|
December 12, 2013 (2013-12-12) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
- Four former Icelandic bank bosses are jailed over concealing illegal activities within the bank Kaupthing. (BBC)
- Mexico's Congress passes a bill that will allow foreign investment in its state-run oil company, Pemex. The measure still requires the approval of a majority of the country's federal entities.
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
RD: Jang Song-thaek
Article: Jang Song-thaek (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jaz
Credits:
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.Nominator's comments: That North Korean dude who was dismissed (the uncle of the Dear Leader, or whatever hes called) was executed shortly after the dismissal. Pretty high ranking dude to be executed in a short time.S ome strange stuff going on there. I think its notable for RD for sure, possibly a full blurb.
Please indicate if support is for blurb or RD Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
M23 agreement
Article: M23_rebellion#Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The government of Congo DR and the M23 movement sign an accord in Nairobi. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jaz
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A solid agreement is signed ending the conflict (for now anyways), this is the stuff we usually wait for in outcome.
A lot happenedin the world around us today Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
December 11
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 11
|
|
December 11, 2013 (2013-12-11) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Homosexual activity in India
Article: LGBT rights in India (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: India's supreme court declares Homosexual sex illegal. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: LGBT rights in India has been updated. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Need a proper nomination
- But oppose as its nothing news. It was illegal 150 years ago and this is just an upholding of the statute. Overturned a regional court ruling, so it it not even redeclaring illegality across the country as most of the country never legalised it in the first place.
- Theres only one known instance of marriage...and i dont even even the know the official status of it. Clearly its not recognised, but merely some off-sect religious show piece.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- That claim is disingenuous bordering on the obtuse. The 150 year old British statue was declared invalid 4 years ago by the Delhi high court since when Indians have enjoyed full sexual rights, backed by a court ruling. Those rights are now being taken from them in a time in which sexual rights is a top political issue across the globe. The fact that this is news, is of course made obvious by the prominent feature of the piece in world wide media. As for your second statement I have no idea what you are talking about as the ruling has nothing to do with marriage, but is about sexual relations, which I can inform you do frequently take place out of wedlock in most of the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, AGF first. Theres the jurisidcion space (which i quried on the page). The ruling has not yielded any difference in India (please point to one instance of chane?), neither is this an issue anywhere in Induia (or outside western dominion).
- And as you say it is frequently taking palce anywhere, so what does this do? In the few years since if was "legalised" there has been nothing in that direction, and there will be nothing in this direction.Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not real easy to AGF with this level of argumentation. Since 2009 Indians have had a courts word that they had aconstitutional right to have private consensual sex with eachother regardless of the sex of their partner. They don't have that any longer. That is a change. A homosexual person is now liable for prosecution and punishment. Yesterday they weren't. That is a change. I haven't a clue as to what you mean by "no change in that direction".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a rather run of the mill ruling. The Supreme Court did not come out of nowhere and create a law outlawing homosexual sex. According to CNN: "On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the penal code was constitutionally valid. It was up to parliament, the court said, to decide whether or not to keep the law in the statute books." Courts normally rule on constitutional mandates, not abstract morality without regard to the constitution. There's no indication the court would even consider overturning a repeal of this law. The ball is in the legislature's court. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This nom isn't displaying in the top nav box... Someone fixed it, thank you. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This was their Supreme Court overturning a lower court ruling that it was not illegal, thus reinforcing the status quo. The BBC's headline "India top court reinstates gay sex ban" says it all. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not really a news of global attention. Also, SC has simply said that HC calling section 377 as unconstitutional is wrong. SC has simply asked to get HC's thought straight (pun) and has also shown that its through a legislature that such clause can be revoked. Also, even with the precedent of Delhi HC of 2009 of "legalising" homosexuality, homosexuality was still a crime. Only that the case did not have much stand in lower courts which would heed to HC's decision. It could very well have been challenged at another HC or in front of a daring judge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks you!Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm surprised if that's not the case in the US. In most Common Law countries, the ratio decidendi of any supreme court decision creates a binding precedent for all lower courts, and I'm pretty sure that's how it will be in India. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- commonwealth solidaroity...birds of a feather...
