|
December 15, 2014 (2014-12-15) (Monday)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
2014 Pennsylvania shootings
Article: 2014 Pennsylvania shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: On a day when we posted a siege in Australia where two people and the gunman were eventually killed, the US trump it with a guy killing six, injuring three and going on the run. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you're not being WP:POINTy. In case there is any doubt about my view, OPPOSE posting, OPPOSE article creation, OPPOSE crap imprecise article title, and OPPOSE this kind of queer behaviour even though I was against the Sydney posting. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. This is way more serious, at least six people have been killed and the perp is at large. This could go on a while with serious consequences. If you'd prefer to redefine the article title, please suggest such. (Oh, and what's "queer" about my behaviour? I take it you're using that term in its traditional sense?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- OPPOSE turning Misplaced Pages into a theatre of the absurd. We are not a police blotter, by Jin(m)g(b)o! The word "queer" means "questionable" or "suspicious", or perhaps "odd". RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Understood. The shouting is unnecessary, but thanks for your explanation of your particular usage of "queer". Very traditionalist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not traditionalism, sir, but correctness. I believe I remember a certain Fry and Laurie sketch… RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, many will beg to differ, I certainly agree but you should be cautious about using such terminology. In any case, the shouting and bold is entirely unnecessary and diminishes your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I truly thought that this nomination was a ruse. I'm much more vexed now. I shall retreat. RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hardly think the murder of at least six people with the gunman on the run is a ruse. Nor would I expect you to believe that I would game the system. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sydney Hostage Situation
Article: 2014 Sydney hostage crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Gunman takes hostages in a Sydney's Central Business District cafe. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A gunman takes hostages at a cafe in Sydney, Australia.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is very breaking right now. And i can not find an article at the moment, but given that its Sydney where these things are awfully rare and multiple hostages with like 100 officers on scene it might be worth discussing and getting ready for. Obviously wait for details ---- Ashish-g55 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait. It's claimed to be tied to ISIS, but so far it seems only to be a hostage situation, and how tied it is, we don't know yet. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Whether it's ISIS or not, this is front page news and important enough for ITN. Don't say it's ISIS right now, just as the blurb is currently worded. If they claim to be ISIS, we can update it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree just being covered worldwide makes it ITN. It could be a desperate grasp for attention by acting they are ISIS. We should wait until we have a better idea of what the situation really is. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - important enough for ITN. Covered by all media worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose until we have something more to say than the breaking news. It's fine for us to leave this to the primary sources until we have something encyclopedic to say. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support covered all over the world. --Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose – In my opinion, this is exactly the type of thing we should not post. It simply doesn't have encyclopaedic relevance in a wider context. WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. I believe the purpose of ITN is to promote articles on news that has encyclopaedic relevance. A simple hostage-taking event does not fall into that category. Hostages are taken daily all over the world. This event is not particularly different, other than that it will get more media coverage because of where it took place. However, that doesn't mean it has actual relevance in the large scheme of things, or in a historical context. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. If this does turn out to be an ISIS cell of Australian citizens suddenly acting into taking hostages, yeah, that would be ITN. But if this is just a random hostage situation where the name ISIS has been thrown around, it isn't much of anything. Waiting for better clarity is important here. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's why we are waiting for details but "where" it took place is very important and could alone be the reason for posting. -- Ashish-g55 01:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- If it was something like a major bank or finanical center where they would have access to key resources, then perhaps, but this is a cafe in the financial distract of Syndey (not to trivialize the situation to any degree, only for purposes of ITN). --MASEM (t) 01:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I meant Sydney vs. lets say somewhere in Pakistan. The place where something happens does matter and gives things a lot of weight. Ofcourse this all depends on what actually ends up happening here. Right now its a man holding people hostage and hopefully it just ends here -- Ashish-g55 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait until we get the whole picture of what is going on(which might take some time). It may merit posting, but it is too early to know. Though the phrase is sometimes used in a cavalier manner, this is indeed a case of 'we are not a news ticker'. We need at least a clear picture of what is going on. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Status: the consensus at present is to hold until more details emerge. Looking at the target article, it is very, very short. When more details emerge it will be possible to expand the article, and to properly gauge the level of coverage. Jehochman 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The question is not one of "level of coverage", but of relevance. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and no. WP:ITN states its purpose quite clearly up-front, and part of that purpose is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. Now, to my mind, that's all too often used to justify posting fairly trivial items because Hey, man, it's, like, on the front page of everything everywhere, but nonetheless, that's what it says. GoldenRing (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The issue at this point is that live TV coverage or banner news on the internet is ahead of us, even if that's no-where at this point. Once some verifiable news comes in, given the weight, we can post it. Until then we'd actually be doing a disservice to readers to lead them to a stub. There's no reason not to prepare an article with things like time and location awaiting some better resolution. