to do so. As to that trainwreck of an article, it must be noted that the concept of "big four" is itself arbitrary as it limits to the top level league of NA's four most popular sports. But from a pure American perspective, NASCAR and perhaps even MLS might be ahead of the NHL. Resolute18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no concept of a big four in most other places. THat's why I'm hoping we can refine the blurb. I'd opt for keeping it specific to the NBA, at least that way some of the global audience here will understand it. The "big four" thing is entirely arbitrary and therefore has no place here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess the reason why the "big 4" concept was used is to illustrate the fact that Collins is playing in a high-profile professional league, not within the levels of Triple-A baseball (or Football League Championship) and below, or at "top flight" leagues with niche markets. –HTD18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The "big four" concept is key from a North American perspective, but I see your point. FWIW, the BBC has him posted on their main page, noting he was the first from "one of North America's major leagues", which might be sufficient. Resolute18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the page is a complete disaster for newcomers, I couldn't really determine why the "big four" were called as such, this isn't North American Misplaced Pages, it's English language Misplaced Pages so we have billions of readers from outside North America, many more than from inside North America, so let's be accurate and "to the point" here. Stick with NBA, avoid this arbitrary "big four" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Figuring out how to word the blurb notwithstanding, Support. While a NA-centric event, it is still on the front page of the BBC, CBC, American outlets, and is currently the the top trending story on Twitter worldwide. Resolute18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. But my BBC version says "the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so." so doesn't include Canada at all. We need to fix the blurb before we give it major support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose It's even ridiculous to me that someone was so bold to nominate such thing for the main page. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid to document every scandalous and embarrassing story that originates anywhere in the world and gets importance because the readers feel it's entertaining. Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world? Specifically, what is the impact on the LGBT movement? What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it? I'm pretty sure that you cannot provide suitable answers on these questions. Even a simple LGBT parade would make more impact than this one. He's not the first one and not the last who does it in the world. More important people are LGBT and were first in their fields as such, but we didn't post each of them even if they were more important than Collins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, the news is celebrating this as being a groundbreaking barrier that will allow other gay team sport athletes to come out. CNN called it "he biggest move of his career and it's off the court.". Former US President Bill Clinton supported the announcement, sponsor Nike said "We are a company committed to diversity and inclusion."—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world?"
Good question. I dunno the answer. I was busy researching on how Man Utd's title made an impact to people in Somalia. Is this in the ITN criteria?
"What is the impact on the LGBT movement?"
Probably more than an gay pride parade?
"What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it?"
I think you are underestimating the amount of idol worship that sports generates, and the impact of having someone come out - even a journeyman at the end of his career - can have on others. Agency France Presse is calling this a "landmark moment", and here would be the response from the White House and a former US president. Resolute19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Kiril, this is neither "scandalous" nor an "embarrassing story", at least not in the modern world. Perhaps you need to reassess what is considered the norm these days before reacting in such an embarrassing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
He's a gay, so what? It's nothing else than his own choice. I really don't like it but it's not up to me to say what is good or bad for someone else. Why to discriminate people in this manner? Or you think that we should simply solidarise with those living in a society like the one in the United States?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is notable because so few (a disproportionate amount of) professional sportspeople actively come out. Particularly in butch sports in butch leagues. This is "in the news" remember, not "what Kiril or TRM or whoever else likes to see". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support as groundbreaking with strong reactions "Jason Collins has forever changed the face of sports," by Human Rights Campaign, Clinton, Obama, and so forth all reacting to the news. Not your ordinary tabloid story, but like the media said, as groundbreaking as Jackie Robinson statement. Secret19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all the support here for the actual news, I'd just like to make sure we do this properly and post a decent blurb that English-speaking people can get the most of. The "big four" thing concerns me as I've followed a tiny bit of NFL and NBA and never heard it before, so it would be better, in my mind, to make this blurb tighter and thus more effective. Let's not try to overblow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be foolish to restrict the blurb to the NBA. There has been plenty of discussion in the North American sports press about the absence of declared gay players in the major men's professional team sports. That's restated in numerous press accounts on Collins' announcement: Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, Reuters. IMO, the terminology should be "major men's professional team sports in North America". --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Which is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to avoid this pseudo "big four" element. Suggest you revise the blurb Orlady, if you'd be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support groundbreaking announcement. Claims that it has zero impact on the world as a whole are both wrong (as demonstrated by the reaction) and irrelevant (most stories we post have very little impact outside of their immediate area). If it is more clear to just say NBA, that is fine by me, as long is it is understood we won't be posting the first NFL player, first MLBer, etc. when they occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports. In addition to BBC, news.com.au in Australia calls it "landmark for US sports".—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree that "North American" is inaccurate, and discussing its removal at Talk:Jason_Collins#Major_North_American_teams, but it would be a disservice to limit his impact to the NBA. There are enough sources that place this in the context of being the first for a "major American professional team".