- and to boot...labour are out!vLihaas (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Awful news that is Lihaas. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I make no judgement calls. i just draw the parallelLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The two are not comparable. The Australian High Court struck down a gay marriage law as unconstitutionally conflicting with the federal law that controls marriage. It means that gay marriage can only be permitted in Australia by a federal law, which is likely to happen in time. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are legal throughout Australia and this has not changed. The issue before the High Court was a technical one about conflicting laws from different levels of government; the case had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of gay marriage. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The other ruling also called on the legislature to make a decision. Technically it made no judgement calls, just saying teh change# was invalid in reinstating and taht the government should be concerete in maiking the change. What this useless regime has been inept at doingLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support The status quo argument is fallacious, though I suspect it reflects a general cognitive bias in humans. There is no reason to regard a decision to maintain the status quo as less significant than a decision to change it. They are two sides of the same coin. But for the decision to change the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual where the status quo is maintained. Equally, but for the decision to maintain the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual when the status quo is changed). The impact of the decision is the same either way. We certainly do post items that just involve the status quo being maintained - we don't, for instance, refuse to post the re-election of Barack Obama because it just maintains the status quo of him being President. That's even true of court cases - we posted the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I'm sure that if Bowers v. Hardwick, which involved exactly the same scenario of a lower court striking down a law against gay sex and then the Supreme Court upholding it on appeal, was decided today we would post it. India is a country of more than a billion people, far more than the United States, yet we post fewer stories from it. If we are serious about combating systemic bias, we need to post stories like this that get widespread media attention not just in India but internationally too. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would oppose posting Bowers or a similar US story too, the location is irrelevant to me. Posting re-elections (such as Obama) is not done on the basis of any particular individual being re-elected, but on the event itself(the election). While certainly not representative of the whole, the one Indian to post here opposes this too. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Neljack that maintaining status quo or going the other way round are equals. But, i guess i did not stress much in my initial opinion, that what is important is the gravity of news. The billion count of Indians doesn't matter. If that was the parameter we would have to have a separate China-India news section. Although, i would suggest that the nomination remain open. If the protests or other activities gain more strength, we can reconsider this topic, with some other blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Whatever way you look at it, sex between men was allowed in India and now its not. How can that not be considered significant news? It's all very well individual users saying they would oppose a similar story from the US (as if!), but not long ago we posted a blurb about a SCOTUS ruling which was something to so with the interstate recognition of pension rights for a tiny number of gay couples. It doesn't stack up. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- It wasnt, and nothing has changed on the ground either in Delhi#s regional court or by this. What could create change is marriage and thats not touched either wayLihaas (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the Supreme court (unfortunately) took a black letter approach and 'upheld' the law, IMO if the court had overturned the penal code (like the High Court) then legally speaking it would be highly significant (a judicial review of 150 year old section of the penal code, which in India is quite rare), but court 'upholding' the law seems to be insignificant (atleast from a legal standpoint). LegalEagle (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
December 10
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 10
|
|
December 10, 2013 (2013-12-10) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Regular Events:
Analog TV is switched off in Australia.
Uruguay: Marijuana legalization
Article: Legality of cannabis in Uruguay (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legalize the growth, sale, and use of marijuana. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legalize the growth, sale, and use of cannabis
News source(s): Reuters BBC
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Article is slightly updated but more info is needed. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. Other than pot heads and civil libertarians, this is kinda a "meh" story for me. Not sure there's a widespread interest in this one way or the other. Cannabis laws in many countries are either unenforced or liberal enough to be "essentially legal" (see Legality of cannabis by country, especially places like Iran and Netherlands). Good for Uruguay, a positive move in the right direction, but this really isn't a big deal, news-wise. --Jayron32 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron32, I would have thought this would be an obvious support on your approach of following the news sources, given the widespread coverage it's getting. Neljack (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good point Jayron32, although I have to differ on your comment regarding its importance in the news. The content of this event is crucial, considering that Uruguay is a Latin American country and drug-related violence has been on the rise this year. If this legalization "works" in reducing violence, it is likely that other countries might follow a similar path, especially those torn by the drug war (Mexico and Colombia, for example). Thanks for your input anyhow. Regards, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since the bill was proposed by the President, I don't think he need concern us. As for a court overturning it, I doubt any of us are qualified to opine on Uruguayan constitutional law. Presumably it is possible, but it's hard to see that this could be argued to violate any constitutional rights and that possibility would exist with any bill. I don't think we usually refrain from posting them based on the speculative possibility that they might be struck down (we posted Obamacare when it was passed, for instance, notwithstanding the potential for it be struck down as unconstitutional - as it very nearly was). Neljack (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I would like to know when it will be signed into law, and when it takes effect. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- It seems from the Constitution of Uruguay that if the President has no objection to a bill he must "immediately" promulgate it (Article 143). If he does have objections (which clearly isn't the case here), he must exercise his power of veto within 10 days of receiving the bill (Article 137). As for when it will take effect, this article says that the drug control agency will have 120 days to draft regulations on marijuana and suggests that the law could take effect by mid-2014. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. When criminalization leads to the arrests and incarceration of thousands of people, not to mention jobs lost and lives ruined due to those arrests, and to the violence associated with such arrests, and to the robberies and extortion of dealers and users, then yes, it is a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- On that note , what did Guatemala's Molina react to this? Hes the #1 advocate of b legalizing even other drugs.Lihaas (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support - a major development on an important and highly controversial issue. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting first that is getting lots of international media attention. Is being watched closely by other Latin American countries to see if it will be effective in weakening the power of the drug gangs. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Oh yeah! Megalize larijuana! --Երևանցի 04:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Update Needed this will go up as soon as it's updated. It isn't. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support If this works in reducing violence other countries might follow with similar legislation. SeraV (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Major first and news worldwide. Somebody update. Jusdafax 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ready – Article is sufficiently updated, I believe. I may have more time tomorrow for more details. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm wondering about is whether the blurb should use "cannabis" instead of "marijuana". I note that our article is titled Cannabis (drug), with Marijuana being a redirect. Here in New Zealand both terms are in common usage - marijuana perhaps being a bit more common - and I believe the same is true in the United States. But I understand "marijuana" is less common in Britain ("hashish" is often used instead, from what I've read), so perhaps we should opt for "cannabis" per WP:ENGVAR. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support altblurb that I've just added based on Neljack's above comment. My reasoning is that the bolded article uses "cannabis" and so the blurb should to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Posted alt blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- No objection to posting, but you could have taken the precaution of changing your username first... Formerip (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed. Marijuana prohibition isn't something that started in the murky mists of prehistory. It was legal in every country up until a certain point. And, as pointed out, in North Korea still. Blurb is inaccurate. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cannabis is not considered a drug in North Korea. The fact that the whole chain of cultivation, sell, and consumption went from illegal to legal in Uruguay makes it a first time event, I think. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to write about bhang, until I realized that it has been legal throughout the modern and ancient history in India, so it was probably never actually legalized (one simply does not legalize something that was never illegal to start with). --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Its not legal most of the yearLihaas (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
War crimes execution
Article: Abdul Quader Molla (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdul Quader Molla is executed for war crimes during the Bangladeshi War of Independence. (Post)
News source(s): AL JAZ
Credits:
Article updated --Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems this wasnt posted
- Yep, we just have to wait abother 2-odd hours for the news toaffirm he is not immortal.Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support upon update. Resolution of a war crimes case is notable. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Marked Ready this is updated and unopposed, head of J-e-I is obviously notable. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ready? Really? The bolded article is still written in the present tense, with some paragraphs implying he is still alive, as his execution has been stayed for another 6 or so hours. Also, the first link in the proposed blurb is a disambiguation page, to 5 different Jamaat-e-Islamis. Stephen 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Medeis is trigger-happy here, calm down please. The article needs work, the lead is too much and not in keeping with WP:LEAD, and Stephen makes a number of points. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is this an actual oppose, a wait, or just another opportunity for you to demonstrate a lack of maturity? I ask because sincere oppose votes aren't normally begun with the mention of another editor. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Try reading it properly, thanks. You marked the article "ready" when it clearly was not. Try to remain calm. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is significant, particularly given the potential to cause unrest and the international concern about the fairness of the trials. Though it's not true that this is the first execution for war crimes - various Nazi leaders were executed for war crimes, among other things, at the Nuremberg Trials. Neljack (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting and has international implications. Article reasonably well-written with work continuing, and is updated. Jusdafax 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose His execution has been suspended for now anyway. I'll support this when and if he is actually executed. SeraV (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment seems we will wait till at least tomorrowLihaas (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support pending update. Law was changed after 2013 Shahbag protests and rarely do we see hangings (at least in recent decades) for warcrimes in democracies, but the article needs to be updated a bit. Lot of media coverage which seems to satisfy the derivative test of significance. LegalEagle (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- No probs at all...dodgy ref that was before then. Marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Will you two stop? youre starting to make me look goodLihaas (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
New record low temperature
Article: List of weather records (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Satellite analaysis by NASA reveals a new low temperature of -93.2 C recorded in 2010 at the East Antarctic Plateau. (Post)
Alternative blurb: NASA announce a new, remotely measured low temperature of -93.2 C recorded in 2010 at the East Antarctic Plateau.
News source(s): http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-usgs-landsat-8-satellite-pinpoints-coldest-spots-on-earth/#.UqbXKCcliWC
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Coldest temperature ever recorded, I think it's significance is clear --yorkshiresky (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This article suggests that the temperature is a preliminary one which is highly likely to be refined to an even lower value. In fact, this article has the temperature at -94.7C. It also happened three and a half years ago, is that worth noting? And a minor point, it may be a "world record" but it won't be a "Guinness World Record" as it was calculated by satellite, not experienced by a thermometer. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the blurb should say that it was indeed measured remotely, not at ground level, to avoid possible inaccuracy. I've changed the altblurb. Brandmeister 12:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- strong oppose as moot apparently this temperature was recorded in 2012.#
- Meanwhile the article is missing many cites and poorly organised.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- That guy Scambos specifically says: "I'd caution Guinness not to take this result and put it in their world record book just yet". Brandmeister 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to oppose because it isn't peer-reviewed, that is your prerogative, but the news coverage was quite open about the fact that this was a satellite analysis and not actual measurements. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
December 9
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 9
|
|
December 9, 2013 (2013-12-09) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
- Iraqi Jewish artifacts that were rescued from Saddam Hussein's palace by a Jewish-American scholar and brought to the United States are scheduled to be returned to Iraq by the end of the summer in 2014, despite objections from American Jews citing instability in Iraq. (Los Angeles Times)
Politics and elections
Sports
RIA Novosti
Article: RIA Novosti (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: One of the largest news agencies in Russia RIA Novosti becomes defunct. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russian President Vladimir Putin abolishes the state-owned news agencies RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia to create Russia Today.