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait According to the NSW Police Commissioner, it's not even clear yet whether this is terrorist-related. The fact that it is happening in a Western city should not be a reason to post it. We should be mindful of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Several hours have passed since the above comments and this is still ongoing. Even if there is limited information that is certain, there is plenty of verifiable notable speculation and plenty of verifiable reaction from political and religious leaders, etc. and undoubtedly there is more to come. Sieges lasting 11 hours don't just fizzle without trace. The article looks in good shape (just one citation needed, that I'm about to try and rectify), so this should be posted soon. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This should have gone up as a headline hours ago. I understand it's early and it's ongoing, but it's the number one news story in the world right now. Front page headline on major international newspapers like Telegraph, The Guardian, LA Times, NY Times, exploding all over social media, trending worldwide on Twitter. Whether or not there is any terrorist link, the coverage has exploded beyond what WP:NOTNEWS outlines. Hostage situations, whether terrorist related or not, do not happen like this often. With respect, somebody should've gotten their shit together on this hours ago. This is major news. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- But this is more than a news story. This is an unusually long, still-ongoing hostage crisis in an already volatile climate. There was a foiled IS-related terrorist plot here in Sydney only three months ago. And there's the cultural implications—we're already seeing an anti-Islamophobia campaign with #illridewithyou, plus the Sydney Telegraph "Death Cult" headline. As stated above, WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". It's important to accept Misplaced Pages as a platform that people use to find information on ongoing or recent major events. Citing policies at each other in the wake of a situation that clearly has international interest is pointless. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait Misplaced Pages is not a news ticker, nor should it be. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would tend to support this as there does seem to be a terrorism connection(the gunman has demanded an ISIS flag and a phone call from PM Abbott) but it should be posted at the right time. Not sure that's right now. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Medias, Gloucester and other above. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to post every crackpot with a gun story.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed it isn't, but not every crackpot with a gun locks down the CBD of a major city for 11+ hours and becomes front page news on newspapers in dozens of countries around the world. They especially do not do this in Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Thryduulf's comment; we aren't talking about posting every such story, just this one with its unique circumstances. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think when you look at the immediate local and international response that's ongoing, this a bigger event than a news story, even if the massive response it causes ends up being more notable than the event itself. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I still oppose this, because I still don't see what encyclopedic relevance this has. But if it's directly tied to what's going on in Ghent, then I would support. It would need a different blurb, though, and if that's the case, then this should be closed and it should be re-nominated.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be closed and renominated, an alternative blurb can be proposed. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can do it. I don't normally hang around ITN though—do I just create a new template below here, or what? CR4ZE (t • c) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- You just need to fill in the "altblurb" parameter in the template at the top of this section, and note in a comment at the bottom that you've added an altblurb so that people spot it. If you start a new nomination it will just get speedily closed as a duplicate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I meant creating a new template below here, not initiating a new nomination. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Added an alternate blurb. It's quite short and to the point as the crisis is still ongoing and it's hard to find sources indicating number of hostages, motive of perpetrator etc. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Posting I've re-reviewed the situation, and see that most of the opposes and waits up above are based on the article not being sufficiently developed, or there not being enough details known to say anything encyclopedic. I've just look at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis and it is in quite good condition for such a recent event. If a reader were looking for information about this incident, the article compiles all the facts that have been published by reliable sources, and is worthy of the home page. The opposes based on the personal opinion that crackpots with guns don't deserve our attention aren't convincing when the story, for whatever reason, is making headlines around the world. Although the nomination lacks links, it is easy to verify that the story is "in the news", by checking major news sites in different countries (NYT, BBC, ABC (Australia), Xinhua, Al Jazeera). Jehochman 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment: The wait comments were about not being a news ticker - just because the story is published far and wide across major papers does not make it a ITN story. We've already come to regard most gun-shooting events in public places in the US as non-ITN worthy, for example; this appears to be falling into the same logic in that all signs point to this being the effort of a single person with no ties to ISIS or the like, just a disgruntled person. WP, and particularly at ITN, need to avoid being too focused on events of the now and instead focus on the events with more long-term, larger-scope impact, and if this is just a single person trying to get attention, that's not going to have that type of impact we would really should be giving to ITN. If we are just going to report what is being reporting in the majority of news sources, we might as well just be a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are intermingling the policy argument about what we should be posting with the discussion of this particular item. It's generally accepted that we post items that are widely in the news, which this one clearly is, per the comments. If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion. I