*: Who cares what WaltCip thinks. What matters is what reliable source report, and nothing else. Certainly not whatever is going on in WaltCip's head.
*: Who cares what WaltCip thinks. What matters is what reliable source report, and nothing else. Certainly not whatever is going on in WaltCip's head.
*:The trouble with these cases is, like Anonymous, anyone can claim to be part of ISIS. The perpetrators of the [[San Bernardino shootings]] and the [[2014 Sydney hostage crisis]] pledged allegiance to the group, but it's not clear if there was any actual connection or if they were just looking for glory or mentally ill. Unless a central ISIS authority claims responsibility and this is backed up by some police evidence, I don't think it should be mentioned in the main page blurb. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
*:The trouble with these cases is, like Anonymous, anyone can claim to be part of ISIS. The perpetrators of the [[San Bernardino shootings]] and the [[2014 Sydney hostage crisis]] pledged allegiance to the group, but it's not clear if there was any actual connection or if they were just looking for glory or mentally ill. Unless a central ISIS authority claims responsibility and this is backed up by some police evidence, I don't think it should be mentioned in the main page blurb. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
{{hat|1=pointless}}
*:Guns aren't allowed in Europe, so instead they use bombs, which is a big improvement. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
*:Guns aren't allowed in Europe, so instead they use bombs, which is a big improvement. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
In the Third Battle of Fallujah, ISIL militants attack a military barracks east of Fallujah, killing more than 50 government soldiers and militia members. At least 12 militants were also killed in the assault. (Al Jazeera)
Missiles, fired from a U.S. drone, strike a four-wheel drive vehicle in southern Yemen, killing two and injuring another suspected militant. (Press TV)
Mateen's father, Seddique Mir Mateen, says, "We are saying we are apologizing for the whole incident. This had nothing to do with religion." Seddique says that during a recent outing in Miami, his son got very angry when he saw men kissing and touching each other. According to the elder Mateen, Omar said, "Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that." (NBC News)
The City of Orlando requests, via Twitter, citizens, "... hold off on vigils — they represent a serious strain on our limited resources, which we need to dedicate to law enforcement and victims." (The New York Times)
The scheduled L.A. Pride parade is held in West Hollywood Park in California. A 20-year-old man, whose car was filled with explosive materials and weapons, is arrested before he reached the parade area. He is misquoted as saying he wanted to harm people at the event. (Los Angeles Daily News)
Lawyers for former President of ChadHissène Habré, who was recently found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life in prison, appeal the verdict. However, a tribunal spokesman said the appeal process is not expected to be done before April 2017. (Al Jazeera)
UEFA opens an inquiry into the Russian Football Union after massive fights between Russian and English hooligans during and after the match between Russia and England in Marseille. Dozens of injuries, including at least one Briton in critical condition, and multiple arson attacks occurred throughout the city. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the most influential GOP political figures in the country. Helped shape Cleveland's future, notable opposition of the Iraq war and Bolton's nomination. Very well known and his retirement was well reported globally. His term as senator has been worldly reported such as in the BBC. Very notable in American politics. Article in good enough shape just pending on future obituaries. Death was described as "sudden" by NYT. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but oppose on quality. Article has {{cn}} tags dating back to 2007 and 2010, and I just added a bunch more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose plenty of senators die all the time, this is nothing different. We don't post high-level but inconsequential politicians (he "helped shaped Cleveland's future"!) from every other country in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Police state that this is a domestic terror incident with multiple deaths and injuries. Breaking news and numbers haven't been confirmed. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until more is known about suspect(s), motive(s) and firm count of casualties. Also, whether there's any connection to the other Orlando shooting, discussed below. Unlikely, but we don't know enough about this latest incident yet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ideally I'd like a longer article but it's still breaking news and it's not clear how much more relevant is actually known by reliable sources at this point. I suspect that this will get opposition due to the frequency of mass shooting events in the USA, but the way the reliable sources are treating this - particularly with regards describing it as "terrorism" - I feel this is one event that, sadly, is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A significant number of casualties occurred and this stands out among events. It can be expected to receive much more coverage in the coming hours. Dustin(talk)12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to the currently proposed phrase "domestic terror incident". "Domestic" is particularly problematic, as the sources seem to contradict one another over whether it is known that the attacker was US-based or not. Also opposed to the phrase "terror incident". Labelling something as terrorism – even where that label is accurate – implies greater seriousness than other events with similar outcomes. This is a despicable atrocity regardless of the cause, and is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet as a major event without that qualifier. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb, oppose originally proposed blurb for reasons mentioned above. Quality very hard to gauge but the article seems to be evolving in a measured and well-sourced way, which is all you can really hope for with this sort of event. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only gun control hadn't prevented more patrons from being armed this tragedy would have ended quickly. In all seriousness there is more than half this country that are fed up with spineless politicians and gun nutters preventing legislation.... we don't need it rubbed in our faces when tragedy strikes. --107.77.232.111 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the world has stricter gun laws that the US and does not see this sort of thing- but this is not the forum to debate gun policy in the US. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This delay is ridiculous. Can we flag an uninvolved admin to post this already? This story is immense and record-breaking. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)My mistake for failing to notice. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still unclear - they don't have a good hard number yet, so until that's confirmed, we should stick with the lower bound of 20, which I have boldly changed. An exact count can be assuredly had in a few hours and it can be updated then, but right now, the conflicting reports stories should be tempered. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, actually, as I'm checking now, nearly all the major sites are using the higher ticker number of at least 50 dead, including CNN and NYtimes (minutes ago as I type this). So I'll revert myself to put back 50. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "gay". Nearly all top sources lead off by describing Pulse as a "gay nightclub", so this seems both neutral and respecting sources. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNYTimes, with the updated count, is now classifying this as the worst mass shooting in US history. I only toss out there if that might go in the blurb or not. It might be a bit POVish to add that, so only offering this. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding it would be premature until we are certain of the precise death toll (50 is a suspiciously round number). I can see the justification in adding it at a later stage of the blurb's life, but not during the newsgathering phase where the facts are changing literally minute-by-minute. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) (indenting to make clear I'm talking about whether we should add "biggest mass shooting", edit conflict made it unclear what I was referring to.) StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's discussion on this above, and it was also discussed at the article's page. Basically, virtually all sources as well as the nightclub's website itself refers to it as a "gay nightclub" or "gay bar". Also, the Wikipedia article is at gay bar, which explains further about the terminology. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support It's nothing new about the United States but the "biggest mass shooting" in the country's history accompanied with the high death toll is notable in this case. This is also a huge warning about the overall safety in the country and the freedom of access to weapon, which should be immediately attributed very high priority with the enactment of laws that would impose restrictions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should, and it probably will, but ultimately nothing will happen. It's a real shame, and an embarrassment, but somewhere along the line "the right to bear arms" became "the right to have unfettered access to virtually any type of firearm in unlimited quantities". I realize this isn't the place to vent, but this is maddening every time it happens. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - News reports are starting to circulate that the shooter may have had allegiance to ISIL. I still think it was essentially a random gun nut with easy access to guns in a country that may as well be the Wild Wild West.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're investigating his travels and such to see if there's any legit link. It could have been aided by ISIL training, or he could just be a homophone. We don't know yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to CNN, the shooter apparently called 911 around the time of the attack and announced his allegiance to ISIS. If that is accurate, then it is pretty clear cut that he was motivated in part by Islamic extremism. It seems likely that he was also motivated by anti-gay bias as well. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what WaltCip thinks. What matters is what reliable source report, and nothing else. Certainly not whatever is going on in WaltCip's head.