News source(s): BBC, The Moscow Times
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Operated from 1941. Btw, we have a quite vast Category:Images from RIA Novosti, now it's time to bid the agency farewell. Brandmeister 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Could you post a news source in the nomination template? That would help establish that this is indeed "in the news" and is in the posting instructions above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Getting lots of international media attention. Appears to be part of Putin's attempt to increase his control over the media. I suggest that the blurb should reflect that radio broadcaster Voice of Russia is also being closed and that a new state-owned media agency called "Russia Today" is being created. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thanks 331dot - that looks good. My only caveat is that I haven't seen anything saying that it will be smaller. In fact, I would have thought it would be larger given that two organisations are being merged. But perhaps you've seen something in an article I haven't read? Neljack (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I removed "the smaller" from the blurb; I think I put that because some articles referenced being more efficient and affects on employees(such as layoffs) but it wasn't clearly said. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! Neljack (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm ok with altblurb and possible slight tweaks to it. The abolition process will take some time, perhaps that's why RIAN's website is still functioning. Brandmeister 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. It seems like the agency is being rebranded and re-organised, which may technically entail its abolition, but I don't see any reason why this is a very significant event in the context that government agencies everywhere get restructured all the time. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support in principle as notable in Russian politics, once a blurb is sorted out. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment/procedural
RT was not created now, its been around for awhile. Clearly I made the same mistake as the page's hat note, that should be clarified when posted.
- Article is rather poor at the moment (though min. update I agree is met)Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree but I am reading what seems to be contradictory information on that point; some articles talk about this as a restructuring/merge and some also state that the two prior agencies were "abolished" and a new one created(which is technically different than a restructuring). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with 331dot. While there were some references to a "merger", there were also statements that appeared to indicate that it was not really a merger. My impression after reading various sources is that probably it's effectively a merger, but it may not formally be one. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- The editor in chief Svetlana Mironyuk conducted an official farewell meeting with the RIA staff: . From what I see, Russia Today will not be in continuous succession to RIA, but merely an agency to fill the empty spot and publish "the right information", so to speak. Brandmeister 08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support this would be huge news in any other country, and it has been covered as such. I am not sure how the fact that it's only russia disqualifies the nom. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
AAG
Article: American Airlines Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: American Airlines and US Airways merge to form American Airlines Group, the world's largest airline. (Post)
Credits:
Article updated
- The item is getting lots of coverage...on the back pages of business sections, not front pages or even front pages of business sections. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from web sources. I suspect it will be on quite a few front pages of business sections. And sports events that we post often are only in the sport section, not the front page of the newspaper. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Medeis I had to look hard to find it "in the news", the nomination lacked a source. This is trivial in the big scheme of things, just wait for the biggest bankruptcy in the world I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Medeis. The merger is also not something that was totally unexpected as American Airlines announced bankruptcy two years ago and the plans for this merger were discussed earlier this year. I also find the statement "world's largest airline" blown up in the blurb because all of the media deliver some kind of a canard with no supporting evidence on what merits the new airline will be the largest in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do tend to lean oppose on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a later date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. EricLeb (Page | Talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- We usually post announcements as they unfold information that one could have not anticipated from earlier. Future dates that are known from earlier are only matter of technicalities unless it's a very important event of wide interest. Another notable exception to this rule are some legislations or regulations who may be worth posting both at the time of their signing and the date when they are expected to come into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Field goal
WP:SNOW – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 9 December 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.
Matt Prater of the Denver Broncos scores an NFL-record 64-yard field goal. -109.151.157.233 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You should hide that statement. There are no field goals in hockey.
- Anyhoo, its no a record field goal. there was about 67 yards in a high school game in washington a couple of years ago. so on that grounds oppose, but a record i would support as in the posting we did for sachin i blieve.Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed Don Clarke once kicked a 85-yard dropped goal. Now that's impressive! Neljack (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- It was set in 1970(in New Orleans) and tied in 1998 and 2011(both also in Denver) and tied again last year(in Green Bay). 331dot (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Funniest support I've ever seen at ITN, remarkable and almost made me change my mind. Oops, no, perhaps not. I don't suppose many US readers are aware that rugby union "kickers" do this sort of distance every week. Big dog deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 9 December 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.