recommend taking up that question at Misplaced Pages talk: In the news and start an RFC if you want to get enough comments to possibly generate a new consensus. Keep in mind that this situation is very similar to 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa which attracted >100,000 reader views, a good strong number for an ITN item. Jehochman 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Parliament Hill shooting (Which I actually did nominate for ITN/C) was a case where one person was already killed and the major gov't building was the scene of a second set of shootings - whether it was international terrorist or a crackpot with the gun, that was a direct threat to leaders of a world gov't. Here, we had a hostage situation in a public cafe. We've had gun shooting incidents in the US that have been rejected but with just as much coverage simply because it was nothing major in the larger picture of world events, and this story, the more we learn about the hostage taker, seems to be someone simply disgruntled and upset and taking actions to try to get attention. I know the story is still developing but this seems to have all the marks of a story that will be soon forgotten by the world at large within a few weeks if this was just a disgruntled lone wolf, which is a means of which we have evaluated stories for ITN in the past, the permanency of the event. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment: — Premature, IMO. Still developing. Besides, according to BBC, it's said to be the work of a lone gunman. Sca (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anders Behring Breivik anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- If this actually resulted in numerous deaths, that might make it a story, but as I'm typing this, it looks like the police have rushed the cafe, freed the rest of the hostages, and finishing defusing the situation with no apparent casualties. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope so. Jehochman 15:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, it's over. Sca (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's over, but there's reportedly two dead, but no word if those are hostages, the hostage taker, or police. Would wait to update to get that information. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support keeping posted. Despite the low body count, this story has already developed into a major terrorism event which has been greatly traumatizing for Australia and will certainly have significant political and social consequences both in Australia and in other western industrial countries. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support keeping posted - major terrorism event even though low death count. political consequences.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support keeping posted, and as soon as we have 100% confirmation of the gunman's death, the blurb should be revised. Masem, I have to take your comments quite dubiously; I don't see how you, or any of us, are in the position to judge the lasting impact of the news story. If we were able to do that, I'm sure that 90% of blurbs wouldn't make it through. For example, we have two blurbs up right now on general election results in Japan and Mauritius, and I doubt western outlets will be writing about it in a week—that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been posted, but I'm sure you can agree that a hostage crisis in a western country amid political tension is more likely to have a lasting impact anyway. CR4ZE (t • c) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Elections will affect gov't policies for years to come from said countries even if the details of the election are trivial, hence why they are covered. This may or may not - now that it's clear it was a lone agent with some history of legal problems - have long-lasting events. Not that this isn't an appropriate WP article, but we have to be careful of just using predominance in news sources to determine ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support. Article is in good shape, item is clearly prominent in news sources. Those are usually the two criteria.--Jayron32 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose. This topic is not very significant to the whole world except Australia. Somehow, I don't see how it affects people in the Middle East unless it discourages them to go to Australia. Even so, I still don't see how this affects the country's neighbours, like Southeast Asian ones and the Oceania. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting support. Obviously. This is the news story at the moment; it's been getting wall-to-wall coverage across the world and this sort of thing is probably even rarer in Oz than it is in Canada. The article is in decent shape, and this is exactly the sort of thing ITN was designed for. If we dont' post things like this, we'd only ever post elections in who-knows-where that passed completely unnoticed by the mainstream media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's just an Aussie influence mainly done by Rupert Murdoch. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting support, major event known around the world. --AmaryllisGardener 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support I would have said wait earlier but new sources have emerged recently. In the last few hours several sources have confirmed enough information to allow us significant coverage. At the talk page of the article for the gunman there is a pending edit request with multiple sources confirming the death of the gunman. Chillum 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose. Misplaced Pages offering further publicity to the sensationalism sought by a criminal nutter. Nothing educational. Pathetic ITN reaction. --ELEKHH 20:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
December 14
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 14
|
|
December 14, 2014 (2014-12-14) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
Japanese general election
Article: Japanese general election, 2014 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito coalition secures a supermajority following a snap general election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Asahi Shimbun, ABC (au), NBC
Credits:
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: Needs official confirmation but exit polls show no change in power. Stronger majority could help Abe push his economic reforms past the upper house. --Fuebaey (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The "snap" part is important, given the politicking surrounding the calling of the election. RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that "snap" is an essential part of the story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Rolene Strauss wins Miss World
Article: Rolene Strauss (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Rolene Strauss of South Africa wins Miss World 2014 in London. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Rolene Strauss of South Africa is crowned Miss World 2014 during the final in London.