—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but in the spirit of Misplaced Pages I'll accept every decision that will be made by the majority here. It will be really funny to see a blurb saying that a person is a gay on the main page of an encyclopedia. Some people clearly have an agenda to make Misplaced Pages a prominent place to promote discrimination of any sort. Lol.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support as a major milestone of societal change, including the "major sports" language I suggested in my comment above (which I finally posted after about 8 edit conflicts!). --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally and an NBA fan, along with the (more relevant to this nomination) fact that this is a landmark, and currently a hot topic on the BBC (Oh yes, THANK you for opening comments on this one BBC). --85.210.102.96 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Support, but I think that do the issues raised with how to characterize what he's first in, it'd be best to say ... in the "Big Four" North American sports leagues ... The linked article addresses non-Big-Four leagues as well, including several that have openly gay athletes. As to arguments about the notability of a coming-out... it's on the front page of the New York Times website right now; it's clearly a major news story, whether we like it or not. (If anyone would like me to give them my little rant about the speciousness of the "who cares who you sleep with?" notion, they can stop by my talk page... but that's a matter of my personal beliefs, independent from assessment that this is an objectively newsworthy event.) — PinkAmpers&20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and, for what it's worth, I think the "Big Four" modification would work better on the second blurb than the first.... I also generally prefer the second, as it's more succinct, and I don't like how the first one links to his article twice. — PinkAmpers&20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Pink&, just wanted to reiterate that this "big four" thing isn't something most people outside the US will get. I'd like to hope we could find a suitable blurb that people outside North America could appreciate, especially with such prominent news? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well doesn't the wikilink solve that, TRM? I mean, saying "a major (North) American sports league" is vague and leaves people wondering how we're defining "major", and just mentioning the N.B.A. seems like an understatement... we should mention the broadest way in which it's first, not a more narrow one. — PinkAmpers&20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest major American team sport i.e. ]. "Major American team sport" is multiply sourced and not some WP:OR, and the linked article, though in need of work, is the best we have unless some sources about Collins go into more detail about "major".—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to use wikilinked articles on the mainpage but this one linking to the big four needs substantial work before it should be exposed to the general public. Why can't we just we tighten this up and state the actual facts rather than use these dubious and nebulous terms? (I reiterate, I like the way the BBC have placed it: "Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so"), it's prominent and accurate and not parochial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The Times went with the itemization approach—"The announcement makes Collins a pioneer of sorts: the first player in the N.B.A., the N.F.L., the N.H.L. or Major League Baseball to come out while still pursuing his career". Actually, though, the more I think about it, I guess saying "four major North American sports leagues" makes it clear enough. — PinkAmpers&21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. So what? Whilst the lack of openly-gay professional sportsmen is regrettable, the whole reason why this is disappointing is that their sexual preferences make no difference whatsoever to their sporting notability. 'Sportsman announces utterly irrelevant fact about their personal life' is not a story. Modest Genius21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
For the same reason they run the winners of reality TV programmes and celebrity gossip columns. ITN has higher standards of encyclopaedic content in its stories. Modest Genius22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree on higher standards, which is why sources that identify its historical context were identified and discussed. It is why the American story is listed on the front page of http://www.bbc.co.uk/ under "News", not "Sports news".—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The BBC tailors its pages based on IP geolocation. It's not on that page at all for me. Besides, even if it was it wouldn't change my opinion. Modest Genius23:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support This is highly significant. Openly gay male professional athletes are extremely rare in the world's popular sports leagues. I support the first blurb--this is notable precisely because its significance extends beyond the NBA, and in the media everywhere its significance is being discussed in a broad context.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support on the condition that this be the last sports outing item we ever post--it gets very tired and very ideology-pushing very quick.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Those are individual sports in which LGBT athletes are more common, again read the news sources and especially the reactions, never in a major American team sport that until recently has been very homophobic. Secret22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The athletes I named were top of their game household names. No one's ever heard of Collins. This is recentism. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
"This is recentism" is perhaps the most ironic argument ever made at ITN. By definition, everything here is recentism. Resolute14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Recentism is the viewpoint that the right now is more important than the past because we are experiencing it ourselves. The weight some are giving this lacks historical perspective. There is no way one could compare the career and importance of Collins to someone like Billie Jean King whose impact was huge, controversial, and truly groundbreaking. (It was in regards to her that as a gay child I first learned what a gay person was, even though she was not officially "out" it was an open secret.) Gay people know there are gay professional athletes. The only impact here will be in a very small minority of American sports fans who maintain the illusion that gay men are sissies who can't play sports. That might be of interest to some of us who didn't already know that's false. But it's totally lacking in historical perspective and it is not of encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course this is entirely fallacious. This announcement should set a precedent to encourage the other thousands of gay professional sports players to come out. Given that Bill Clinton thought it worthy of his comments, along with contemporary sports stars like Kobe Bryant, it's clear there's an issue here that is being addressed by this. It may only impact "a very small minority of sports fans" in the US (although that's "citation needed" territory) but it's a landmark moment for actual sports athletes, both in the US and globally, who need the encouragement to be themselves in the face of a hostile, third-world-country attitude to most male sportsmen who don't conform to the predictable uber-masculine norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