The trouble with these cases is, like Anonymous, anyone can claim to be part of ISIS. The perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings and the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis pledged allegiance to the group, but it's not clear if there was any actual connection or if they were just looking for glory or mentally ill. Unless a central ISIS authority claims responsibility and this is backed up by some police evidence, I don't think it should be mentioned in the main page blurb. Smurrayinchester18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support One of only two German Grand Tour winners, World Champion, very visible in public life after retirement due to controversial commentary work on TV. Added sources, should be quite OK now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: following TRM's appraisal below, I've just re-read and noticed language errors (prepositions, capitalisation) which need to be remedied before ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above comments. 08:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose a very quick glance found some issues with the prose (not encyclopedic), some tense issues, and plenty of unreferenced facts, particularly in the claims of his victories towards the end of the article. I do not believe this is ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose on quality per TRM. The sourcing shouldn't be too difficult (the general ref at the bottom of the article verifies the main sections of concern to TRM, though I can't tell if it's an RS); a copy edit and cross-checking that the prose is backed up by existing sources will take a bit more effort. Notability fine for RD under old or new system subject to that. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Not influential in her field and not well known at all outside USA or even within USA, as far as I am aware. Her death is tragic and totally unexpected but you have to question whether she is that notable in her field. The only thing that might sway it is her appearance in The Voice but even then she was only a runner-up wasn't she? On the other hand, she is on the front page of a lot of US and UK media websites at the moment but I feel that that is mainly due to the tragic nature of her death and not because of her fame. Also WP:NOTNEWS. This is coming from a Christina fan, I would love to see her on the front page but I can't see it happening. Spiderone08:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. "Will be in the news for days" is speculation and (regrettably) seems unlikely. If she hadn't been on The Voice we never would have heard about this at all. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We reverted the RD criteria back to what it was before the trial, Lugnuts. So yeah, oppose for not meeting the significant standards.George Ho (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Changed vote at the near-bottom of the nomination section. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are unexpected killings every day in the world. If we posted the killing of every minor celebrity as a blurb(and she doesn't meet the RD criteria), we would be nothing but a news ticker. If she hadn't been on The Voice(which she didn't win) we would never have heard about this. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support is for RD not blurb. Also that logic doesn't work. If Gordie hadn't been a top hockey player we wouldn't have heard about his death. If Ali hadn't been a top boxer we wouldn't have heard about his death. She was on the Voice, so we did hear about it. MurielMary (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant when it comes to individual notability. That people are killed every day would mean that we would not post about any death. That would not work.BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MurielMary. I think this death is as notable as the deaths of Gordie or Ali, since both of their deaths were more expected and didn't involve a shooting incident. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahahaha, no. I don't think entire magazines are going to be devoted to her, nor is any network going to suspend its regular programming for six hours to cover her funeral. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's apparently notable enough to have had an article since 2011 with hundreds of edits prior to this, and she was murdered at a concert in a public incident. BBC and news.com.au are both putting this at the top, that looks like global coverage to me. - Lvthn13 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - the singer is above the "normal standard" and her death has been mentioned worldwide for a reason.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for blurb (oppose RD). Murders of celebrities, politicians, etc. are not an everyday occurrence, which makes the death in itself notable, and it does seem to be getting considerable news coverage. At the moment, the news coverage seems somewhat empty since we have neither an identity nor a motive on the shooter, so waiting a few hours could also be a good thing. I don't think Ms. Grimmie has the kind of wide-ranging notability that would incline her toward RD apart from the tragic nature of her death, so I would lean towards a blurb or nothing. Dragons flight (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, oppose RD. The news here is that a minor celebrity (who does not meet the non-trial RD criteria) was unexpectedly shot dead. I.e. the news is the death not that a person notable for other things has died. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have agreed that if her only claim to fame was participating in The Voice then yes, she should not be featured at ITN. But, she had a successful career at Youtube previously to competing in The Voice and has had several of her music singles charting and some interesting collaborations. This one just makes the threshold for blurb inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both People get shot in the United States all the time. Some of them are moderately well known (in the United States). Minor news, on a world scale. Jheald (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both This is definitely tragic but 1) she was far from the top of her field and 2) shooting people in the United States is a run-of-the-mill activity. That said, it is not sufficient to qualify either for RD or a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a run of the mill activity, then how you can really say it's tragic? The two are at complete odds with one another. Either this was a tragedy or it was just another uninteresting death in a land packed full of gun toting murderers; you can't have it both ways, so why not be honest about which one you think is true? - Lvthn13 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvthn13: The fact that a young person was killed is the tragedy here and it has nothing to do with the frequency of the shooting incidents in the United States. There are several hundreds shooting/stabbing incidents in the world every year and they're all tragic, regardless of whether they appear in the media or not. So, the word "tragic" doesn't depend on the amount of notability that one attributes to the event in which the person was killed compared to other similar events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This is a run of the mill American shooting, from right here in my lovely hometown: http://www.mrt.com/news/crime/article_c48c9404-25b8-11e6-a6da-679cf5172543.html. You'll note that the victim never had a Wikipedia page, there were no fans as witnesses, and it didn't get coverage throughout the Anglosphere. Now, I personally don't find either of these deaths particularly tragic, not knowing the people involved I see no reason to be dishonest about its emotional impact on me, but I would like to know what invisible line you're suggesting this doesn't cross. Not just you but several others said pretty much the same thing, so do none of you really see the difference between BBC headlines and common violence of local notability, or what's the deal here? - Lvthn13 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb. RD depends on what rules we're using at the moment, but in no way was she notable enough for a blurb, despite the tragic circumstances of her death. == Kicking222 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, the media coverage is extensive (US, CA, UK, various outlets in India, South Africa's eNCA), she's the top story on BBC News' US & Canada section right now, and she had a career before The Voice. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RDbased on article quality. To those who said "oppose both" @LauraJamieson, Jheald, and Kiril Simeonovski:, remember that we're doing the RD trial of posting every person who dies to RD as long as they have an article of sufficient quality. Her status in the field of singing isn't relevant beyond her notability per GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now I'm seeing that the trial ended? Well, I say make it permanent and post her to RD by WP:IAR if we have to. How does not linking this article to the main page "improve" Wikipedia as opposed to posting it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does integrity of posting news not improve Wikipedia? If neither her status nor her death is newsworthy in Wikipedia, then posting her death by a blurb or just her name would not improve Wikipedia. Then IAR would not apply. I don't see rules as not prevent us from approving this nomination, does it? George Ho (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support a blurb, I support RD, and the "rules" I'd ignore are the death criteria, which the recent RD trial demonstrated hold us back from showcasing relevant quality content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and support reverting the rules back to what we had during the trial. (was: Oppose both, Death of a non-notable individual: not influential, had temporary local fame, no awards. ) Isa (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme oppose - Assuming the trial is no longer in effect, the notability of this is that it was a shooting in the USA and that it was a singer. Our notability bar for posting shootings within the USA is appropriately VERY high. This does not meet it.--WaltCip (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe if Earth were hit by an asteroid smack dab on it's North American continent, that would have some effect. Sca (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a perfect example of an RD which could have been posted under the trial criteria 12 or so hours ago, with little issue from the community and especially little issue from our readership, yet here we are, duking it out, talking shit and wasting time. Well done Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Furthermore, quickly reading through this particular RD discussion (above) has finally convinced me to throw my support over at WP:2016 ITNRD RFC: IMO, the trial was a success and I hope, in the future, the criteria will be updated and changed. That way we don't get bogged down in this kind of talk. And we can use that energy to, instead, focus on any particular RD-article's quality. Christian Roess (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb It IS in the news (including Russian ones that I read) and has generally good quality. This is how the Second Amendment works, by taking lives instead of protecting them. Brandmeistertalk08:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, this could have been posted to RD 24 hours ago should the trial criteria applied. Instead we have a decent article languishing, a torrent of subjectivity and personal preference yet no action taken. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The threshold for inclusion as RD is meant to be The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region or The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. This unfortunate young woman clearly does not meet these. When the current RfC runs its course, there might be a definition whereby she should be "granted" an RD spot, but at present, the criteria are unfulfilled.
So we are left to consider whether the incident merits inclusion as a news item; there is nothing apparently remarkable about the incident: neither motivation, method, circumstances or results of the shooting are substantially different from what sadly happens far too often. Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for a full blurb due to the unusual circumstances of the death. As someone who supports the RFC on changing the RD criteria, I have no personal objection to an RD. But under a strict reading of the existing guidelines (ignoring the trial), this is one of those strange cases where I think a stronger argument can be made for either blurb or not posting than it can for RD. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IAR is appropriate here as there are strong arguments both ways on whether this should be a blurb or not that need evaluating by an uninvolved admin. Also, while the RfC does have strong numerical support I wouldn't call it overwhelming just yet, and even if it were I'd prefer it not to be closed too early so we can avoid arguments about that down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was gunned down and murdered. I dont understand how this can be RD. Point of RD was place for daily barrage of deaths that ITN cant possibly support with full blurbs but not for murders and unusual killings. Makes much more sense to have a blurb here. Either dont post or post a blurb. -- Ashish-g55
support full blurb per StillWaitingForConnection. I realize this means we will be posting two (unrelated) Orlando shootings, but the killing of a moderately well-known singer in this way is (thankfully) uncommon, even in the United States (I used to be a full editor, same user as the other SH IP who !voted in the Peru election event). 116.216.30.52 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it as ready, but then I unmarked it as such, especially when the recent mass shooting in the same city where this unrelated (?) incident occurred is posted. Also, I guess consensus becomes divisive on this. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, due to the unrelated mass shooting (moved portion) as said before, I decide to oppose blurb on the death of this sole person, even when I added the blurbs. I don't think posting it as a blurb is appropriate anymore, and having two different death incidents from Orlando next to each other in ITN looks awkward. No opinion on the RD, however. George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 36 hours ago this was good to post at RD, since then we've had a dumpload of personal opinions and subjectivity, and nothing posted to the main page, despite the pageviews (in excess of a million) telling us this is of interest to our readers. Well done to everyone who has slowed this down. You deserve a medal for keeping Wikipedia niche and elite and slow and ultimately ineffective. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I fully understand your frustration of what's going on quickly after the end of the trial but, trust me, this is not the right place to vent your spleen. Your last three comments on this nomination consist of fatalistic griping on what others are doing to Wikipedia. I give a full respect to your efforts in improving any segment of Wikipedia (even though I cannot agree with you on everything you suggest) but this is not something that should find its place here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. The problem is that ITN has far too many worms, they suddenly appear from nowhere after months of absence and say "I don't like this thing" and then bugger off again. If I don't make the point, plain and simple, here then it'll be missed. This is fundamentally one of the highest profile murders for a month or so and we are now way over 36 hours from nomination, with nothing wrong with the article at all and just a bunch of bureaucratic and subjective idiocy standing in the way of just two words being posted to the main page. Some of you should read this, realise how pathetic that is, and be ashamed. Wikipedia is not an elite club, it's an encyclopedia and ITN has a primary goal of serving our readers, not each other's egos and bullshit like that. Post this to RD now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD – This nomination is starting to devolve into bickering, but given the extreme interest by readers in Grimmie and the high-profile nature of her death, there's no harm in having her posted to RD. Yes, Grimmie was not at the top of her field so if her death was natural and anticipated, this likely would not have been posted. But the unexpected nature of it give her death greater notability. This is a case of bending the rules in favor of encyclopedic value; we don't have to rigidly follow everything that's written down so long as it's for the betterment of the site. There was some support to have this posted as a blurb; however, given the recent massacre in Orlando, having this as a blurb would be way out of place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bankruptcy auction for the company gets underway when Gawker accepts techpublisherZiff Davis's bid for all seven of its brands and other assets, reportedly for $90 million to $100 million. (CNN)