Thailand update
Just called a new election as a result of the protests, thats a pretty big step, IMO. Though the protests are still ongoing its a massive culmination. (oxymoronic, i klnow, but you know what i mean (i hope)). Thai general election, 2014Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are these commentaries intended to be nominations? Please use the ITN template like everyone else, add sources, and type carefully so people can understand what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lihaas, please stop posting poorly formed ejaculations. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, Lihaas is proposing an update to the blurb rather than a new blurb. As such, I don't think he is required to comply with all the formalities for an nomination. Certainly updates have often been proposed like this, without being formatted as a formal nomination, and I don't recall there being objections to them on that basis. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, there seems to be (a) a requirement for a source and (b) a blurb so (c) please improve the quality of the nomination (and the quality of the English used to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
December 8
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 8
|
|
December 8, 2013 (2013-12-08) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Continued Ukraine protests
Article: Euromaidan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: During the Sunday of the third week in a row of mass protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government for refusing a deal on closer ties with the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: During the third week of mass protests in Ukraine protesters topple a Lenin statue.
Alternative blurb 2 During the third week of mass protests in Ukraine clashes between protesters and police intensify.
News source(s): BBC News BBC News BBC News
Credits:
- The protests today are the largest yet, per BBC and an AP wire report. Both sources speak of several 100,000s of people. The demonstrators seem to have topled and destroyed a statue of Lenin, a strong symbol of the Soviet era. The protesters also seem to have given the government 48 hours to resign. I have no opinion whether these warrant re-posting right now, but would definitely support posting if the government resigns. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment on Comments: I have no experience with "Candidating" for "In the news" so forgive me my errors please. For instance I could not get the | altblurb 2 = During the continued Euromaidan protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government into the template.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Suggestion — Seems to me this — "Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'" — would make a good hook for an updated blurb. (IMO, it's high time for Old Baldy to go ... he's been dead for 90 years, and the state he founded has been dead for more than 20 years.) Sca (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- If its a matter of 48 hours, wait. either way we should hav something worthy of an update to ITN.Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC someone used a hack where they specified the third blurb with
<br> in altblurb=. If there is a serious need for specifying more than two blurbs, it can be added of course. --hydrox (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I was asking on behalf of Yulia, per above. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks μηδείς! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing story — Dec. 11 — "Ukraine protests: outrage as police attack Kiev barricades" (Includes video of police attack.) However, "Police Pull Out of Kiev Square After Move on Demonstrators" Sca (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Every aspect of action/reaction is in the news, but thats notable enough to update here. More notable is the Thai protests which yielded somethingLihaas (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly you meant to say "that's not"? Sca (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hope I fixed that + I made 2nd alt. blur that I consider the best one yet (it is NPOV and true).
CAR update/bump
Djotodia has now admitted he has no control over the country (or only parts) and there is thus talk of the UN using its executive mandate that was used in kosovo and east timor to run the countryLihaas (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Exoplanet with largest orbit
Article: HD 106906 b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Astronomers at the University of Arizona announce the discovery of HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An exoplanet, HD 106906 b, is discovered with the most distant orbit around a single star, farther than thought possible.
Alternative blurb III: test
News source(s): CBS News, Russia Today, Space.com UK Intl Business Times Daily Mail Christian Science Monitor Times of India
Credits:
Article updated
- Support DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Seems like an important discovery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to be a notable discovery, and getting enough coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although it's an interesting story, there doesn't appear to be anything extremely newsworthy about it. Exoplanets are discovered regularly and biggest orbit doesn't seem to be particularly important as a record, in itself. It seems like a challenging discovery for people working in the field, but ITN isn't meant to be a current awareness bulletin for astronomers. Searching Google news, this doesn't seems like it's even the biggest talking point to do with exoplanets this week (the Hubble telescope discovered water on some a few days ago, which has generated broader coverage). I think whether something gets covered by the science section of BBC news is a good indication of how important it is, and this hadn't been, yet. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is being covered in the UK, though. What is notable here aside from the orbital distance is that no one can figure out how it got there, making it very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mention the BBC because it is British, but because I know it has good science journalists who will have some sort of clue when scrutinising a press release, and will sort the wheat from the chaff. And, yes, I understand why it is interesting, but interesting things are discovered all the time in scientific research and they are not always epoch-making or ITN-worthy. Planet formation is a developing area of study, so it not surprising (or unusual, I suspect) that new discoveries will throw up new challenges. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- You certainly must rely on whatever sources you wish for whatever reason (as we all do, no problem there) but IMO this appears in enough sources around the world (Googling I even saw a Czech story) to justify an appearance. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- support/comment no need to mention UAz as its too long and the important bit is just the dis covery...ldetails can go on the page.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. That's a pretty arbitrary and meaningless record, which will inevitably be beaten as exoplanet surveys go on for longer (thus giving a longer baseline for orbit discovery). Better to stick to genuinely scientifically interesting exoplanet discoveries. Modest Genius 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- What is "scientifically interesting" is a matter of opinion; the worldwide media would seem to disagree with you. Most records will inevitably be beaten,(WP:CRYSTAL) that hasn't stopped us from posting them before. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I'm giving my own opinion. That's true of most !votes on this page. I do consider myself qualified to assess the significance of astronomical discoveries. My point was also that the record will doubtless be passed soon i.e. within a few years. Modest Genius 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support the discovery upends current theories on planet and star formation, so it's not just a bare fact, but an outlier in our knowledge of the universe. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Upends" does not appear to be correct. We are not talking about settled science here, but about models that are at a stage of revision and debate. This discovery just provides a new talking-point. Furthermore, unless you know something that none of the sources are reporting, no-one has yet come up with a proper proposal as to what effect it might have on current models. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am reporting what I have read from the sources; "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see" ; and am not prepared to offer my OR on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems fascinating. It's just not a major news story.Formerip (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't feel competnt to make that change. I have left a message with the nominator, and will with DarthBotto. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Arbitrary. Also, most supports seem to be "seems like an important discovery" while opposers seem to present good suggestions as to why this is purely arbitrary and of no widespread interest. Not ready, as assessing quality of opinion rather than pure vote-counting is what's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Hello, this is the original creator of the article in question. I should point out that that blurb should be changed, as the planet of DT Virginis has the greatest orbit still. I would suggest there being a mention of the ratio in mass differentiation between the two parts of the binary star, which accounts for the possibility of the orbit being maintained. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can fix the blurb, but the planted still needs to be added to the chart. I am hoping someone more certain of the issue will add it to List_of_exoplanet_extremes#Orbit_characteristics. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I have updated the list, so we should be good to go now! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Remarked Ready the blurb issue of the secondary link has been taken care of, the article is well updated, and there's still strong consensus in favor of the posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Created more better/less verbose blurb. (Sotrry a better word for that is slipping me)Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's a god altblurb, an even better might be:
- Altblurb2 "Astronomers at the University of Arizona discover HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star" as it uses the active voice, not the passive. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, with content like "As it turned out, whovians found it a lot alike the home-planet of the Doctor himself – Gallifrey", and comments above regarding what the news "seems" to be about, this isn't suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I had the same concern when I saw that. The blurb should specify why it is significant, per article's lead. Otherwise it's indeed a "so what?", as was noted above. Brandmeister 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then how about:
- If Nebular hypothesis (a featured article) had a section saying how far it was thought possible then we could link it on thought possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support that blurb (with possible small alterations). Brandmeister 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I support that blurb, and have overwritten it in the altblurb field in the template. This is red ta go. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I guess it wouldn't be ITN if we didn't post stupid cruft from time to time. However, the planet isn't further from the star than it had been thought possible for a star to be, it is that appears to be a mis-match and the structure of the planet and the size of its orbit. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you try explaining your objection clearly, FIP, rather than wasting everybody's time calling names? We can adjust the blurb, you know. Or was this just venting? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I can be clearer. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Proposing a new or modified blurb might work, I'd assume. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'd go for removing the words "farther than thought possible" from the blurb. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, isn't the point of your objection (now that I think about it) more that this is an unexpected distance for a super-Jupiter? I'd be totally in favor of saying "super-Jupiter planet" insted of just "planet". μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
December 7
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 7
|
|
December 7, 2013 (2013-12-07) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
- Typhoon Haiyan:
- The death toll reaches 5,800, with 26,233 injured and 1,779 still missing. (BW)
Health and medicine
International relations
Politics & Elections
Bali Package
Article: Bali Package (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The WTO agrees to the Bali Package. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The WTO Ministerial Conference adopts measures facilitating trade with the Bali Package
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
Article updated --Lihaas (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem at least at this hour is that there is no clear information in the press about the full effects of the agreement. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then while it looks very positive, it should be held from main page until we come to an understanding on the best way of blurbing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely agree (that's why I wrote "if updated" in my !vote.) At current state, the article is way premature for the main page; we basically have just the first comments from a few parties and short summary of the negotiations. There should also be sourced information about the actual content of the agreement, like practical effects on future customs and tariffs. --hydrox (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support After so long of the WTO failing to reach agreements, this is highly significant. The potential benefits have been estimated at US$1 trillion. Agree with TRM about the blurb, which should in particular make clear that the agreement deals with trade facilitation rather than reducing tariffs. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support pending article improvement - As Hydrox notes, the article is just getting started. Jusdafax 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Wouldn't a hint on what the Bali Package is be necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- See my comment an hour-and-a-half ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's complicated. What I understand is that the Package includes several decisions (oa on Cotton), but most commentators focus on one of them (Agreement on Trade Facilitation) and seem to equivalage the package with that. I have tried to clarify. The Agreement on Trade Facilitation is "just" concluded and enters into force after 2/3 of the countries has ratified it (and then only for those who ratified); while the others might have effect earlier (or even immediate)… I have added an alt blurb that is correct and gives a bit more information….L.tak (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a little better but it still remains inaccessible to most people.