"Should"? "Issue"? "Need encouragement"? Again, your condescending solicitation for us poor crippled and underappreciated homosexuals is not necessary, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment There was some earlier concern about the use of "four major North American sports leagues" in the blurb, but it is mentioned by ESPN and Associated Press, whileThe Score in Canada also calls him "only openly gay professional male athlete actively participating in a major North American team sport." Orig blurb is verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's great news, and I'd like to support, but on balance I have to oppose. Other top-level players in major team sports have come out - there's Gareth Thomas in rugby and Steven Davies in cricket, for example - so the only distinguishing feature in this case seems to be that he's the first in the US. But I don't think being the first in a particular country is enough - that could result in lots of postings as such firsts occur in different countries. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:ITN#Updated_content gives a guideline of what should be included in an update. An example of what could get here is some information about how people in and outside of the sports world reacted to this, and why/how they believe his coming out marked/marks a milestone. -- tariqabjotu04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I am a vocal supporter of human rights, but I'm not sure if this type of news should be lauded as an "achievement". I think this nomination (and the media) is going about it the wrong way. The focus should not be about "look at how many homosexuals are present in this or that sports league", but rather about how accepting that group is of all people. You could liken it to using the word "feminism" instead of "gender equality"; one is highlighting the divisive nature of the subject, while the other is much more productive in its delivery. It's a subtle difference which may or may not justify opposing this particular nomination, but it's a difference that should be taken seriously. EricLeb (Page | Talk)03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. There's no way that a bench-player free agent coming out is more important than NCAA championships for equivalent sports, which were not posted. Furthermore, if we're looking to post minorities in major sports, why didn't we post Jeremy Lin, as the first Asian-American basketball player, who was similarly a "first X player" and had a much greater impact for his team? Because that really wasn't notable either; rather, the media frenzy was immense. Spencer06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this didn't turn out to be an immense media event... and Wataru Misaka is the first Asian-American in the NBA. Probably the MLB had someone earlier. –HTD06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. It seems everyone has forgotten about Martina Navratilova, who "came out of the closet", when Collins was only TWO years old. There's just nothing new here. Whatever "barrier" he seems to be breaking had only been recreated out of people's forgetfulness. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a personal matter of a single human being, that happens to be tabloid news. Yet it is totally irrelevant for the rest of the world. --bender235 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's why a former and current POTUS have commented on it, as well as people around the world in and out of sports. In the future such an issue might be "a personal matter", but this first person to do so isn't. As long as homosexuality is a death penalty offense in a few places, and second-class elsewhere, this is not "irrelevant for the rest of the world". Navratilova didn't play a team sport, which has different dynamics than an individual sport. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The day the opening piece on the CBS Evening News is legitimately "tabloid news", I'll throw away my television. "Tabloid news" would be "SCANDALOUS photos discovered of a certain NBA center long thought to be a confirmed bachelor". Collins described himself as "starting the conversation", so I think it's safe to say he knew this wouldn't be a "personal matter of a single human being".
Also, as others have pointed out here, the issue of global relevance is neither meaningful (the fuck do I care about the Icelandic parliamentary elections?) nor accurate (there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who aim to play major-league sports someday, and presumably a representative portion of them are LGBT). — PinkAmpers&12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not ready as the number of opposes supported with pretty strong arguments has rapidly increased. We should halt the nomination and wait for additional users to comment on it. It also doesn't make sense the nominator to mark his proposed nomination as ready. Please let any other user to do it instead of you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
We're in a poition now where it would be good if an admin could close one way or the other. No need to unnecessarily extend the discussion. --LukeSurl15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I closed the discussion as "no consensus" at this point but my edit has been reverted (not particularly happy that the direct reason has not been given!). Here, I point to the fact that the same-sex marriages in NZ and France (also LGBT-related stories) have not been posted due to a lack of consensus, despite receiving a significant media coverage (France probably more than this particular case, in worldwide scope). --Tone16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding impact, Christian Science Monitor wrote of Collins' likely impact to gay rights "given the coverage it is likely to receive and the interest major league team sports generate in the US, indeed the world."—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Big story which attracted great interest of the media and our readers. Article is currently the most visited on the English Misplaced Pages with more than 300.000 page views yesterday.--В и к и T 16:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Four new opposes actually. One is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT and can be summarily dismissed. The other three all made arguments of emotion that were already rebutted. Resolute16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support This wasn't a flash in the pan, and is still the lead story on CNN today. The article update is good. --IP98 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Changed to ready Article updated with text from Christian Science Monitor about Collins and interest in major league sports likely driving the trend of gay right in the US. Coupled with aforementioned support by presidents and major multinational Nike, the impact is clear, especially in light of the usual caveat to not "complain about an event only relating to a single country". Use altblurb.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I was just coming here to mention that CSM article. There's a reason why we're still talking about this in 2013: gay rights aren't as far along as some of us would like to think. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