The U.S. Department of Commerce approves service by six commercial airlines from five U.S. cities, including Miami and Philadelphia, to nine international airports in Cuba. Approval for routes to the capital Havana are still pending. Most of the carriers plan to begin their new service this fall and winter. (Miami Herald)
In a substantial swing, the "Leave" camp is 10 points ahead of "Remain" with less than two weeks to go before Britain's referendum on whether to stay in the European Union, according to a poll by ORB. (The Independent)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of notable Nigerian football coaches. I believe that he is significant enough in Nigerian football, right? George Ho (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support the RfC to change the criteria. But to try and enforce them outside of the trial and before consensus has been achieved to make a permanent change, would create unnecessary problems. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose appalling state, some wrong tenses, plenty of unreferenced sections, almost embarrassing that it has been nominated, even if it is ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The update is not fine yet, the article needs some more work. But, if posted, we could timestamp it on today, since the counting took a while. --Tone18:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suport (as longtime editor, posting anonymously). The article looks mostly fine now, and the election is pretty significant beyond ITNR. The results are in: Kuczynski has defeated Fujimori to become president-elect of Peru. (if there is a problem with my anonymous !vote, please message me on usertalk.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.179.132.196 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved this to the date Fujimori conceded. I originally nominated this because the BBC said then that it would be finalised the next day. That did not happen, probably because it was that close (0.25%). I'll look at cleaning some of this up - any help would be appreciated. Fuebaey (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The results of the second round in the results section are still missing. And some more text would help. I am willing to post but someone fix that first. --Tone16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a weird one-off event, since the previous one was in 2015 and the next one is in 2019. It is hosted in the US and I would be curious if more people there pay attention to the Euro. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would only ever justify Ongoing for the Olympics, where you have many different disciplines going on at once, and different winners in each. The UEFA Championship no doubt has similar traffic to any American sport's playoffs or the IPL, which as with the UEFA Championship only have one winner. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to conflict with Copa America centenary and concerns over systemic bias in treating two comparable events differently. Better to simply have blurbs for the closing matches as provided by ITN/R. Even ignoring that conflict I'm not sure if I'd support an ongoing here - better to reserve that for global sporting events rather than regional ones (however large). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So many sporting tournaments happen, and save the Olympics, none of them get posted to ongoing for their entirety. I don't think we should do so now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the 2016 Formula One season is ongoing for much of the year, and that don't get posted (not saying it should) - it is a world championship, not a continental championship. No need to post it until the finals per ITNR. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major competition tournament (and I hate football). I don't understand the logic of "we didn't post Copa America Centenario, so we shouldn't post this". Maybe post both.... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead08:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ongoing is for events that would generate a succession of incremental blurbs, which is not something that we would consider for any single-winner sports tournament so ongoing is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As others have suggested, Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress. The Olympics are different as a multi-sport event, but tournaments with a single winner should never be posted to Ongoing. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is missing the point of Ongoing, which is to prevent the main section being flooded with multiple stories on the same topic. ("Olympic boxing champion", "Olympic swimming champion", "Olympic running champion"…) Unless something extraordinary happens, there's by definition only one match in this (or any) knockout tournament which is notable by ITN's standards. ‑ Iridescent19:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but I would point out that "Ongoing" was designed with two and only principle sport events in mind: the Olympics, and the FIFA World Cup as both events have broad international representation. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I agree with every word of this, whilst noting that the FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the year it is held in all but three nations. Unfortunately for the purposes of generating consensus, those three nations are USA, Canada and India... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim isn't that it's the most watched. The claim is that it is the biggest sporting event in almost every nation. I personally don't think any single-winner sports tournament should get an on-going slot (we should post the winner and anything intermediate that is individually notable for a blurb) but I recognise that I'm not in a majority with this view. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's at RD, which at the end of the day was probably the correct decision. Howe was one of the greats, so a blurb was certainly a reasonable proposal, but since the ensuing "discussion" is very close to becoming a short novel, it's probably in everyone's best interests to close it and, I don't know, maybe do something else for a while. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support, pending a little clean-up. One of the greatest players in hockey history, and one of the greatest athletes in Canadian history. Resolute13:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as well. Hopefully some of the sourcing happens during the day, but if not, I'll try to tackle some of it when I'm off work. Resolute14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb If Ali for boxing then surely Gordie for hockey. As said above besides Wayne Gretzky he is probably the greatest hockey player that was still alive -- Ashish-g5514:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm also fine with a blurb- Gordie is inarguably one of the sport's greatest and most legendary players- I really hate this line of reasoning. Ali was extremely notable for what he did outside the ring, whereas Gordie was entirely notable for what he did on the ice. -- Mike(Kicking222)20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what Ali did outside the ring he was still posted due to what he did in the ring. As a sports personality thats what really matters IMHO. Otherwise blurb wouldnt read American Boxer or Canadian Hockey player etc. -- Ashish-g5520:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be interesting to know how many people in the non-hockey playing countries of Europe would advocate a blurb, while pretty much every human being between the ages of 20 and 120 knew who Ali was. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think there is any doubt Ali was more well known. But again for that was due to his boxing career. More people know Tiger Woods too even though they dont watch golf doesnt mean Jack Nicklaus is any less prominent. -- Ashish-g5520:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvements There's some unsourced subjective statements in the Red Wings section (at the ends of about 2-3 para) that need sourcing, as well as his Personal Life section. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb. The argument for greatest hockey player of all time basically comes down to Howe, Gretzky, and Orr. Statistically, Gretzky is in another stratosphere, but historically, only one player was Mr. Hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quality looks good to me. I don't know if he reaches the level of a blurb, but if any hockey player does, it's him (or Gretzky). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll oppose blurb, support RD. The deaths of Prince, Ali, Bowie etc. that get a blurb have an outpouring of sentiment that I'm just not seeing for Howe. There's news stories, sure, but it's clear this death isn't having the same level of impact as those recent blurbed deaths have had. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much of the article is speculative and unreferenced. Hopefully all these ardent supporters can improve the article. No doubting the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Oppose blurb per Johan Cruyff who played a genuinely international sport at the highest level for years, and made an impact on the game well after his retirement through radical coaching techniques. We should be consistent. Cruyff got RD, as such Gordie should too. Otherwise it's just more systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to clarify, should a blurb be posted, we should link "hockey" or replace it with "Ice hockey". There exists more than one version of the game referred to as "hockey". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. I'm not seeing anywhere near the level of coverage required for a blurb here. On the main page of BBC News right now there are two stories related to Ali and a third on the front page of BBC Sport. In contrast, Howe only makes it to the third story on the ice hokey page. Ice hockey is far more popular in Canada than it is in the UK, so I picked a random Canadian City (Toronto) and looked at the website for the first result Google gave me for a newspaper in that city (Toronto Star) and I don't see the story on the main page at all. I picked another combination and looked at the Winnipeg Free Press and see it's the main story and one sports story. Chicago won the 2015 NHL so ice hockey is likely big in Chicago, yet the story is only 3rd in the sports section on the Chicago Tribune main page currently. This is not the major international reaction that is required for a death blurb in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems I was viewing the "news" page not the home page (I'm not sure what they categorise it as though - I don't see it on either the news or sports pages?). If that banner and number of articles were happening internationally, or his impact was not entirely on a single sport, I'd be supporting a blurb. Simply being the best of your generation and having a long career in one field doesn't merit a blurb - think about how many fields there are and you get the idea that we'd be posting blurbs for the best cricketer, footballer (all types), baseballer, politician, chess player, badminton player, table tennis player, philopsopher, psychologist, etc. Ali wasn't just a boxer, Prince's death generated international reaction, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give it 24h for the news cycle to complete. His death was announced in the early morning, whereas Ali's was shortly after midnight (allowing it to make the front page that morning). I'd be happy to post pictures of the front cover of the Toronto Sun, Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post tomorrow. I have no doubt in my mind that all four will feature at least a full front page, if not a spread, on this Canadian great. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post have multiple articles each on the subject. - Floydianτ¢01:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. As NYBrad says below, referencing is just about there (I'm certain the remaining statistical statements are supported by the references, it's just a case of sticking the right ones in the appropriate places). Oppose a blurb because the nature of death is not noteworthy, making for a boring blurb. RD + picture would be the ideal solution. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only sports Hall of Fame person to actually add substantially to his record after "retirement." Gets 8 articles between 10 June and 11 June in The New York Times alone (extremely rare event, by the way), covered by every major newspaper you can think of - including the Toronto Star ("The legendary Detroit Red Wings star played in 1,767 games and is the only NHL player to have suited up in five decades. He retired as the NHL’s all-time leading scorer and is considered by many to be “the greatest hockey player ever.”"), CBC "The nickname Mr. Hockey says it all." and so on. Major article on BBC [1]. RT even [2]. France, Belgium, German, Swiss newspapers. RAI. You name it, they covered Howe's death. Collect (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had already started doing so before you started whinging about British nationalism (despite not a single person questioning that the subject is important enough to go on the Main Page) whilst refusing to muck in yourself. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD promptly. The article is above average in coverage and the remaining cn-tagged sentences are minor (although of course knowledgeable editors should still fill them in). No strong view either way on blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as nom. Aside from Gretzky, who likely has several decades ahead of him, Howe is as significant to his sport as Clay was to his. I'm not sure how to word his significance in an objective way aside from the fact that Howe played hockey for almost as many years as Gretzky has been alive. - Floydianτ¢01:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your Islamophobia was unneeded in your nomination, but thanks for sharing, I guess? Next time, maybe you should just discuss the article at hand and leave personal prejudices out of it. -- Mike(Kicking222)02:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem exactly, why can't you call him with the name he changed to instead of his slave birth name that he despised. Is there something that is bothering that you choose to disrespect him Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which he changed and requested that people stop using his original name, something that all of us have the right to do for any reason. This would be a better world if decisions like that were respected. It has nothing to do with "white liberal guilt". 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was completely inappropriate and unnecessary for someone who had voted in favour of a blurb to then post one. Posting to RD would have been fine, as there was no opposition to that, but while there was lots of support for a blurb, there was also some strong opposition and the nomination had only been up for about 12 hours. In those circumstances, I cannot see that this posting falls within the exception for involved administrators to act where any reasonable administrator would have come to the same conclusion. Other administrators might well have decided to allow more time for discussion on whether a blurb was appropriate.