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree…. The dilemma is: the only way to really understand what was decided is to dive into the agreement texts which is original research… The news items are of very little use, as they at the moment don't seem to care about detailed content, entry into effect and full consequences… It's for that reason that I not casting a support or oppose vote here…. L.tak (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Altblurb2 The WTO unanimously adopts the "Bali Package", aimed at liberalizing world trade μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Medeis' proposed blurb; notable international agreement. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should that blurb be used, I'd suggest to modify that blurb to "aimed at liberalizing word trade". The largest part will require over 100 ratifications, so it certainly isn't a done deal yet… L.tak (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Medeis' proposed blurb, but I am concerned that the first sentence in the article has a {{citation needed}} on it. When/how it will go into effect is not mentioned in the article yet. John Vandenberg 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- tAG removed. (and reworded)Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Marked Ready the article has several well formed paragraphs, plenty of sources and no tags. Support is strong. I bring to the attention of any posting admins the support for the second altblurb immediately above in the discussion section. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article is much improved, and I endorse posting per my conditional support. Jusdafax 03:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
December 6
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 6
|
|
December 6, 2013 (2013-12-06) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Environment
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sport
North American cold wave
Article: 2013 North American cold wave (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Record snowfall blasts the United States killing eleven and leaving hundreds of thousands without power (Post)
News source(s): "U.S. Daily Precipitation Records set on December 6, 2013 | Extremes | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)". Ncdc.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2013-12-08.
"U.S. Daily Snowfall Records set on December 6, 2013 | Extremes | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)". Ncdc.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2013-12-08.
"Death toll rises in America's big freeze: Tens of thousands warned they could be without power for two weeks as ice storms bring down cables | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-12-08.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Record snowfall and precipitation has hit the United States and has caused traffic slowdowns --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Royal Marine sentenced to life imprisonment for murder
Article: 2011 Helmand Province incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of an Afghan insurgent in September 2011. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/royal-marine-sgt-alexander-blackman-jailed-for-life-for-the-murder-of-afghan-insurgent-8988983.html.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A high-profile military trial relating to the Afghan War has concluded. An ITN precedent might be Robert Bales; or, more tangentially, Haditha killings getting a place on WP:OTD. It Is Me Here 12:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
December 5
| Portal:Current events/2013 December 5
|
|
December 5, 2013 (2013-12-05) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Nelson Mandela
Article: Nelson Mandela (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Former President of South Africa and anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela dies at the age of 95. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated --MASEM (t) 21:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support, although I doubt anyone would oppose (I'll be proved wrong in due course!) - one of the world's most notable personalities of the late 20th century. But never mind "do it quick" - let's make sure the article has a decent update first. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article is in good (if not great) shape, and the death is noted and cited; there really only needs a paragraph at the moment about his death in one section, but prior to this we knew his health was not great. And now we'll get more on his legacy as the world renumerates on his influence, but that shouldn't stop posting without that. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article is a Good Article, which is better than 95%+ of what we post here, so article quality isn't an issue. There's already a legacy section, though maybe a sentence or two more at the end of "'Retiring from retirement': 2004–2013" would be good. Spencer 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support obviously --Երևանցի 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: It's proving very difficult to update the article with all the edit conflicts. Spencer 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, I had trouble adding my support vote here due to edit conflicts. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support, per Muboshgu. - JuneGloom Talk 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support - Widespread coverage, significant figure. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support I support this. He was one of the most influential and notable persons of the 20th century. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Photo? I think Mandela deserves it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support — The renowned human-rights leader is an instant ITN choice. Sca (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes (ec) the greatest living human as of today. Immediate posting was warranted. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Posted photo to follow Stephen 22:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Definitively - most notable person in human history Miszatomic (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Being one of the largest names in, well, South African history, as well as impacting the world in such a widespread way makes this an obvious choice. Article coverage is likely to explode in the next hour or so alone. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Beaten to posting it multiple edit conflict support - no brainer. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support - A very obvious support- huge news. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Endorsement of decision to post to full blurb. Significance of the man undeniable. Redverton (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support and endorse full blurb. Well done, editors. Jusdafax 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for shites and larfs.... Ahhhh who am I kidding?! Obvious Support for full blurb and picture! - Floydian ¢ 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- WTFArs in all the posts below that also have support (and this is an obvious support no doubt) there is an update requirement and the page currently links to "Mandela died on 5 December 2013 at the age of 95, at home and surrounded by his family. His death was announced by President Jacob Zuma.