And even for those crying "agenda pushing", this is the majority view in the media. Ignoring what is prevalent in the media is pushing a personal agenda to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If we were going to go there, can we please stop with the obsession of multiple people dying in one accident/massacre.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm all for LGBT rights, but the kind of progress we should be considering "news" is the kind that happens on a national level (like the recent French, New Zealand and Irish legal changes), not the personal life of one semi-obscure sportsman. It's the kind of small gossip-column news that seems more like clutching at straws than genuine forward progress. GRAPPLEX17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not gossip. He wrote an article in a national magazine and came out. Since he is a "nobody", it must be a big deal if the rest of the non-sports world actually cares. Again, American Brittney Griner, college national women's player of the year and first overall pick by the WNBA didnt get this type of coverage when she came out only a few weeks ago. Sure, it is a statement on society's obsession with the big 4 leagues, and bias over gay team sport athletes vs lesbians or non-team sports, but it is a reflection for better or worse of the press' interest, not some other agenda or WP obsession with gossip.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's gossip because we're attempting to pass off a person's personal life as news, not because it's considered speculative or unfounded. Like I already said, to consider one person's personal life as something front page-worthy, especially when we still haven't posted national news stories about gay rights legislation affecting thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people, is petty and small. GRAPPLEX18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Your point about news stories about gay rights legislation is probably correct (though I'm not an ITN regular). However, for all that some look down on sports, something like sports and Magic Johnson announcing he had HIV or perhaps this about Collins can have just as much impact. I do agree that encyclopedias should be discerning relative to the usual celebrity gossip regarding dating, debauchery , adultery, etc, but I advise to not downplay sports' crossover impact on the "real world". It also wouldn't seem right to penalize this news item for mistakes in omitting others in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. An American basketball player declares he is gay. Fail to see how either it is 'landmark' or 'significant'. ITN is not Sun.LegalEagle (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, no justification yet as to why this event is more important than all the gay sports people elsewhere in the world who have come out. The particular sport is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You know what, I think the sport is relevant. A gay snooker player isn't going to encounter homophobic chants. A gay rugby player would certainly face homophobia in the midst of the game but probably not from the crowd in general. A gay footballer or basketball player (how many of these are there? Globally?) will face all manner of prejudice. This is an example of a person who has come out in a sport which is global, in a sport where no other gay man has come out, has been recognised for his open-ness by former US presidents, has nearly 10k news reports (that's reports, not hits, reports) on Google. This is most certainly "in the news". The particular sport is one which has a global, hence the bravery of one man is justifiably being acknowledged as a landmark event. The fact that dozens of fellow NBA players have also made supporting remarks just backs this whole thing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The sport may be "global". The competition referred to is not. And global news balance is distorted. Puppy rescues, and celebrity romances and their babies in America make it on to the news in other countries, especially if nice film footage is available. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The sport is global, the competition is globally recognised as the premier competition. And if you don't like "global news balance", perhaps commenting at ITN at what is "in the news" isn't really your thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you telling me to shut up? I made an observation. A perfectly valid one. If you don't like it, please discuss it rationally and keep it nice here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Modest Genius had the most compelling argument. The news is essentially that a professional sportsperson revealed a minor personal detail that has no connection to his athletic performance. It's essentially tabloid fodder, and we're an encyclopedia. ITN doesn't have to post everything the mainstream press posts if we feel it's not very relevant for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If it was a "minor personal detail", it wouldn't have resulted in the response it's gotten. Compare this to Medeis' post below to see tabloid fodder. This is far from that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Removed ready - There is still no consensus for posting this on the main page given the totality of the !votes.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support That this story is being opposed as not news while sitting just up the page from a posted story about a spacecraft that stopped working, is funny. This is a news story. If Misplaced Pages has a suitably updated article about it, post it on ITN. 212.139.240.108 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Do I have to explain the difference between an openly gay athlete in a team sport versus the typical tabloid trash? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The point was that this news story, as of about two hours ago, had over 7,000 Google News hits (not just "hits", "news hits" for those who find it difficult to distinguish between them. If this needs further explanation, please let me know or start an AN/I or whatever), unlike the examples given above. I think most of us understand what "in the news" means, i.e. not just a single article on a single website. The examples given are, frankly, beyond absurd, disruptive, an unnecessary non-sequitur and a waste of this community's time. Embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for the sake of consistency. I don't think this can be described as tabloid nonsense. But we just failed to post arguably the biggest LGBT rights story for France in a couple of centuries. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume you also opposed the previous story you referred to? Otherwise, two wrongs (rejecting this news item as well) don't make a right.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure both the New Zealand and France nominations had consensus to post, though a vocal minority shut them down. What is this, ITN or the United States Senate? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
More on impactguardian.co.uk: "For those of us invested in both the two quite different worlds of pro sports and the LGBT rights movement, Monday was a banner day, as professional sports had long been seen as the final frontier of LGBT acceptance."