The support for a blurb here seems like a classic case of systemic bias due to the disproportionate number of North American users - particularly as non-American sporting legends who have died recently and are at least as significant as Howe, such as Johan Cruyff and Jonah Lomu, have not received blurbs. Neljack (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well looks like Gordie was on the exit route for nearly two years, so this is no surprise at all. That Cruyff was voted down and this individual gets a blurb, posted by a Canadian blurb supporter no less, is a shocking indication of nefarious goings-on here. Shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to blurb this individual does not meet any of the criteria for an RD blurb as listed on the criteria page. What is the point of having criteria if personal bias and personal preferences are going to be used to determine whether an RD should be a blurb? There is zero coverage of this death globally - nothing in Australia or New Zealand, nothing in South America or Asia or India or China, no impact on the world, no outpouring of grief nothing. He was a top sportsperson in one sport in one country but no more than that. How can he be on a par with Bowie or Ali or Prince? Recommend removal and placing appropriately into RD.MurielMary (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Canadian gets blurb posted by Canadian administrator with plenty of north American votes for, but plenty of non-north American votes against. It's called systemic bias I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. So we might as well replace the criteria with a statement like "if you personally believe this is newsworthy then go ahead and post it" as the criteria have been completely ignored in this case. Why bother with criteria any longer? MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of our contributors don't bother with criteria and when they're scrutinised, you'll get "IAR" or you'll get "the majority of our readership is North American" etc. It's systemic bias at its most virulent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it was not appropriate for someone voting for a blurb to then post one, given the way the discussion stands now, and maybe it should be pulled. That said, I do support a blurb as Howe was clearly one of the top figures in the sport. World coverage is not required(and specifically discouraged) and I wouldn't expect this to get coverage in Australia and New Zealand given the level of ice hockey interest there. I'm not sure when systemic bias was expanded to 'North America' but we didn't post a great number of dead Canadians under this criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it's systemic bias for an American to support a blurb about a Canadian? As I indicated I don't know when systemic bias was expanded to North America. I didn't say I opposed a blurb on the soccer player, I said I wasn't convinced of the need for one. If he was one of the top three figures worldwide in the sport, then OK. Soccer has a much larger following than ice hockey I believe, so that would be much harder for a soccer player. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, it's systemic bias for an American to vote against a footballer getting a blurb. I don't suppose you even read the Cruyff article. Gordie had a long career during which he set records. That is all. Cruyff was considered one of the greatest players in the history of a global sport and went on to re-define the way in which that very sport was played. Some have described him as the most influential footballer in history. But that's not good enough for the Americans. But an ice hockey player who played for ages and then died unremarkably is. Systemic bias rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The long career hockey player warrants a blurb but the most influential footballer in history remains to convince you?? Says enough I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, if you would not expect Gordie's death to be covered internationally then how on earth can you claim that he was a "major transformative world leader"?? That is the criteria for death to be posted as a blurb. If his death was reported globally, that would support him getting a blurb. It wasn't reported globally because he's not a majorly influential world figure. Continue to recommend pulling as this is dropping the bar substantially for blurb postings. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ice hockey does not get worldwide coverage; but this is well covered in areas where it does. That doesn't mean that ice hockey cannot ever be discussed globally. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Comment Why was this posted in the news section and not the recent deaths? This looks like an error - please correct it ASAP.
As a comment: I'm wondering in what kind of world we're living that the death of sports-people is considered that relevant. Take a look at the state of the world and ask yourself if one can with all seriousness conclude that the departure of people who achieved great results in various popular games of body-exercise are noteworthier than whatever countless observations, scientific findings, public events and processes, political decisions, sociological and technological debuts were made in recent days. --Fixuture (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blurb. Widely considered to be among the greatest hockey players of all time, and dying of old age doesn't automatically disqualify an individual from having a blurb. Calidum¤13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true BabbaQ - Jheald's opposition is based on the actual criteria listed for a person's death to be listed as a blurb. Which are that the person must have been an influential world leader. MurielMary (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. - is a criteria, and he forfills it. Period. MurielMary, you make it sound that the criteria you are mentioning are the only one to follow. Which is not true. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria you have just quoted is for an RD listing not for a blurb. Go back and read the criteria for a blurb of a death. MurielMary (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard no athlete would get posted. Sports are a huge part of our culture. I guess for some on Wikipedia, people who made their name through physical activity are beneath them?24.114.67.56 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blurb - one of the best and most famous hockey players of all time. and the pull blurb !votes above are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it has no baring on a top field hockey player whos death became known worldwide.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The "pull" votes above are based on actual policy - the criteria for a blurb of a recent death, which specify that the person must have been a majorly influential world leader. This person does not meet this criteria. Nothing about personal preference. MurielMary (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:. The criteria are at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section. Is the cause of the hockey player's death the main story? Or events surrounding the death? Or (rare cases only) was he a major transformative world leader? (Hence my question above: was he a Mandela, a Reagan, an Ali ?) Those are the criteria laid down for a blurb.
Or, on the other hand, was the person's life the main story? Does the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries? Has the update to the article in question been principally a statement of the time and cause of death? Then RD is appropriate. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ kindly add the worldwide sources that you mention to the nomination bar at the top of this discussion. According to my searches this news has been reported only in North America and the UK. Nothing from Asia, China, India, South America, Africa, Australia or Oceania. MurielMary (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP looks foolish right now with a sportsperson on a blurb spot which has been previously used for the likes of Bowie and Prince. Looks like the major source of information in the world considers this guy to be an influential world leader. Ugh. MurielMary (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to show stats because I did not say that the public gets their daily news from WP. I said that WP is the main source of information in the world, which is undisputed given the way WP appears in google searches etc etc. Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with reconsidering a decision and changing it. It's a sign of maturity to recognise one's one errors and fix them rather than allowing the mistake to stand in a bull-headed way to avoid some odd idea that change will result in loss of face. MurielMary (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary, I have only two questions. Why are you ranting? And why are POV pushing?. Just asking. If it had been a close call when it comes to notability I would have understood, but not here, sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am advocating for the criteria to be applied correctly as if they are not applied correctly there is no point in having them. That is neither ranting nor POV. It is objectivity. Without criteria, we just post what we personally think is notable rather than using criteria. Why are you asking me these questions instead of addressing the fact that you've been using the wrong criteria to judge this nomination, as pointed out by two editors now? MurielMary (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when you said "Wayne Gretzky ≠ Gordie Howe" it became clear that you don't follow hockey, so naturally you wouldn't know them. Gretzky not only broke some of Howe's career records, they had a good and friendly relationship. Gretzky certainly knew who Howe was. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google Image for "gordie howe wayne gretzky photo" and there are many examples of the connection between these two, going back to when Gretzky was a kid. 70.50.215.119's lack of knowledge of Canada's national sport is nothing for him to brag about. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PP-Suport & Blurb As a non-hockey following non-Canadian, if my first reaction is "wow, Mr Hockey has passed!" then I think there is very little reason to oppose this nom and blurb. μηδείς (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb - I've never heard of him (mind you, I am English) and feel that this is more RD than blurb. I also feel that this was posted prematurely and that there was clearly no solid consensus to post it at the time; maybe only a slight majority in favour, at best. Spiderone16:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear pull blurb and move to RD. This is borderline pathetic. We had an Dutch international footballer who influenced the history of the game during his playing career and during his extensive coaching career pushed to RD by North Americans. Now we have a North American with a long playing career and a few records but nothing else getting a full blurb and image on the main page, like Ali. This situation is utterly beyond comprehension. Pathetic doesn't cover it, but it's common place now that this is more and more about North America and less and less about the English language. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You, if anyone should be able to handle some light hearted fun. But I guess that only is OK when it comes from you ;). I take it in stride....--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb clearly does not meet the criteria for a blurb and and clearly no consensus to override them. It also was posted by an involved admin. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb. No disrespect to Howe, and I'm sure ice hockey has a global following. But what on earth is he doing at the top of ITN? This really doesn't look right, or well balanced, at all. 86.175.165.134 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Howe is recognized as one of the top two players to ever play his sport. He's a national hero for Canadians. The article is in good shape and well-sourced. Pulling it now without any article-quality concerns would seem like a spite to Howe. --Tocino16:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones guilty of that are those who think he deserves a blurb and those who actually posted a blurb. Truly awful decision-making. And so North-American-centric: a perfect example of systemic bias! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a 2 to 1 consensus to pull this blurb. Please, an uninvolved admin (i.e. preferably not a Canadian ice hockey fan) assess this and decide one way or the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blurb If it had not been posted then its one thing but pulling is highly and utterly disrespectful. There was consensus for blurb at time of posting, even if it was a slight consensus. A very recognized person all around so it isnt like a blurb is a bad thing and article has improved quite a bit too. I do get few editors are consistently shouting for a pull but an admin should properly look at where the consensus lies and be mindful that its already been posted so there better be a very strong consensus to pull 2607:FEA8:5520:3A0:9527:DBB6:1FC9:BEFB (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, North Americans, give it a moment. It is far from "antiproductive" (which is not a word) and in actuality needs scrutiny, particularly in light of the abject refusal of the community to post Johann Cruyff as a blurb. This ice hockey jockey had a long career and as such set a few records. So what? Cruyff redefined how the world's most popular game was played, as well as being one of the finest exponents himself. This is a real joke, and just because something was posted by someone with a very overt vested interest, it doesn't mean it should be straightforward to pull it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb per MurielMary; calling Howe a "major transformative world leader in his field" may technically be accurate, but is distorting the intention behind that wording—written with people like Mikhail Gorbachev and Paul McCartney in mind—to breaking point. (With Ali gone, the only sporting figures I could imagine having sufficient impact to qualify for a blurb for a death in unexceptional circumstances will be Pele and maybeRoger Bannister and Jerry Rice.) "Extremely important in his/her field but little-known outside it" is exactly the situation for which Recent Deaths was created. ‑ Iridescent19:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is more "distorting" to compare a politician, musician and a sportsman. Howe was a top field player, McCartney is a top field musician etc... strawman anyone?. It is becoming quite absurd :DBabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with Iridescent, whose analysis is spot on. This is a real embarrassment. I'd see Howe as maybe DYK material, not as the lead in ITN. It's really cringeworthy that this is still there. 