News source(s): ,
Credits:
Article updated --BabbaQ (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- , . It is the biggest pageant in all aspects. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Haiti PM Laurent Lamothe resigns
Article: Laurent Lamothe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Haiti's prime minister Laurent Lamothe (pictured) and other ministers resign in the wake of violent anti-government clashes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Miami Herald]
Credits:
Article updated --MASEM (t) 08:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Neljack, 331dot, Bzweebl: That's as far as the update goes. I have not found any other events that led to protests and resignation. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
December 13
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 13
|
|
December 13, 2014 (2014-12-13) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sport
December 12
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 12
|
|
December 12, 2014 (2014-12-12) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
- An unknown person shoots four people outside of Rosemary Anderson High School, an alternative high school in Portland, Oregon. Police later question a 22-year-old man. (CNN) (MSN), (AP)
- Prosecutors at Sary-Arqa District Court in Astana charge 30-year-old Yevgeny Vdovenko, a Kazakh citizen, of intentional and illegal participation in a military conflict abroad because he had fought alongside pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. (Radio Free Europe)
- A Palestinian man throws a chemical substance believed to be acid at an Israeli family that stopped to pick up a hitchhiker. No terrorist groups claim credit for the attack. (Reuters)
Science and technology
2014 Indonesia landslides
Article: 2014 Indonesia landslides (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the Banjarnegara Regency of Indonesia, a landslide kills at least 32 people. (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning-Herald, BBC News, USA Today, Al Jazeera, ABC News
Credits:
--Everymorning talk 02:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- A note on process: Each item is assessed independently. If one is arguably decided wrong, Misplaced Pages shouldn't decide others incorrectly just to be consistent. Jehochman 18:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- If that is a note on process, why is it indented as if countering something I didn't say? You may note I've had the courtesy to await the full facts before voting. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I should correct my statement: the Typhoon may yet get posted if the article is updated, which seemed not to have been completed last time I looked. Jehochman 01:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Busaba Suwadi's relinquishment
Article: Busaba Suwadi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The former consort to the Crown Prince of Thailand Busaba Suwadi (pictured) relinquishes her royal title of Princess Srirasm. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times, etc.
Credits:
Article updated --Brandmeister 10:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: On what do you base that opinion? Saying something is "notable enough" is only helpful if you state why. As stated on this page, simple support or oppose votes are not helpful. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
December 11
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 11
|
|
December 11, 2014 (2014-12-11) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Microsoft and Bitcoin
Although this nomination has not been open for very long, it's clear that this won't be posted. Spencer 03:48, 12 December 2014 (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.