More on impact 2 Tennis player Martina Navratilova, who came out as a lesbian in an individual sport 30 years ago, calls Collins a "game-changer" for team sports with the potential for homophobic coaches affecting playing time or uncomfortable teammates in the locker room.—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposal The nomination should be closed as soon as possible before it reaches another useless waste of time on something that doesn't have realistic chances for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That remains to be seen; most, though not all, of the oppose comments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT from what I can see. This was the lead story in news outlets around the world(not just on the sports page) and Mr. Collins' page has had hundreds of thousands of views. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually several of the oppose votes (at a glance, Modest Genius', mine and Hydrox's, I've probably missed a few) are in no way WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, but accurately point out that this is simply overblowing a personal detail of a celebrity's life—comparable in importance and coverage to, say, Kate Middleton's pregnancy, which we would never have considered posting. I'm still not even slightly convinced that this should be posted when the France story wasn't, because skipping a story with national impact for one that's just personal, we run the risk of seeming overly focussed on sports/North America/the anglosphere/whichever one is going to be griped about first. GRAPPLEX21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, the France story should've been posted and it's a minor travesty that it wasn't. While this may be receiving a similar level of coverage to Kate Middleton's pregnancy (I'm not sure, I haven't followed the Royals), I think it's clear there's much more significance here. I don't know that you really want to bring up the royal family though, since this has much more significance than that Jubilee we posted. This is a major news story based on its coverage and impact on society. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)He was hardly a "celebrity" before this; and while I look forward to the day when this issue is indeed a "personal detail" that doesn't get attention, we aren't there yet. If it was, it wouldn't be getting this attention from the worldwide press, other notable figures in sports, and even political leaders(current and former). I guess if Jackie Robinson's story was just occurring today, that wouldn't get posted either, since being a different race is just a "personal detail". 331dot (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Robinson important for being the absolute first to cross that colour line, not just the first of his gender in his sport in his country? GRAPPLEX22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There had been Black athletes and Black leagues before Robinson, as well as female athletes and some female leagues. What's notable is that this occurred in one of the top professional sports leagues, which for better or worse does not include the WNBA or most individual sports which have had gay players come out. Top-level team sports are a different dynamic- prior to this some players and others have expressed resentment and an unwillingness to play with gay players(just as some white players expressed unwillingness to play with a Black man). This will greatly change team sports. One doesn't have to be the absolute first at something to be notable for doing it. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposal I ask the opposers to reconsider after (re-)reading Jason_Collins#Personal_life for the impact expressed by people outside of sports and those in LGBT community. Yes, ITN is not tabloid, but "tabloid" seems to be a mischaracterization of this item when those outside tabloids, sports, and even the US are commenting on the story.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Now you're trying to illustrate your point that the opinions of the supporters outweigh those of the opposers regardless of the fact that the majority of users don't think this should be posted. That's why I think it's useless to continue this discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You are free to not participate in this discussion if you feel that it is useless. I also don't think that's what he was doing at all, he was simply asking people to read something and reconsider. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I question the use of the word "majority". Last I counted, there were more !support votes than !oppose votes. Though not by a huge and overwhelming margin. That's before getting into the merit, and some of the naysayers were WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though certainly not all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Simply asking to reconsider is a kind of sneaky agitation which is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Neither we'll lose something very important nor the world will end if we don't post this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you show me where on Misplaced Pages it is written that one cannot ask others to read something and reconsider their views? There was nothing sneaky or nefarious going on here. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mention it's a rule and you should distinguish between a rule and something that is coined in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. If you regard agitation as something useful for the community, then you have drastically different views on the things here. But fair enough. Why to waste my time on something that won't be posted?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As someone who came out in junior high during the Reagan administration, who worked for Christopher Street Magazine, and who wore a pink triangle in places where it was physically unwise for me to do so, and hence would be considered by some a "member of the LGBT community", I can assure you it really doesn't mean anything. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
"In my opinion"? Who else's opinion should I have? It's no less offensive being condescended to as someone who needs special treatment and recognition than it is to be discriminated against: both are forms of prejudice. I have no problem with Collins's coming out; it simply isn't important outside a certain mindset. Rather outside two certain mindsets, the identity politics crowd and the bigots. Neither POV should have weight here. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Support This is being covered by a) major news outlets b) as a lead story and c) in a very broad and in-depth manner. Given that, and that we have a decent article to point readers to, I think all evidence points to this being a significant story. --Jayron3222:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Posted There's a decent update. There's substantial support. It's far from unanimous, but I don't find the reasons for opposing to be stronger than those supporting. I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story. The content of the update supports that notion. It is not our job to decide what should be in the news. Also, the argument that this shouldn't be posted because the same-sex marriage in France story wasn't doesn't hold water; that ship has sailed, and the fact that something was or was not posted is not a valid reason for supporting or opposing a story (although I should point out that the story itself received substantial support as well). -- tariqabjotu00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment in response to that... (And I'm not trying to argue further against the posting. It's done.) We DO decide "what should be in the news". All the time. Brangelina and everything surrounding them was/is a big story, as are many other similar ones. We don't post them here. I don't know whether our policies say we should be making such judgements, but we do. That means it's perfectly valid for people to argue that something is just a rubbish, tabloid story. Whether any particular one is, is yet another judgement we make. Frequently. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, that story was never the top story in any endeavour of serious journalism, things like CNN, any major network news TV show, major, well respected print news stories, etc. never published anything on the front page/lead story/top news item about celebrity gossip, so it's a bad analogy. Major news sources gave this story depth of coverage, prominent placement, and the story was covered in sources around the world. We don't have to make any judgements, because all we need to do is observe where the story appears. It isn't merely that one can find a news story, it is where and how it is being covered. So no, we don't have to decide what should be in the news, because Brangelina wasn't in the news, at least not the news that counts for In The News. --Jayron3205:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In a way, you've just agreed with me, at least to some extent. We DO make judgements, don't we? And the fact that your preferred approach to deciding is different from mine, and others', highlights the problem we have here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