217.38.89.229 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What puts Jerry Rice in that category? I wasn't planning to get involved in this discussion, but that comment fascinates me. (I'd support Jerry Rice for a blurb, but do people in the UK actually know about him?) Zagalejo^^^20:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb: I saw this and thought, "who?", and I'm clearly not the only one. (I've also never heard of Jerry Rice.) I am English though. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb It was posted by an involved administrator, it lowers the bar for blurbs unacceptably, and it is inconsistent with our not giving blurbs to other (non-North American) sporting legends of equal or greater significance who have died recently, which suggests systemic bias caused by the number of North American editors. Neljack (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, but oppose pull at this time - I agree with many of the above that this should not have had a blurb - Ali was a special case compared to Howe, and an RD would have been sufficient. But currently at this point, the only reason to pull is objections to being sufficiently important for an article and not due to gross problems with the article content itself. It was a mistake on interpreting consensus, but to pull it because of that is really silly. I would rather see the Ali story or next major blurb quickly substituted for the top picture, and let the blurb filter down and out, rather to play games regarding subjective importance evaluations. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A pathetic tacit acceptance of wrongdoing. We can fix this error. We don't have to wait for anything. Your passive acceptance is notable as it effectively supports all the errors made in this process. It's not like we're printing a book, a split second can fix this, otherwise we have a seriously unhealthy bias going forward but perhaps that's ok with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an involved admin posted it, as well as the fact that there was barely a discernible consensus, means it should be reversed promptly. Crumpled Fire (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we can instantly fix this with just one edit, the issue here has nothing to do with article quality (it was fixed from when I first commented on this) or importance (as there's no issue with an RD at minimum, and it should be clear that Howe was the top of the field for ice hockey so the suggestion of a blurb is at least reasonable), but instead what I see are a lot of long-standing editors here butting heads over exactly how important Howe was for blurb posting, and we should not be affecting our readers' experience with these types of conflicts. A mistake was made, but it is not going to help readers at this point to remove it given that its been posted for at least half a day or more. The issues stemming from this should be discussed on the talk page instead of angrily calling for action to something that in a few days will no longer be an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, go ahead, fix it instantly with one edit. The reader isn't getting dragged down with any conflict here. He's just seeing "oh right, so Wikipedia thinks Gordie Howe is on a par with Muhammad Ali". It's kinda misleading. 217.38.92.243 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling bullshit on that Masem. Allowing this nonsense to stand sets yet another unhealthy and unhelpful systemically biased and involved action. It should be fixed now, not hidden in talk pages that no one will ever read. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you have consistently voted and strongly argued against *every* major Canadian who comes up on this page, you probably should not be the one to be talking about systemic bias, Rambling Man. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, get out of the sandbox please everyone. The egos of users are starting to grow out of proportion completely :D It is one article, it has been posted for quite some time already. It will be over in a day or two.. Priorities guys.. priorities... BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents... Involved admin, inconsistent approach, refusal to act on current consensus to pull blurb. All because it's an NHL thing. Systemic bias at its most virulent. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for blurb. The Anglosphere/Western systemic bias is really showing here. Someone who is arguably the GOAT hockey player, is at risk of not getting a blurb because hockey is only popular in two Anglo countries. I guess Eastern and Northern Europe don't matter because they don't speak English? Or maybe it's the rabid football fans who can't accept anything else being posted because no other sport is as global. The NHL is a top 5 sports league for revenue and at the top of the ice hockey world. Howe revolutionized hockey, almost single handedly set up a rival league to the NHL, and was a top player during over four decades and until Gretzky held basically all the records. Until basically the 1990s only the Soviets sent professional hockey teams to the Olympocs and world championships, so Howe's accolades don't reflect just how great he was.If Howe is not a blurb who is? 24.114.67.56 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If Howe is not a blurb who is? Someone who meets the criteria, i.e. a "major transformative world leader in their field.". Howe was good at ice hockey and he played a long time, but that it. He was no Muhammad Ali who had major impact, transformative effect on boxing around the world and had was a major figure in humanitarian work. He was no David Bowie who all-but invented several genres of music and had a major impact on all he made music in, and inspired several generations of musicians around the world. What impact did Howe have on ice hockey outside the NHL? Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So musicians can be one of the most influential musicians ever and they get a blurb, but athletes who are arguably the greatest of all time in their sport have to also be prominent in other fields? Howe influenced a generation (or two) of hockey players, including Wayne Gretzky, held all the major NHL records at the time time of his retirement, and was a Canadian cultural icon, but isn't good enough? He was widely regarded as the most complete forward, the Proto-Power forward who revolutionized what scouts looked for in players, and was the key factor in setting up a rival league to the NHL. Hockey is not like football, where many different leagues all have top level talent. In ice hockey, the NHL would be the equivalent of all the European teams playing in one league-the uncontested beat league. What athletes would you support for a blurb? Any? Only football players?24.114.90.194 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only occasionally comment here, mainly on various sports news. FWIW I supported a blurb for Cruyff and weakly opposed a blurb for Lomu (two similar sports nominations mentioned above). If I had !voted for this before it was posted it would have been for a blurb. I am however somewhat disappointing with how the process has unfolded and with how some regulars here hold similar nominations to different standards. Personally I think this should be moved to RD as there is obviously no consensus for the blurb and this follows the precedent set by the other nominations. Ultimately there should probably be a larger discussion on what makes the death of a sports person suitable for a posting, we could even draw up a rough list for each sport if we wanted similar to WP:ITNR. AIRcorn(talk)23:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were a consensus when it was posted. I however see no clear consensus for it to be pulled at this time. Many heated comments though, but the way a discussion is held should not be a deciding factor about an article being ITN worthy or not.. BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gordie Howe was named Mr. Everything, Mr. All-Star, The Most, The Great Gordie, The King of Hockey, The Legend, The Man, No. 9,, oh but of course he was not at all a top field player and had no major impact on this sport and the world. :) People are sadly showing there worst sides in this discussion. Being right is more important than keeping the discussion at a level of mutual respect. With rants and cheap blows being the major theme ...
I have pulled the blurb from ITN as the admin who posted it was involved in voting for its inclusion. This is a direct Conflict of Interest, and is against WP:CONSENSUS. I have nothing against an uninvolved admin immediately reposting the blurb, but at this time, the content needs to be pulled from ITN to maintain proper consensus and adherence to ITN procedures. Please continue to discuss this candidate and include/include at RD/decline as necessary. Thanks, Nakon00:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakon: Given your emphasis on strict adherence to proper procedure, it seems surprising that you transcluded an image at ITN without ensuring that it was protected, thereby exposing the main page to potential vandalism for about thirteen minutes (which could have been longer).
Are the administrator instructions unclear on this point? Is the page notice – with a yellow background, red "ATTENTION" heading and flashing stop-hand icon insufficiently prominent? Is the additional warning message, which appears next to the filename in the template's wiki markup, somehow inadequate? Is the media protection page, where admins can trigger Commons auto-protection via a simple transclusion, in need of improvement?
David, I added a note to the image protection page a few weeks ago to remind administrators not to immediately remove an image lest the image that was replacing it was reverted. If you hadn't removed the tennis player from the protected files list, it would still have been protected when the blurb was reverted. Nakon should still have checked though. Stephen09:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: Yes, I noticed your advice to "not remove the filename from the list immediately when it is no longer on the main page". When I removed Garbine Muguruza 2016.jpg from the list, it had been off the main page for more than eighteen hours (and when Nakon transcluded it, it had been off the main page for almost twenty-two hours). Is that the sort of time frame that you had in mind? That's far from immediate.
Did you mean that we should routinely leave the previous image on the list until another image replacement occurs? If so, this should be stated explicitly.
But that isn't what I envisioned when I created the page. It was intended to provide a Commons file protection method simpler than creating a temporary local copy. I didn't intend to facilitate long-term protection of Commons files not used on the main page (just in case an administrator reverts to one without bothering to check whether it's still protected).
Keep in mind that this affects the users of hundreds of projects (most of which aren't operated in English, resulting in potential communication barriers), none of whom (excepting Commons administrators) are able to modify the files or their description pages. When KrinkleBot is fully operational (which, thankfully, it was in this instance), such protection occurs shortly after the files are transcluded on our main page (as well as that of several other projects). When a file is off the main page, normal editing is supposed to resume. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for us to leave it protected for days or weeks on end, purely to cover for our administrators when they fail to complete a simple task. —David Levy15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually funny ITN was always extremely slow at updating. Now we are removing stuff already posted... Regardless of whatever happened with consensus here once posted stuff should only be removed if it is really hurting wikipedia like Copy edit violation or some yellow tags... There will always be opposition. But everyone here is just fighting over whether posting admin was involved or not.. and a couple of editors obviously doing that fairly rudely, not sure if that helps wikipedia at all. -- Ashish-g5501:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repost yes, he's only Candian. Yes, User:Nakon has a technical reason to pull the blurb. (How many times has TRM said, "Yeah, I',m Posting it. So sue me"?) But Howe's far more important than any living hockey player, and certainly more important than our current imaged blurbstress. Credit where credit's due, folks. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD / oppose re-post of blurb based on ITN's current criteria for these two types of listings, Howe fits the criteria for RD as he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. However he did not have a global influence and was not a major transformative world leaders in his field, which are the criteria for a blurb on a death. MurielMary (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd do well to look at the 2012 talk page discussions. Howe's of the stature who'd've gotten a blub regardless back then. The purpose of RD (which I and others championed) was not to demote truly blurbworthy postings to mere RD inclusion, but to add merely RD inclusionworthy postings to the front page, on addition to people like Howe, who'd've gotten full blurbs under the old system. As noted, it's a joke to compare his notability with a on-time women's singles winner. But, heck, he's just some old Candian dude no one over 50's ever heard of, regardless of merits. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The funny part is that the article was pulled after its most intense editing cycle had ended so it really doesnt matter if it was pulled or not, the article got the ITN attention it deserved. Now it can be at RD. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The funny part is that after all you've said above, you now say "it really doesnt matter if it was pulled or not". But I'm glad you now see sense over this. Consensus may change - that applies equally well here, doesn't it? 217.38.89.80 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cringing reading most of this and don't want to get too involved in the "he did and said this, she did and said that, he's at least as important as him" side of things. The question here isn't whether Howe is important enough for a blurb. He clearly is at the very top of his field (so was Cruyff); comparisons with Ali are red herrings as that's probably the biggest sporting death of the decade.
The question is, what do we get out of a mundanely-crafted blurb that we do not get out of posting someone to RD? I'm glad to see the back of the mundanely crafted "this person has died at this age" type blurb, where the actual death itself involved no unusual circumstances, but am surprised and disappointed that having a crap blub is a precondition for having an image. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As some objective context for this discussion, here's the peak readership for the current ITN entries. I've also added the current readership for Muhammed Ali, who sets the bar as his peak was off the scale at 4.4 million.