- Do you just oppose things for the hell of it? The article quality and update questions are already discussed above. Please be more polite, type more carefully, and read what others have said. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- See this from the criteria: "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." This seems like a classic case for applying that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also to add: the article, prior to yesterday, was in pretty damn fine shape, and included up to the point of his poor health in September of this year. His death was quiet (in his bed), and the "major" update will come from the next several days. (Heck, I would not be surprised if there is a "Death of Nelson Mandela" article on the horizon, given how much tribute we're seeing so far. As such, the article was in the proper shape to let readers figure out where to add new material they felt they could contribute. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Post-posting support When I thought of people who would warrant blurbs Mandela was the first and most obvious name that came to mind. The huge worldwide coverage is a testament to his remarkable impact not only in South Africa, but around the world as a symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is an orange level tag on teh top of the page. Articles dont go up ofor that. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rules say: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link". I'll say this is a case where we should use the exception: It's huge news and article has previously gone through a "Good Article" process. Iselilja (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The orange tag was placed after the posting, and has since been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's gone now - and unless the editor who wished it to be there can come up with any real evidence of a POV issue on th GA article in question, it's likely to stay that way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Central African Republic
Articles: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration (talk · history · tag) and International Support Mission in the Central African Republic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The UNSC unanimously passes resolution 2127 creating MISCA amidst civil conflict in the Central African Republic. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Things are getting worse in CAR. We've had this article on ITN twice already, the latest in March, but it seems there has been some new development. The article is full of tags, though. --Tone 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Is there a specific event here to hang our hat on? (i.e. to have a blurb about) The BBC article seems to just be a general article about the poor situation there. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably this was not the best link. France is sending more troops. This is a relevant development. Otherwise, it's a very ongoing story. --Tone 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) strong support/sticky there is a lot happening down there (and I was looking for an article...Would like to seperate the Seleka conflict article from the conflict under the Djotodia administration). It is often off the news, but in the last few weeks a bunch of stuff is crawling into the headlines. The law and order problem, the ethno-religious violence, sexual violence too.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- After prodding, I've not created the new page and added a potential blurb. But the article needs work.Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support This seems to be very important. Agree with the above comments about the blurb. My offering is something connected to this story - - The UN, for the first time ever, uses drone surveillance in the DR Congo Conflict - but this might detract from Tone's original suggested story, so feel free to ignore it. CaptRik (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Different conflict, a long, long way away from the CAR! Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, it's been a very long day! CaptRik (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well I did put a note on the article and above that it needs more work.
- However, thre has been masive instability and violence. I was trying to work a blurb per the lack fo an original one. Feek free to suggest others instead of just refuting one.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support now. Brandmeister 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the warnings by foreign politicians of the risk of genocide warrant posting. Actual evidence of genocide or crimes against humanity would. If we did have that in the blurb then, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, we would need to also include the response of the CAR government strongly disputing the suggestions (which would probably make the blurb too long). The deployment of French troops is a better candidate, but there are already international peacekeepers there, so I'm not convinced it is sufficiently significant either. Neljack (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Similar to others above, I think this story is important and should be posted, but it would be better to have a specific significant even to list rather than, essentially, 'the conflict in CAR is still happening and gradually getting worse.' GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- ethno-religious conflict?
- Alsthough a google news search is dominated by French troops (as in the news) and calls for itnerventions. Still I think the former is more neutralLihaas (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment for anyone with the time/interest, see the talk page where i aded a bunch of stuff. Im very busy this week to add and sort it.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- changed blubrb keyword.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- note UNSC resolution should pass tomorrow giving a mandate tol a force. That should be blurb worthyLihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be better to wait for a Security Council resolution, as we could make a clearer blurb with one. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now over 400,000 people are reported as being displaced, perhaps we can post that. Brandmeister 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seleka military commander deadLihaas (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Suggest blurb. Or, we wait until UNSC decision that comes out today. --Tone 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- btw- International Support Mission in the Central African RepublicLihaas (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE less than a n hour ago 2127 was passed unaimously, blurb updated
- The new blurb is good, I would like to see some update, then ready to post. --Tone 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ive provided (and asked) the necessary info. if someone cares to...Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support in principle as important news about a dire situation. Wider implications for instance than a plane crash in Mosambique (33 killed) that are currently featured. I don't think however that any of the two articles are very good at the present stage. I would also have preferred a simplied blurb that was easier to grab for ordinary readers, for instance starting "The United Nations establishes the peacekeeping operation MISCA" Iselilja (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support, seems to be an emergency UN action. Muslim militias supposedly shelling 35,000 Christians trapped in a compound. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- marked ready per the precedence on update lited above this. Likewise, the support is near unamnimousLihaas (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- wow...;)
- Timet set?Lihaas (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 9 December 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
David Lynch in 1990
.jpg)