ITN is meant to steer people to articles on events that are "in the news". It isn't called "what we think is in the news". 331dot (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We make judgement about notability all the time but the claim that this was 'tabloid fodder' was always nonsense and rightly ignored.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment - While I have no objection to the posting of this story, it does strike me as odd that we have posted it. This is a story with no far-reaching implications for society and civil rights. When discrimination against LGBT people is banned by federal law in the same way that racial discrimination is, that will be a real step forward. However, we had two stories about the legalisation of same-sex marriage in major industrialised nations recently which were not posted despite reasonably strong support. While I usually resist 'other stuff exists' arguments, and do not believe there is any significant pro-US bias in this section of Misplaced Pages, this does look like a very unbalanced way to report on the LGBT issues that have been in the news lately. I'd like it if an uninvolved admin could find the time to review these decisions. Thank you. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There are effects on society and civil rights(which isn't a requirement for posting anything on ITN, but...) as this will change how homosexuals are treated and received in team sports. It could also influence the gay rights movement. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is true. Again I will raise the counterexamples of Justin Fashanu and Robbie Rogers, who both came out but resulted in no appreciable change to the culture. I still don't support posting this, but won't argue with the posting. Modest Genius10:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know as much about Fashanu, but Robbie Rodgers retired when he announced. Obviously we can't predict what will happen here but it's a clear milestone (yes, with a number of caveats).--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Pull - From my count there are 12 supports and 13 opposes. That is not even close to consenses and it should be pulled and only added when there is a lot more people that support inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.131.183 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There is more to building consensus than a simple !vote count. Tariq has included an explanation for the rationale behind posting. Feel free to read it. --IP98 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Tariq's rationale basically amounted to simply dismissing the opposes. The examples of Wade Davis (American football) and countless other athletes show this was not a first. I agree with Alex it is odd this was posted with I think 14/12 (now 14/13)? support when the France and New Zealand laws were not posted with much better support. The whole subtext seems to be "this is morally desriable and something we need to get behind". Were four athletes to come out on one day as was being rumored a few days back I could see the notability. But at this point, except for very liberal outlets like HuffPo, this was bottom page news quickly forgotten. In fact, the front page news to day is that athletes know they play with gay team-mates and this is "no big deal". μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - guys, this is not the American Misplaced Pages. Already in the US this isn't actually a real first, but in many European countries this is nothing special. No one cares less which hole some random American sportsman prefers to put his penis in. "Morally commendable" isn't a valid ITN reason. 82.122.103.143 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a "Please do not" above above about complain about an event only relating to a single country. Claims of US centrism have become tiresome. I rather doubt anyone in the USA gives a damn about a dutch prince or a ban on insecticides, but there is no one on those noms screaming about Eurocentrism. --IP98 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The IP's point is a little more valid when you realise that this story about a US athlete received such a prompt posting while one affecting all of France was dropped. I did warn up there that posting the vastly lesser story would engender claims of bias. GRAPPLEX01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of us supported posting the France story......and if that IP user feels there is a bias they should work to counteract it by suggesting non-American stories for posting. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The constant comparison with the French gay marriage issue is getting ridiculously tiresome. It wasn't posted for whatever reason--perhaps it was a mistake and mistakes happen. But on the other hand it may just be that after already posting the legalization of Argentinian gay marriage 1, Mexico City Gay Marriage 1, Sweden 1, and a number of other places, the issue had become less notable. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Same sex marriage and the coming out of gay sportsmen are very different issues.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an apples to oranges comparision; it's a one-apple to sixty-five-million apples comparison. Think of it like this—if we reject an item on the result of the FA Cup, would it be a good idea to stick up an item on the FA Vase quite promptly afterwards? Or if we reject, say, a death nomination for an active head of state but immediately follow it by posting one for a TD/MP/congressman? Of course not. The larger, wider-reaching item was rejected, which should clearly shade our treatment of a smaller, narrower item in the same week. Sometimes it is actually necessary to judge one item by the treatment of another. GRAPPLEX02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're assumption that the France item was left out due to some geographic or other bias is presumptuous. It could have been a mistake or something else. ITN has posted the legalization of same sex marriage in many jurisdictions (and doubtlessly the fact that we've posted similar events previously dampened the enthusiasm somewhat--the legalization of gay marriage in Denmark was opposed specifically because it it was only the 'eleventh' country). But you're portrayal of the Jason Collins coming out as 'one apple vs 65 million, while that may be how you see it, isn't how a large section of the press in the US and abroad sees it, and there are ample sources supporting this. You're obviously entitled to your view on the matter but it's been very well established that there's a perceived significance here beyond one person. I completely agree that 'oppose' votes based on the rational that this is 'one person's sex life' or similar wording should be disregarded. By your logic, we should post all laws passed in France, since the all affect 65 million people. Many things posted on ITN don't actually effect people beyond a symbolic importance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not assuming that the French item was rejected because of any bias. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I stated that the act of ignoring one and posting a lesser will, and I quote "engender claims of bias" from our readership; it's clear this is true because we've already seen such an accusation scant inches above. And no, those oppose votes should not be disregarded in the slightest—the opinion that one person's personal life is not of international importance is a common and valid one. Lastly, no, that is not my logic, so once again, thank you for using me as your strawman, I greatly appreciate not actually being paid attention to. My logic is that we should not post an item affecting one person if we have only very recently rejected one affecting 65 million people. How the press in a person's home country reacts to personal news is not indicative of its actual global importance—you only have to look at the continued English interest in Kate Middleton's pregnancy (which, by the way, was also commented on by government officials much like this story) to see how the press, and people wishing to appeal to the press, like to jump on feel-good stories quite readily. Unlike every other story in our current ITN box, I have yet to see a single column inch or televised minute on this story outside of US sources (and I read a very sport-heavy newspaper). GRAPPLEX03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support - Academic now, but I will cite my reason anyway, since this is not a closed issue (and the core stem of it is unlikely to be a closed issue in my lifetime). This argument for strong notability (as contrasted to a piece of data irrelevant to the person's forté) has several parts in addition to the (already stated) heavy news coverage.