From these stats, we can see that the blurb that really isn't cutting it is the Epsom Derby. Gordie Howe is clearly in a different league from such also-rans. He isn't in the exceptional top tier like Ali but seems comparable with Garbiñe Muguruza, who currently has the picture. Garbiñe Muguruza's peak was a week ago though and so is quite stale. It would therefore be reasonable to hand the picture slot over to Howe but I reckon Kimbo Slice should get a turn first. A short blurb/caption to go with the picture of Slice/Howe seems reasonable too. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being posted at ITN seems to give a topic about 10,000 views and so doesn't make much difference for the most newsworthy topics. For example, see UEFA Euro 2016 which is big news. It's not on the main page but its daily views are already above most of the above – 487,103 on 10 June, for example. That topic is so big that it ought to be in Ongoing events. The Epsom Derby is on the main page instead but nobody cares and so they are not clicking through. Highlighting topics that people don't care about is inefficient and misrepresents what is actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repost as blurb (Original Poster Here). Well, I was out for the entire day and didn't expect all of this to happen, so this'll be a bit of a long post. Given the numerous pull votes after the posting (though not to the 2:1 ratio against the blurb that TRM claimed), the pull is understandable. However, I would still support reposting because it meets the criteria for a blurb.
Firstly @Nakon: I object to your lazy use of the link to our conflict of interest policy. I do not have an external relationship with the Howe family, much less one that would be in contravention of said policy. Whatever actions I took in haste are entirely done pro bono (or given how this turned out, pro malo).
As for being involved, the relevant policy allows straightforward actions that a reasonable admin would likely made the same decision. As far as I can see, the ITN closing instructions for admins says that "Editors at ITN/C declare their support or opposition and, after a few hours [emphasis mine], it's usually fairly clear if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting." At the time when I posted, the post had been up for 13 hours (including an hour while marked as ready during which no one closed it), had received !votes equal or more than what an average nomination here gets, and had a roughly 2:1 consensus in favour of posting a full blurb. I'll contend that it was not unreasonable to assume that this would have been a straightforward close, especially if the trend continued. Given the benefit of hindsight, I should not have done this, but it was not unreasonable at the time. If the wording of the admin guide does not reflect actual community practices, it should be changed to suggest a different timeframe for closing recent deaths vs. regular ITN items.
For the record, had I participated in the discussions for Johan Cruyff and Jonah Lomu, I would have voted to blurb both of them. Both of them are referenced as being considered as possibly the greatest player in their respective sports, Cruyff was at the forefront of a very influential soccer playing style, and Lomu seemed to have died extremely young. I strongly disagree with the premise that athletes can't qualify for a blurb by the strength of their athletic achievements and the cultural output resulting from those achievements. Regardless, the third bullet in the criteria for ITN death blurbs seems to discourage arguments such as "X didn't get posted, so we shouldn't post Y" (the choice of arguments to avoid would not make sense otherwise). Looks like no opposing future athlete noms at ITN for not having careers spanning five decades...
One editor suggested that people famous for physical activity should never get full blurbs because of all the other news out there (ruling out even Ali!) and an IP editor suggested that Howe was only fit for WP:DYK. Both of these are prima facie pretty ridiculous arguments to make.
Lastly, @MurielMary: I want to call you out on your systemic bias and terrible search skills.
There is zero coverage of this death globally - nothing in Australia or New Zealand, nothing in South America or Asia or India or China, no impact on the world, no outpouring of grief nothing. He was a top sportsperson in one sport in one country but no more than that. [emphasis mine]- MurielMary 09:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
According to my searches this news has been reported only in North America and the UK. Nothing from Asia, China, India, South America, Africa, Australia or Oceania [emphasis mine]- MurielMary 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If English is the extent of your search you would miss the bulk of non-Anglo reporting, especially from traditional hockey countries in Europe, which almost all had time to publish on June 10 such as:
News from Russia, France, Germany, other European countries all posting about Howe before MurielMary's first post here
And that's not including other hockey countries like Sweden, Czechia, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, etc As for the regions you explicitly mentioned. Lack of English sources from the other regions - some of the places where hockey is least popular - is to be expected before the completion of the 24 h newscycle in those regions. However, most of the regions you've listed actually did put out articles on Howe and well before your first post at 9:00 June 11 UTC.
News from Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Indonesia, Japan almost all posting about Howe before MurielMary's first post here
Australia's Daily Telegraph (Sydney UTC+10) ([31]) posted this at 13:00 Sydney Time on June 11, or 3:00 UTC June 11, well before your first post. The West Australian (Perth UTC+8) ([32]), which published that story about 11:30 Perth time on June 11, which is June 11 3:30 UTC, again well before your first post. This latter source was also literally the first hit when doing a Google News search for "Gordie Howe Australia", so even if you're not using the search function on the websites of major newspapers, this one should be hard to miss. Perth Now also published an undated video on June 11 ([33]).
The New Zealand Herald (Auckland UTC+12) ran this story [34] at 10:00 June 11 in Auckland, which would've been 22:00 UTC on June 10, well before your first post. And (depending on how automatic the wire service is) the NZH ran other AP stories on Howe ([35] at 3:30 UTC June 11, [36] 0:00 UTC June 11, [37] 23:00 UTC June 10, [38] and 22:00 UTC June 10). These four are also well before your first post.
Indonesia's Jakarta Globe (Jakarta UTC+7) ([39]) posted at 21:30 June 10, which would've been 14:30 June 10 UTC.
India's (assuming Westernmost time slot of Mumbai UTC+5:30 The New Indian Express ([40]) published at 8:30 June 11, 3:00 June 11 UTC, India TV ([41]) 8:00 June 11, 2:30 AM, and NewsX ([42]) 9:30 June 11, 4:00 AM UTC. Again all before your first post. The last two sources both use a copy from the Indo Asian News Service, which many other sites use (e.g. [43] and Sportskeeda ([44])
Chinese sources (UTC+8) turn up articles from Taiwan's China Post ([45]), posted 0:05 June 12, so just a tad after your last post, China's Xinhua ([46]) posted 2:00 June 11, or 18:00 June 10 UTC, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post ([47]) posted at 18:00 June 11 or 10:00 June 11 UTC. Here's a China.org.cn piece posted on June 11 ([48]). And here's a page linked if you search "Gordie Howe" from Chinese XinHua ([49]) that was posted 23:30 June 10 or 15:30 UTC June 10.
This block has coverage from all of your regions, though by no means not at the level of David Bowie, Muhammad Ali, or Prince but it is a far cry from the zero coverage except for North America and the UK, as you claimed. World impact, as mentioned above refers to the field, and how revolutionary Howe was is debatable, as is the necessary amount of coverage/grief (of which there is has been a torrential amount in Canada and parts of the United States, and probably some across continental Europe too).
I can believe that you did not know that Detroit, Houston, and Hartford are cities in the United States, and not Canada. Howe played his entire professional career in the United States, and only got to represent Canada internationally once (because until the 1990s professional hockey players did not go to the Winter Olympics or World Championships) in the 1974 Summit Series against the Soviets, where despite his age, he was a point per game player. But in any case, obtaining this information from our article on Howe would have been trivially easy. Looking at the papers in the American cities in which he played, (Detroit Free Press, Hartford Courant, Houston Chronicle), Howe was a star and cultural icon in in two countries. This, plus his sporting achievements should be enough to merit a blurb.
I'm okay with the people opposing a blurb because they don't feel it meets the criteria - that's a rules debate. However I'm disappointed that you failed to do a proper search of news and then posted your "discoveries" as the gospel truth. Hopefully this was because of a combination of systemic bias, poor Google-fu, or significantly delaying posting your search results instead of POV-pushing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions16:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very interesting, but this is Wikipedia, and you made a mistake by supporting it and then posting it when there was a discussion to be had. You also misunderstand that we relate these postings to one another. If the most influential association footballer is denied a blurb yet you, a Canadian, post a Canadian with a length career in the game as a blurb, it's bound to generate consternation. I would move on if I were you. There's little doubt the Mr Hockey thing has been reported worldwide, but so what? I'm glad it got resolved correctly and hopefully you won't make such mistakes in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were one of the people who unanimously agreed that involved admins could make posts when consensus is clear as you have done it many times. In most forums on Wikipedia a 2:1 consensus which has passed the suggested lowest time limit for closing ("a few hours" according to the guide) and which as received at least the average number of !votes as other discussions of the same kind, the majority of admins, regardless of nationality, would probably see a clear consensus in the majority. With your long history here can you say that you've never voted on and then posted something related to the United Kingdom? Just because Cruyff (incorrectly as I said) did not get posted you should not deliberately downplay the accomplishments of someone with at least equal accomplishment in their sport. An eye for an eye and soon no athletes will be posted unless they're equally notable for their non-athletic feats as some suggested here.