Article: No article specified
Blurb: 2nd largest corporation in the world, Microsoft has started to accept Bitcoin. (Post)
News source(s): CoinDesk RedOrbit
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 2nd largest corporation in the world enough said --66.36.138.57 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Microsoft hasn't acquired Bitcoin or anything. They've just started accepting it in payment. A complete non-story. ETA: Do you have any coverage of this whatever from news sources not specialising in Bitcoin news? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support If I could buy gas with acorns I'd want to know. Buying Microsoft products with Bitcoin is far more interesting than gas for oak nuts. This involves two industry-toppers and hence, if updated, meets ITN hands down. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - If Microsoft accepted acorns, I'd want to see that at ITN. This source (hidden away in BBC NEWS Technology) says: "Microsoft is the latest in a series of big firms to back bitcoins... and now Paypal, Dell, Expedia, Newegg and many other firms accept payments made with them." This Microsoft story might be a far more worthy item. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, interesting, but seriously, ITN-worthy? No. Not ITN worthy unless Microsoft acquires Bitcoin, etc. --AmaryllisGardener 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. So? In contrast to Martin, I would also oppose a Microsoft accepts acorns story. Lots of things are potentially fungible, some of them make decent currencies, and some of those will be used by large corporations in pursuit of commerce. More and more corporations have started using Bitcoin, which is good for Bitcoin enthusiasts I guess, but is still a very niche issue. Acceptance by Microsoft strikes me as just another step in that progression and not otherwise worthy of note. I can't imagine we would decide to post a "Microsoft starts accepting the Turkish Lira" story, or any other small currency, even though the utility of small national currencies is probably more important to many people than Bitcoin. Dragons flight (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The only way I'd support this is if there was consensus to follow up with a blurb about Misplaced Pages deciding to accept stories about who's accepting bitcoin as newsworthy. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Another large corporation decides to accept Bitcoin. This isn't remotely ITN-worthy. Challenger l (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2014 (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.
December 10
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 10
|
|
December 10, 2014 (2014-12-10) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Monaco twins
No consensus to post. Spencer 03:49, 12 December 2014 (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.
Articles: Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco (talk · history · tag) and Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carlades (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Charlene, Princess of Monaco, gives birth to twins, the first and second in the line of succession to the Monegasque throne. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I think this is pretty notable royal news. Albert finally has a legitimate heir to the throne and the twins were the first to have been born to Monaco's royal family. --JuneGloom07 Talk 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose minor royal news from a minor royal family. Not notable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was somewhat cautious about Prince George of Cambridge's birth being ITN. This is a far smaller story. Congratulations to the couple, of course, etc etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not getting a high level of attention; the head of state of Monaco is a relatively minor position as TRM suggests above. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Nominator is correct. Royal twins are rare, and there is the creation of an heir to the Monegasque throne. Articles are in a good enough state. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the rarity is novel, but would lend itself better to a DYK than a serious news article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose For the novelty, and the fact that these are likely going to be stubs for some time, making them poor front page links. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Birth of the heir to throne itself would be notable, an d I'm suprised it's not itnr, that they are twins is more than doubly notable. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support, birth in a royal family = ITN worthy. --AmaryllisGardener 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note - discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items#Royal births. Mjroots (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. George is the heir to the throne of more than a dozen countries across the globe. These twins aren't. -- Calidum 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. A birth in a royal family of a city state does not seem particularly noteworthy. Compare to the events of a birth in the Imperial Family of Japan, which (at least for now) solved a succession crisis. Challenger l (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2014 (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.
General Election in Mauritius
Article: Mauritian general election, 2014 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Alliance Lepep coalition, led by Sir Anerood Jugnauth, won the general election in Mauritius. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg, Reuters India, Daily Mail, AllAfrica.com, L'express.mu, Le Mauricien, Le Défi Media, Le Matinal
Credits:
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. --174.95.128.224 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changed to conditional support because of article quality concerns. -Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose not quite sure I understand the supports above, the article is junk and because it's ITNR it doesn't really need a "support once updated" vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- These votes serve the useful purpose of reminding the nominator and others that timely updating may lead to the article's being posted, thus perhaps inducing a knowledgeable editor to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Updated I guess there isn't much interest for this article, probably due to systemic bias and the language issue. I have updated the article to put it in descent shape for posting. --174.95.128.224 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks for the update. Let's post this. Marking ready. Jusdafax 06:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm posting this with minor tweaks. Can David Levy or somebody else skilled with images update the image please? Jehochman 15:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the image was a copyright violation (cropped from a non-free image and passed off as the uploader's work). I've deleted it at Commons. —David Levy 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