1) Male homosexuality is seen differently from female homosexuality everywhere in the world. (The threesome usually assumes two women and one man, not the other way around.) In general, a lesbian in a physically competitive environment has a similar or better public acceptance rate to a (male) homosexual in a "soft" (traditionally female) working environment. (Home decor and hair style have become the classics here.)
2) Male homosexuality in intensely masculine, physical environments is seen differently from male homosexuality in more neutral, non-physical environments. In general, a (male) homosexual is much less accepted in intensely masculine, physical environments than in more neutral, non-physical environments.
2 holds especially true for masculine, physical environments which are commonly idolised as ideals of masculinity. There is no high-level female equivalent to a United States football team. There is a women's NBA -- but a comparison of salaries, seat sales, and advertising dollars tells the real story. The so-called Big Four are all sports where the best players are held up as masculine idols. A similar situation exists for rugby in the UK and cricket in much of the Commonwealth. However, it has not spread quite so strongly to association football (soccer) -- with exceptions, especially in Latin America. (Personal hypothesis -- is the amount and type of direct physical contact relevant (eg. the possibility of hands touching as opposed to hands strictly not touching)? I know, I know, NOR.)
3) Male homosexuality in intensely masculine, physical single-sex competitive team environments is seen differently from male homosexuality in similar non-team environments. In general, male homosexuality is much less accepted in single-sex competitive team environments than in similar solo or pairs environments. You can see the reason for this yourself if you consider the common reaction to women reporters in male sports locker rooms. With opposite genders, there is always potential for sexual assessments or reactions. With single-sex male teams, the common assumption is that there is no potential for one player to consider another player as a possible sexual partner. However, a (male) homosexual team player presumably assesses other men around him sexually in the same way that men appraise women sexually. This changes the social connections among team members, in much the same way as the classic question of whether it is possible for men and women to truly be friends without sex getting in the way.
All of these points together make it extremely difficult for any male team player in a highly masculinised team sport to declare his homosexuality while he is still active on the team. In fact, it has never happened. Point #2 explains why prior declaration of homosexuality by female athletes or males working in (presumably gender neutral) environments do not take away from the impact of this story. Point #3 explains why prior declaration of homosexuality by solo or pairs male athletes do not take away from the impact of this story. - Tenebris 02:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
laugh* You have not read much of the hagiographies of saints, have you? I do find it interesting that any action of "committing sociology" is met with this kind of reaction. -- And yet, even so, there does seem to have been sufficient consensus in the previous thread for ITN to disagree with you over notability. Unanimity of opinion has never been a requirement of ITN. (I find life is much simpler when one does not automatically assume one's own opinion is synonymous with self-evident fact to the point of confusing the two.) - Tenebris 06:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.201.5 (talk)
You appear to have confused your own opinion for facts quite extensively in posting that unsupported wall of text about the alleged qualities of gay men. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As a queer man, I feel I ought to say that Tenebris' argument is a huge pile of unsourced personal opinions to which I would not give even the slightest credence. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Goodness. I seem to have pricked the complete opposite sides of the spectrum simultaneously ... which is a fairly good indicator of neutrality. Medeis -- I am demonstrating the strength of an existing trend. Things which break strong, socially relevant trends are by definition notable. AlexTiefling -- if you reread my words with a neutral eye, you may notice that I have never once mentioned the alleged qualities of gay men. I mentioned only how the straight world sees and reacts to overt homosexuality, and why. As a queer man, can you personally speak to the point of view of the straight world?