I will bring up a point again. Many people were opposed to timeframe of the post (13 hours), despite the ITN admin guide saying that a clear consensus could emerge in "a few hours". Given the subjective nature of who might qualify for a blurb, would it be better to change the guide to suggest that recent death blurbs should not be posted until after, say, 18 or 24 hours unless it is a unopposed or WP:SNOW close?---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting your time, Patar. Howe simply wasn't American or British enough to warrant a full blurb. And that, bluntly, is what the opposition boils down to. Resolute17:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you kindly refer to this sport by its proper name of "ice hockey"? Hockey is a much older and more gentlemanly sport. Are we expecting everyone who commented above to comment all over again, or only if they have changed their view? I think Howe belongs at RD. Has anyone actually counted up the comments? 217.38.87.241 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly not! The only people that don't refer to ice hockey as simply "hockey" come from places with no potential to excel in the sport. There are no major field hockey tournaments at ITNR. In North America, a majority of eastern and northern Europe, and northern Asia, it is simply "hockey". Should we refer to American Football as Gridiron or Rugby? - Floydianτ¢19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, not true. I just felt it needed an explanation as to why someone who is considered to have fundamentally changed the way his sport was played (Cruyff) wasn't blurbed while this gentleman who had a long and distinguished career, but nothing more (per his article) was blurbed. Please re-read my comment posted about 48 hours ago where I stated "No, Ali was known for far more than his boxing career. That's absolute fact. Gordie did what else? " and got no answer at all. I guess Cruyff wasn't North American enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Howe - Stem Cell research. (controversy about whether it actually did help him - no controversy that it gave huge amounts of publicity for research). Howe - International Bridge - [54] Howe - [55] "I had written about him many times, awed by his dominance of his sport in a way, I imagined, that Babe Ruth had taken over baseball, the way Muhammad Ali had overshadowed boxing. Everyone was in awe of Howe — even opposing players." ending with the one fact which no other sportsman I know of can claim - to be on the ice (or in the arena, or on the field, or even just in the same game) with his two sons at the same time. And his death even made the NZ news - literally half a world away. No sympathy here for your beloved Cruyff, but trying to use a "snub" against him is a poor excuse to snub Howe so deliberately, indeed. Collect (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing that fundamentally changed the way the game that made him famous? I didn't tink so. Thanks though. All I asked was consistency. If we snub Cruyff so deliberately, why should we become so amorous about a hockey player with a long career and nothing much else? P.S. (Collect) thanks for giving me several arguments as to why we should be posting many other items that aren't from the US. That you are delighted to see a death reported even in New Zealand (I bet most of our "readers" don't even know where that is!) is telling, not to mention that it clearly demonstrates that you have to work harder to learn how news agencies and reporting works. But thanks for trying! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should look at Howe's legacy section that I updated. Howe's physical strength and speed redefined what scouts and GMs looked for in players and he was the first modern power forward. His poor treatment at the hands of the Detroit Red Wings owners led to formation of the group that would eventually become today's the National Hockey League Players' Association, which upturned the owner-dominated world of hockey payment. His decision to lend his star power to the upstart World Hockey Association drained the available North American talent pool, forcing the NHL to begin signing Europeans, and also forced the NHL to expand to new cities in order to survive. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the stuff that has been added in the past few hours? Sorry, I judged my position on the article I read, and it was "old ice hockey player who played for ages and set a few records dies". And yet, despite your efforts, nothing holds a light to the legacy that Cruyff left, yet the American contingent don't quite get it. I do remain and will remain unconvinced. Consider that the end of my input here, unless, of course, the stupidly unthinkable happens, and another of your co-admins restores the blurb. Then we can really work it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was sitting in the stands while watching this 5-min major fistfight between Howe and Cruyff. But given Patar knight's convincing evidence demonstrating international coverage on Howe, that is a great uppercut on most of the opposing side's argument and knock them out falling onto the ice waiting for the stretcher to come in. So I agree with repost as blurb . OhanaUnitedTalk page19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a chance. If an international footballer who played at the highest international standard around the globe' for a couple of decades and then redefined the very game he played was not worthy of a blurb simply because he wasn't from the NBA, NHL or MLB, there's not a single reason to blurb an ice hockey player who played a long time, set a few records and is fondly remembered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was only in the late 1970s that professional hockey players were allowed to play in the world championship, and only in the late 1990s that they were allowed to play at the Winter Olympics. Until the very twilight years of Howe's career, when he was nearing 50, the NHL was the highest international standard. His 6 Art Ross trophies and 6 Hart trophies would be the equivalent of winning the Ballon d'Or and the highest level of the Golden Boot/Shoe six times each.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repost blurb. I believe the blurb was validly removed due to a technical posting error. That said, it has been made clear above that this has gotten significant worldwide coverage and that "Mr. Hockey" is probably one of the more influential ice hockey players. If someone wants to go back in time and post their favorite soccer player, go ahead, but whether it was posted or not shouldn't be germaine to this posting. Systemic bias goes both ways in this matter. We (including me) should all do better at being more open to subjects we might not know much about ourselves. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disgraceful. But in no way surprising. It's nothing to do with "their favorite soccer player" and that sums up your utterly pathetic position. Cruyff re-defined the manner in which football is played. You are, time and again, undermining his legacy through your ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Please, next time, think your "not convinced" through a bit beyond the blinkers of a North American who doesn't "get" "soccer". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb repost' - I thought RD is adequate enough, especially when we have a deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Also, I don't see how he is significant enough or his death is newsworthy enough to be blurb-ed as commemoration to his career. Posting his name is enough; a reader can click the link and learn about him. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The wannabe god king of ITN makes over 30 posts on this topic then demands closure because it is taking up too much of Wikipedia's "scares resources". That's rich. Honestly TRM, hypocrites like you are a major reason why I'm largely retired as an editor at this point. Maybe next time, "learn from it" by following your own advice. Resolute21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand Prime MinisterJohn Key visits Fiji, the first time a Kiwi leader has done so since the 2006 coup d'état. Key is hoping to improve relations between the two countries though it's clear their political tensions don't have easy solutions. (AP)
Law and crime
Papua New Guinea student protests
Papua New Guinea student protest leader Noel Anjo says demonstrations will continue despite the court order barring protests. "The students are not going to give up until and unless the prime minister resigns or surrenders himself to police and is arrested and charged," Anjo said. (BBC)(Reuters)
Venezuelan opposition lawmaker, Julio Borges, is left bloodied after being hit in the face with a pipe in downtown Caracas. He spoke at a press conference after the attack with blood streaming down from his nose and mouth, and bloody stains on his button-down shirt, accusing the attackers of being supporters of PresidentNicolás Maduro. (AP via ABC News)
California'sright to die law, that allows physicians to prescribe medicines to terminally ill patients to hasten their deaths, goes into effect. California is the fifth state in America where this practice is legal. Opponents sue to overturn the law as unconstitutional because it denies terminally ill patients protections afforded other citizens. (Los Angeles Times)
Election officials announce all ballots have been processed and Pedro Pablo Kuczynski wins the closest presidential contest in five decades with 50.1 percent of the votes versus 49.9% for Keiko Fujimori. Fujimori has yet to concede defeat. As many as 50,000 ballots still need to be reviewed, but experts say Fujimori can not make up the difference of roughly 40,000 votes separating her from Kuczynski. (BBC News)(ABC News)(AP)
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Thougt about nominating him myself, but in the end, the article is just not comprehensive enough to make Main Page... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two Palestinian gunmen open fire in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv killing at least four people and injuring at least 18 others. The two gunmen are arrested. (AP)
Airstrikes in rebel-held districts of Aleppo kill at least 15 people and wound dozens while three hospitals are hit including one of the few that still provides pediatric services. UNICEF says medics had to take babies out of incubators. It is unclear who was responsible, though government forces, backed by the Russian Air Force, have run operations to regain control of the divided city. (BBC)(Deccan Chronicle)
A United Nations commission of inquiry says that Eritrea should be referred to the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity committed in the country, including the enslavement of between 300,000 and 400,000 people through military conscription. (AP)
A Papua New Guinea court grants an injunction barring university students from protesting on campus. Thousands of students across the nation have been protesting and boycotting classes for weeks calling for Prime MinisterPeter O'Neill's resignation over corruption allegations. (Reuters)
Eritrean Mered Medhanie, aka The General, leader of one of the largest criminal operations unsafely smuggling migrants from Africa to Europe for up to €5,000 (£3,900; $5,680), is extradited to Italy. Police say in one attempt at least 359 migrants died when their boat sank near the Italian island of Lampedusa in October 2013. (BBC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The ITNR list states that new chemical elements are posted at the announcement of their discovery and their official naming; this is the latter. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too early, I guess. IUPAC only submitted a request for comments. Final names will be confirmed on 8 November 2016. This is unless the new names would already gain massive media coverage. --PanchoS (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: They are getting coverage now, and the coverage indicates that it is extremely unlikely these will be changed. As with business transaction announcements, this is getting more coverage now than it will when the name is "official". 331dot (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not mentioned in the sources I have seen, most if not all of which suggest the odds of the names changing are very small. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Controversies arose when competing researchers found the same element at about the same time. The current cases were undisputed, so the teams who synthesized the elements have the right to propose a name. Oganesson would be a controversial name by historical precedent, as Yuri Oganessian is still alive. But in the end, there is a precedent with Seaborgium, and if IUPAC didn't object, who else should. Personally, I don't think any of the names will be changed. In the unlikely case, that would mean a major controversy that justified another ITN blurb. --PanchoS (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to that because I figured it would be simpler to link to one article instead of four separate ones. This is also in the news collectively and not for each element. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we've had chemical elements ever since Dalton. It's the naming of these four elements in particular that is in the news, so I think they should be the ones bolded. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull unless the linked articles are moved. This is absurd, if we actually are reporting that the elements have been renamed (or even proposing to be renamed), all four redirects from the main page should be fixed immediately, or this item should be pulled. If we are confident enough to post this story, we should be confident enough to move the articles and adjust them to reflect the previous (temporary) names, otherwise this is crystal-balling. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is ok to move the articles since the Uux names are actually placeholders, and final candidate/proposed name is more appropriate than a placeholder. I was going to move them myself and rewrite the intro but 3 of them require admin privileges. I moved Ts only. Nergaal (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of this is that it is pretty much like regular elections which happen before there is actually a new president. These 4 names are unlikely to get changed as is the case for an elected president to not actually start his tenure. Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter. I suggest pulling as a vote on one of the pages was agains moving. Since having redirects on the main page is a really low standard, the only sensible option at this point is pulling. Nergaal (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose 1 sentence for a ~20 year playing career is nowhere near enough. Also, the second half of the managing career section is basically just wordier-than-average proseline. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the quality issues. However, do the trial rules apply to this nomination? If not... ah well, he was a football manager, so does that make him significant in his football field? George Ho (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The individual has been noted as a "legend" of Nigerian football, so trial or no trial (and I believe we are still in the trial period, as you have already noted), this individual is notable enough for RD, just need to bump up the quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Tel Aviv is not the most peaceful city in the world, and 4 deaths is the minimum level at which something like this gets to be labeled as mass shooting. We wouldn't post a 4 deaths shooting in a US campus, and I think this is pretty equivalent for Middle East. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is noteworthy and there is the potential for this article to direct readers to other good articles, but the text is stilted, repetitive and reads like an early draft. I will change this if the article improves.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned above, we probably wouldn't post this if it happened on an American campus, and it's in a conflict location. It's not a particularly great article to be showcasing on the main page either. Laura Jamieson (talk)07:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - First Palestinian deadly attack since March 8. There is at least one significant consequence. Eighty-three thousand permits for Palestinians from the West Bank to visit family in Israel or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem were rescinded, just when Ramadan begin.[56] There is also ongoing military operation on Western Bank.--Jenda H. (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 83,000 revoked permits is a big deal, four shot people is not. If there was an article on the ban, I'd support that, with the shooting linked in its blurb. But the shooting itself seems more like a pretext than a catalyst. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:33, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