December 9
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 9
|
|
December 9, 2014 (2014-12-09) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
International relations
Politics and elections
Science
2014 oil spill on Sundarbans
Article: 2014 oil spill on Sundarbans (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: An oil-tanker carrying 350,000 litres of furnace oil was sunk in the Shela river of Sundarbans, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and spread over 10,000 square kilometers area. (Post)
News source(s): (The Hindu), (Aljazeera), (BBC), (The Economic Times), (Hindustan Times), (Prothom Alo), (Times of India), (Google News search)
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: Very serious environmental issue. Sundarbans is the world's largest mangrove forest and the oil tanker is threatening the wildlife of the forest. -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately stale. This happened on the 9th only one of the news links above is from more recently than 2-3 days ago, and that seems to be more of a followup article rather than a news article. If there was more to the article than there currently is (one paragraph), I would have likely supported at the time, but this far after the event we really need to offer some in-depth encyclopaedic treatment to justify a slot on the homepage. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture
Article: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A report harshly criticizing the use of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A report harshly criticizing the interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
News source(s): BBC Guardian NYT VOX Bloomberg NBC Fox Le Monde SMH
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Lead story on BBC, the New York Times and CNN. An obviously controversial issue is whether we should say "torture" or "interrogation" in the blurb. For this reason, I have proposed two blurbs. --Everymorning talk 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support, although it looks to me like the article is not quite there (e.g. use of lists, no infobox). Don't really need to say "of the United States", and surely it's "interrogation techniques" rather than "tactics". Formerip (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support per FormerIP (and I agree with their suggestions too). Technically though the report hasn't been released, only the executive summary to it has. I don't think this materially affects the story or the blurb though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support The article title and the report itself both use the term "torture", so I think we should go with that. Neljack (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Leaning Oppose / Wait. This is a report written by Democrats (and criticized by most Republicans) from within one committee in the US Senate describing and criticizing interrogation practices (i.e. torture) that were used under former President Bush and that have already been forbidden by current President Obama. Unless the report leads to protests in the street or new violence (both of which some people predict are possible), then I'm not sure how significant this really is. Sensationalist, yes, but is knowing exactly how we tortured people really a major story? It is certainly no surprise that the current Democrats oppose torture. If there are broader consequences / events arising from the publication of this report then I would support it, but I'm rather dubious about posting the report by itself. Dragons flight (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be exact on the partisanship authorship angle, the final report was approved by 7 Democrats, 1 Independent who caucuses with Democrats (Angus King), and 1 moderate Republican (Susan Collins). It was opposed by the remaining six members of the committee, all Republicans. The dissenting Republicans on the committee concurrently released a separate 167 page document criticizing the majority's process and conclusions. Most of the Republicans in Congress who have spoken after the release have been highly critical of it as well (excluding John McCain who is notable as a Republican supporter). In part, the report is being released now because once the newly elected Republicans take control of the Senate in January, they would almost certainly have killed it. Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a significant news story in the basic sense that the news is definitely covering it, but it is still true that only a minority of news stories end up on ITN. Personally, I tend to look for a degree of encyclopedic relevance and long-term significance. This particular news story has a strongly partisan and sensationalist undercurrent to it that tends to undermine its significance in my opinion, especially in the absence of any apparent consequences to the report itself (e.g. new legislation, protests, prosecutions, etc.). Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Dragons flight. The partisanship here is apparent, similar to the Benghazi hearings.--WaltCip (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, any substantive content within the report has been known about for years, it carries no legal weight, and was released now only because the Republicans wouldn't release it next year when they are the Senate majority. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Abductive, DF, and others. Not "new"s, no criminal indictment, a political report against a prior opposition party administration, no deaths, (how many people died attempting to save Luke Somers, and was that posted?) How many failed rescue missions against ISIS have we posted from this year? And the fact that Klaid Shiekh Muhammad, who personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, was rectally hydrated should be posted as news? No. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - A big story with international impact. Report has been in preparation for five years. I don't buy the "partisan" angle of the opposers. Obama himself was reported as opposing the release of the summary. Jusdafax 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a definitive report issued by the government (i.e the 9/11 Commission or the Warren Commission), its a dossier released by an opposition party which just one month ago lost massively in nationwide elections. Furthermore, it won't have any lasting effect or consequences (Obama has said it's time to move on). Posting this would set a bad precedent, and just because its top of the news today doesn't necessarily mean it should be posted (we didn't post anything about Luke Somers, for example) --Tocino 08:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait until/if there is some sort of effect of releasing this report(as Dragons flight suggests might happen). I disagree with the partisan reasons for not posting(it is still the official committee report even if not supported by most GOPers) but I do agree that little new information is being shed here and that little will change from the report itself. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - I don't get why some say this is not news. This is an extremely important report, and is the top headline all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support original blurb, oppose alternative blurb: this is an incredibly large international story, even though it does confirm what we all knew years ago: that an intelligence community in a world superpower routinely tortured military prisoners. Additionally, some of those opposing, I feel, are going further than opposing it on criteria grounds and are actively making excuses for torture, to which I whole-heartedly say: fuck you. Sceptre 20:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pointing out that this is opposition party politics does not at all equate to "making excuses for torture", and how dare you imply that.--WaltCip (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Implying the torture of KSM in American custody was comparable to an enema is making excuses for torture. And if Medeis wants to complain to ANI… well, that's his torture-supporting prerogative. Sceptre 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Sceptre. Fuck any claims of partisanship. American forces used torture extensively and systematically, with official approval, and that fact is everywhere in the international news today. Fight your party squabbles some other time. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support What this says about the CIA, let alone the United States of America, should be enough on its own to get it to the front page. This is clearly significant, clearly historical, clearly notable, clearly front page news. doktorb words 21:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wow The report is being released by a committee of one house, a committee which is in the hands of the opposition to the war, but which won't be as soon as that house returns after New Year's. There is no input from the currently minority party or soon to be majority party, or the other house. It's a political report meant solely to embarrass past and future bugaboos, and while it implies criminal activity, it neither proves nor even charges any criminal activity. And it's gotten so desperate that we have two users, one an admin (I am not sure what Alex Tiefling is) screaing obscenities? Where are the summary blocks? I'd expect to have been blocked if I'd even come close to this language. Righting great wrongs is not our job, and certainly doesn't excuse the above comments, which should be collapsed, if not rev deleted, with blocks for the appropriate parties. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on whether this report should or should not be printed in ITN, but I've become greatly concerned by people pushing their own points of view and original research in the above comments. This also applies to you, Medeis. All parties above, please stop the editorialising. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I have to take advice on editorialising from the person who described the death of Eric Garner as a 'little parochial strangling' and tried to get an entire nomination written off as 'simply wrong'.
- Medeis, I'm not an admin, I'm an ordinary user like you. I think this is the second time I've had to explain that to you. Do I need to remind you that Misplaced Pages is not censored, too? And I'd love to know why you think I'm screaming obscenities in a text-only medium. I cannot think what justification there would be for a summary block of me or Sceptre, but if you want to call for one, WP:ANI is over there. As I noted on a RefDesk thread recently, Medeis, I see you making provocative, content-free replies there and here almost every time I look. But (as other users are now discussing on the general RefDesk talk page) it seems futile to take you to ANI. If you want to take me on, go for it. But don't clutter this page up with empty threats. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am an admin. I can state with reasonable confidence that any attempt to have sanctions applied would be very likely to WP:BOOMERANG. The story is what it is: the only question is whether it has sufficient international prominence. I live in the UK< it is massive here, so I think people who try to claim it's not significant are onto a loser. Remember, this is Misplaced Pages: verifiability not truth. The report reportedly characterises the CIA as using torture, and more importantly the reliable independent sources that cover the story almost all (with notable exceptions being Faux News and its ilk) call it torture. If someone's loyalty to their country precludes admitting that a government agency that has a long and inglorious reputation for believing the ends justify the means, well, bully for them, but I sincerely hope that Wikipedians will be above such jingoistic tomfoolery. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, the report doesn't describe the interrogation techniques as "torture". It describes in detail many tactics that a reasonable observer would likely conclude are torture, but in the bulk of the report it avoids labeling them as such. (I wonder if avoiding that label was done for legal reasons?) That said, the committee chair Diane Feinstein and many other commentators on the report have described the tactics as "torture". Feinstein also described them that way in a foreword published with the report but signed only by herself. Dragons flight (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Point of order There's no need to recriminations against other editors. Let people say what they want, as long as they aren't insulting you. If you have insulted somebody above, please strike it. Keep in mind that this item will be decided based on whether it is widely reported in the news, article quality, yada yada other criteria, not whether you think the item is newsworthy. If its a bunch of partisan bluster, and news sources say so, then our article will say so also. What's lacking in the nomination are links to international news sources. If this is reported widely around the world, that's an object fact that can be determined. Either it's widely reported, or isn't. Jehochman 22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- While I broadly agree, and think each nomination should be discussed on its merits, I don't think we can pretend that each user's posts in one thread are wholly distinct from their posts in other threads. There are patterns, and some of the patterns are highly poisonous to this site. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a bunch of news sources, as requested. Mostly just scraped from the bolded article. GoldenRing (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support, first blurb not bowdlerised version (this is Misplaced Pages: the source says torture, so we say torture). A rare and truly remarkable piece of honesty in respect of a situation that has been spun so hard thus far that it's got its own quantum state. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is in the News but there is still no link to a Wiki article unlike in most other cases. Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Posting The support arguments, based on news appearance links now added above, demonstrate that this story is being reported widely and that reader will be interested in our article that can provide all the nuanced details, such as the fact that this was a report prepared by a Democratic-controlled committee about a Republican administration. What we think of the news (good, bad or ugly) is immaterial. Jehochman 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The wording "brutal interrogations" is attributed as a quote to Dianne Feinstein or the report itself by most sources (e.g. ), and is simply a euphemism for torture. I think the wording should go back to "torture", which is supported by a large number of sources ) and is in the title of the article. If we need more neutral wording, then the altblurb of "interrogation techniques" could be considered. But "brutal" seems to be non-neutral in that it reflects the report more than it reflects the sources. D7QB (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how neutral we need to be in describing practices that included pureeing a man's lunch ration and then forcing it up his arse. Let's call it torture. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also support changing it to "torture"; everyone else is calling it that, after all. Sceptre 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I also support the wording change to "torture" so let's do it. Jusdafax 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I concur. I'm also OK with the posting, since the story is staying ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Including use the word "torture". Let's call it for what it is, per what reliable sources are calling it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I switched to "brutal interrogation" because that's what the BBC story said, the first news story linked above. I am more than happy to change that to something else if somebody proposes other word(s) and links to sources using those same words. Jehochman 01:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Proposed wording: "A report harshly criticizing the use of torture by the United States Central Intelligence Agency is released by the Senate Intelligence Committee." Refs: D7QB (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not necessarily opposed to posting this (even though we've known everything substantive for years), but the wording of 'torture' is obscene. There is absolutely no reason to use such biased language, except for the emotional pleas put forth by some of the editors above. Just because something seems bad to us, doesn't mean that it's not biased to say such. Even the phrase 'brutal interrogation' is more biased than I'd like, but at least that is used by Feinstein. Personally, I'd prefer the wording 'interrogation techniques,' and the reader can determine for himself whether or not it's brutal and/or torture. I must say, the appealing to emotion and inflammatory foul language being used here is troubling and may speak to the motivations of some individuals.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing biased about using a term that a vast number of sources use, is concise, and precisely describes the events. While the report itself does not call these practices torture, they fit the definition. Not all members of a government that participated in torture are going to call it torture; that's why we use what secondary sources say. D7QB (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that news outlets are saying that doesn't make it unbiased. The blurb says that the reports condemns torture, which is not only biased, but also inaccurate! As you say, nowhere does the report use that word, and its inclusion here is clearly editorialization. It is troubling indeed that such is being displayed on the main page when simple, unbiased alternatives exist, such as the alternate blurb above.-RHM22 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The report itself is a primary source. We go by secondary sources, which are generally saying 'torture'. There's also a plain English question here: do you seriously expect me to believe that sodomising a man with the remains of his lunch in order to make him say certain things is not torture? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Next time Dick Cheney hosts a luncheon, I'm not going. Jehochman 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's not torture, but again, that's not for me to decide. The headline here is regarding the primary source and making an incorrect statement thereabout. The secondary sources are interpreting the report, just like we're doing on the main page now. No matter what the secondary sources say, it's not accurate according to the wording of the report, and it's also needlessly opinionated when there are other, very simple and completely uncontroversial alternatives. There is simply no need to use this wording when 'interrogation techniques' functions in the exact same way; the difference being that a blurb with that wording doesn't produce that coveted, tabloid-style 'shock' reaction.
- Regarding Jehochman's posting above, I wouldn't be concerned if I were invited to Cheney's luncheon: with friends like that, who needs…-RHM22 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- With friends like that, who needs enemas? Jehochman 16:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're referring to this story specifically, but it's been on the main page for two or three days now. If I remember correctly, it was on there the same day that the report was released. Very important news stories are sometimes fast-tracked even more quickly than that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Senate staffer tries to scrub 'torture' reference. Count Iblis (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
December 8
| Portal:Current events/2014 December 8
|
|
December 8, 2014 (2014-12-08) (Monday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
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
Aftermath of the Magdeburg car attack
.jpg)