And btw, may I remind you that this is ITN:C, not a Misplaced Pages article? Support/oppose/comment asks for reasoning for the choice, not sourcing. Although, if you really want to track it down for yourselves, nearly all of what I said does happen to be peer-reviewed sourceable. - Tenebris 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Pull There are too many caveats to this "first". If he was the first professional player worldwide to do this, it would hold more weight. It just screams NA-centric. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 11:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This was a top news story around the world (not just on the sports page), and this is "in the news". If you feel this is "NA-centric", then I would suggest proposing non-NA-centric stories for posting. A good portion of users here are from NA. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
We did. But for some reason, the France and NZ stories were not posted, despite moderately strong support. I think there'd be less contention around this story if those had been put up. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This story shouldn't be held hostage because others' desired stories didn't get posted despite having support(Other stuff exists). They should be protesting why those stories weren't posted- I am certainly curious about the France story(which I supported). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF; I referred to it in my comment. Like you, I am curious about the non-posting of the France and NZ stories. I am calling on any admins who are available to look into why those stories were not posted. I am also concerned that this may well be an instance of pro-US bias on ITN; but suggesting that as a one-off problem is drowned out by a predictable chorus of whiners claiming that there is always such bias. I reject this. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
OMG Is this the current state of ITN now? A kangaroo court where basically any U.S. item of miniscule notability will get posted no matter what level of opposition? Guess there's nothing left to do but just go with the flow. 'MURICA!!! 128.227.159.199 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it was so "miniscule" that the President of the United States (and a former one) saw fit to comment on it and it was the lead story all over the US (and a story seen in non-US news). As stated at the top, objections about a story relating to a single country are not vaild. If you don't like the stories that get posted, suggest non-US stories for posting. Currently, the story on Collins is the only US story listed in ITN- so much for a US bias. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
But I thought there wasn't consensus yet? Who decided this should be posted? How does this get passed, but not the France post (which was much more relevant worldwide)?201.9.228.193 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot explain why something did not get posted(I supported the France story) but other stuff exists and that's not a valid argument here. tariqabjotu explained his reasoning for posting above. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
He didn't explain why that story should be rejected, despited having more support than this one. It doesn't help when fighting charges of US-centric bias in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.228.193 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The France news (and the New Zealand news too) should've been posted just like this was, IMHO. I can't explain why those didn't make it, beyond the flaws in the ITN/C process. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not what Muboshgu said. As far as I'm concerned, this set of outcomes is very biased towards US news, but i don't think that reflects the general pattern. That's why I'd like these three nominations reviewed; their treatment is egregious compared to other ITN nomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why there's only one US story in ITN right now. Stop talking about any bias and do something about it. Suggest non-US stories for posting, write articles about non-US subjects. Just making comments about it does nothing to advance your cause without action to back it up. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed several non-US stories for posting over the years. They haven't got up because not enough Americans have heard of the people involved. Opposes of the form "not well enough known" tend to dominate non-American proposals. Yes, we do have a lot of Americans on Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So since stories you propose are not posted, ITN as a 'US centric' problem, with no definitive evidence of such a problem. With all due respect Hilo given you're past opinions you might not be extremely objective here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, don't misrepresent me, and discuss the words I have written rather than me. It is inevitable that some cultures will impact Misplaced Pages more than others. This is discussed very well at Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Article updatedNominator's comments: Landmark, billion euro space observatory concludes its mission. Interesting topic, not a frequent visitor to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak support. Whilst this was an entirely expected (and planned for) event, it does give a useful landmark which could be used to highlight the satellite. However, there's no need to adopt the promotional language of the press release ('most powerful ever'). I suggest
Blurb & Image I suggest we consider using this image of the Andromeda Galaxy Herschel took as the current image on the front page, I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned on the ITN talk page (quite why there are two conversations going on I know not), this is a suboptimal alt blurb and a suboptimal choice of image since it's a composite of both IR and x-rays from another observatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of that blurb, and think further comments should go on the talk page to avoid a split discussion. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Only problem with further comments going on the talk page is that this will not be updated in time. If you really want the image to be updated then this is the only genuine venue to promote that perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
First article updated, second needs updatingNominator's comments: ONgoing protests in Iraq that we haven't covered. Took a turn for the worse today. And its more in light of the sectarian strife in next door Syria )(and Bahrain and Yemen) --Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Note I see a middling-length article from Al Jazeera cited in the article itself. Do you have any other links to other news sources so we can judge how significant this is? I'm not voting one way or the other until I can see how much this story is in the news... --Jayron3212:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
More than 200 deaths and its updated to today not just 5 days ago. There is more going on in this sectarian quagmire (and its more linked to Syria as well with the claimed air strike)Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is big news, because the clashes are bigger and sectarian in nature. They originate from the Sunni opposition movement dissatisfaction with the government. There have been several events that makes this more significant include: closing the Iraqi-Jordanian boarders, warning against sectarian civil war from Iraqi PM, suspending 10 T.V. channels by the government and of course the 2013 Hawija clashes. Mohamed CJ(talk)13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What's up with nomination? If this is update, is there any chance of posting this? –HTD13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the leadership feels the need to use censorship in an effort to quell the growing tensions speaks volumes about how bad things have become there.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Does this mean that the government orders the TV stations to cease only broadcasting operations in the country or to use other means to ban these channels, such as blocking the websites where they can be watched on-line or to block all the websites of the media that publish their news? I cannot measure a very big impact of this story if the people are able to circumvent the use of the media by visiting alternative channels to watch them or read their news. Frankly, the rate of Internet users in Iraq is on a very low level, but if someone is able to use it to watch the news, as many people actually do it nowadays, then it's not so significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In principle, I support some sort of blurb pertaining to the 2012–13 Iraqi protests, as they've gained quite a bit of traction in recent times. However, I'm not 100% sure if Iraq's decision to close certain media outlets is the ideal blurb in this case. Maybe a more general item, like this for example: "At least x people are killed as anti-government protests in Iraq continue to escalate." Probably not the best of blurbs, but you get the picture. Kurtis09:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a double bold, or at least more informative, blurb? Just saying a bunch of people have died doesn't really capture the nature of the situation:
Comment. I don't think the blurb for this should state a reason, since that appears to be contentious. The Iraqi government has presented it as a public safety measure, that much is true, but... Formerip (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (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:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
Joseph Aoun
Article: Raoul Wallenberg (talk · history · tag)
Done 