Comment The Times of Israel source listed in the nom was a live blog, now expired. I replaced it with a similar story. Hope that's OK. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:43, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
Support given the consequences. Added a slightly shorter altblurb2 that does mention the consequences, but still focusses on the trigger event. --PanchoS (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion overall but oppose Alternative blurb as it's not written in good English and oppose both alternative blurbs for their focus on the response to an act of terror, rather than the incident itself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!07:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seven police officers and four civilians are killed, and 36 people are wounded, three critically, by a car bomb explosion near the main tourism district in Istanbul, Turkey. The explosives, detonated by remote control, wrecked a passing police bus, reports CNN Türk. There is no immediate claim of responsibility. (Reuters)(AP)
Turkish police detain four people for interrogation. (The Daily Star)
Kazakhstan police report the death toll from Sunday's attack in Aktobe is now 19 — three civilians, three National Guard servicemen, and 13 attackers. (Reuters)
A pickup truck reported to be driving erratically mowed down a group of nine bicycle riders, killing five and injuring four near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The driver was arrested after fleeing. Authorities have not established any contributing causes of what is being called the worst bicycle accident in the county. (The Atlantic)(CTV News)
Health and medicine
Johns Hopkins University researchers report, in the journal Health Affairs, that media reports about people accused of committing violent crimes having mental illnesses rarely discuss successful treatment of patients, and thereby overstate the problem. Most people exhibiting the types of psychological conditions the media mention are not generally violent. The researchers suggest coverage reinforces fear of mental illness and the people who have it, and, because of the social stigma, discourages people from seeking treatment. (UPI)(Health Affairs)
Nominator's comments: A grim death toll in one of the world's major cities. Tragically, the sixth such attack in the last 18 months. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the article is up to the necessary standards.Support on notability as this is a significant attack with a relatively high death toll in a normally peaceful city (the conflict is confined to the Kurdish regions in the southeast, the vast majority of the country is peaceful) that regardless of the recent bombings, is of great importance globally and is still an important tourist destination (1.75 million foreigners visited Turkey in April). For those who will doubt the notability of this, please contrast this with the 2016 Gaziantep bombing and May 2016 Dürümlü bombing, which we did not post. --GGT (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. A peaceful city? This is the third bombing in Istanbul this year. Turkey currently experiences a constitutional crisis and is increasingly on the verge of a civil war. Following the immunity bill in combination with yesterday's replacement of 3,700 judges, the irreparable alienation of Turkish Kurds, the weakened position of Barzani in Iraqi Kurdistan, a total breakdown of the EU talks, a further deteriorating relationship to the U.S., the total failure of the Syria policy, culminating in the failure to forestall the Kurds in Manbij, we might even see another military coup. In this context, we can't post daily updates of the situation at WP:In the news, unless there is a very good article. Actually, an overview article on the overall situation currently unfolding in Turkey, possibly a timeline, would be helpful and might qualify as a candidate for an ongoing event. --PanchoS (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the previous user's mention of "peaceful" was in relation. There is gang crime in all large American cities, but all are "at peace" in that they are not occupied like for example Raqqa. There have been six bombings in Istanbul in the last 18 months. That stands out in comparison to any city in the European Union, but is "better" than cities currently in war in Syria and Iraq '''tAD''' (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Unfortunately, this sort of thing has become so frequent in the region that one becomes inured to it. Not sure this instance is ITN material. OTOH, I see BBC, Reuters lead with it. Undecided. Sca (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey is simply not Syria or Iraq and business is mostly as usual for civilians in the country, except for the southeast where the situation is completely distinct from the west and has been for the large part of the last four decades. Istanbul is not an embattled city, it is a peaceful one that is increasingly plagued by terrorism, but not to the extent of everyday slaughter, and we have every reason to post this major attack on a popular tourist spot (again, contrast with "minor" attacks, some listed above, or another blast targeting military in Istanbul recently that we don't even have an article about). If a third major attack hit Paris last year and killed 11, would we not post it (noting that the three attacks in Istanbul in 2015 were minor attacks and did not really affect the lives of the residents)? The political crisis unfolding is very grave but "the verge of a civil war" is the crucial point here. Turkey has been in perpetual political crisis for most of its republican history, that is no reason not to post it per se. As of today, there simply is no countrywide conflict in Turkey and life for people in major cities is not that greatly different from Paris perhaps, which remains under emergency rule. I repeat that 1.75 million people visited the country in April alone, which still makes it a major tourist destination, despite the ~30% drop in tourism. This alone IMHO justifies posting an attack close to a major tourist attraction. --GGT (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support article quality is sufficient for the main page: It's long enough, well written, and properly referenced. --Jayron3216:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support GGT's comments on the geographic distribution of 'terrorist' incidents in Turkey are obvious even to this casual, amateur observer of developments in Turkey. Let us hope this does not become endemic in Istanbul Province and possibly somehow spread to the rest of Thrace, i.e. Bulgaria or Greece. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A soldier is killed and another injured after a fire spread to an ammunition dump at the Salawa army camp near Sri Lanka's capital Colombo. Thousands of people in the area were evacuated. The fire is under control, according to a military spokesman. (AP)
Florida GovernorRick Scott declares a state of emergency as Tropical Storm Colin's rain and gusty winds pelt the state's west coast. Maximum sustained winds at 1:00 p.m. EDT are 50 mph (85 kpm). Between three and five inches of rain are forecast for northern Florida, with some areas getting up to eight inches. (Miami Herald)(NHC)
With more than 92% of the vote counted, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski is ahead of Keiko Fujimori by just over 103,000 votes, 50.3 percent to 49.6 percent, in the electorate of 23 million citizens. Ballots of Peruvians living abroad will begin to arrive tonight. Mariano Cucho, the head of the electoral office, says the count may not be finalized until Thursday or Friday. (CNN via WFXP)(Reuters)(Fox News Latino)
Haiti will redo its presidential election after findings of widespread voter fraud in last years voting. Additional measures will be put in place for the first round in October this year. (Fox News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
There are still several paragraphs that are completely unsourced, and a citation needed tag (although that's not a crucial one). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose I find it hard to imagine any chess player reaching the levels of the Bowie/Prince/Ali that get blurbs. This article needs more citations before it can be considered ready to post, and some of the "score" information is not comprehensible to me as a layperson who loses in chess every time I play, hence the oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great progress. I tagged another spot that needs a citation. Then there's still the matter of text like this: "Korchnoi won by (+2−1=7)". I have no idea what sort of scoring system that is, or what to make of it. It probably makes sense to a chess expert. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It means "Won 2 Lost 1 Drawn 7". I'm not sure we can go through every chess article fixing this (and I;m sure many other sports have arcane scoring rules that many people don't understand?). Laura Jamieson (talk)23:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no the scoring notation is not intuitive enough for non-chess players - both myself and Muboshgu were unable to parse it - to me "+2-1=7" looks like a broken equation or somehow wining with a total of 7 points (maybe 2 wins at 4 points each with 1 point docked for an infraction?). The way to fix this is either to be explicit on every occurrence or to explain it on the first occurrence - maybe "2 wins, 1 loss and 7 draws (+2-1=7)" or something. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ready so I support. My comments about the scoring are more relevant for GAR than here anyway, but at least now I know what it means. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb there is no way that a sports professional who was never world champion (or equivalent) and with no notable achievements outside their sport will ever be worthy of a blurb (that is for people who have had a truly exceptional impact on a very large number of people and whose death is major news in non-specialist media (e.g. Muhammad Ali, Margaret Thatcher, David Bowie). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you do realise that notability is irrelevant to RD at the moment? Regardless, there are obits for Korchnoi all over the media from multiple locations (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera etc). Laura Jamieson (talk)23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but notability is not irrelevant to blurbs (and this oppose is explicitly only opposing a blurb) and media coverage of the death is only one criterion and this does not meet that one - the coverage given to Jorchnoi is in no way comparable to that given to e.g. Prince or Ali. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read again, the first oppose is explicitly and specifically opposing a blurb and does so for reasons that are not fixable. This oppose is explicitly specifically opposing a recent deaths listing until the article has been improved. I chose to do it this way for added clarity. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support RD now the citation issues have been fixed. I'd prefer if it were made more accessible but there seems opposition to this (see above). Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. He may not be a household name in the U.S. but everybody who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, such as myself, certainly remembers the Karpov-Korchnoi matches which were presented as larger than life events in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, with Karpov symbolically representing the communist East and Korchnoi representing the capitalist West. Certainly a unique historical figure, even if he did not become a World Champion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready for RD. Definitely qualified per trial, and likely qualified even absent the trial. Blurb discussion can continue, though consensus seems leaning against. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, blurb. He may not be so well remembered by non-chessplayers today but for those of us who were around in 1978 his match with Karpov was all over the news, there was even a regular TV series on BBC. As with the Fischer-Spassky match the cold war angle got a lot of publicity. He's notable all right. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb per Thryduulf. Korchnoi's death is big news in the chess world, but I doubt even the death of someone like Kasparov would qualify for ITN. Deaths in ITN blurbs should involve widespread non-specialist coverage, and Korchnoi just doesn't qualify. Kasparov might, because he's both involved in politics and was the first human champion to lose to a computer, but even then I think it's unlikely. Banedon (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb - I'm a chess tragic and major contributor to many chess articles, but I can't support a blurb. It barely touched the radar on most mainstream news sources. I support RD though. In chess there have been 11 world champions in the 70-odd years since WW2, and Korchnoi's 3 narrow losses to Karpov means he's probably the most significant non champion. So that makes him roughly the 12th most important player in 70 years, which means the chess world probably gets a death of his significance once every 5 years on average. Adpete (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD: Peter Shaffer
Article:Peter Shaffer (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s):BBC Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
He's very notable: Equus, Amadeus. The lack of sources reflects a lack of effort by previous editors, not a comment on the deceased. I'll be busy watching baseball tonight, and confirming Trump as the next president of the US tomorrow. In the meantime, most of the CN's in that article are refworthy--if someone else wants to do it. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English/American comedian John Oliver buys and then forgives $15,000,000 (USD) in medical debt to about 9,000 people, making it the biggest ever giveaway in television history. (CNN)
Firefighters have contained about 80 percent of the 516-acre brush fire in Calabasas, California. Evacuation orders affecting at least 5,000 people in the Los Angeles area are being lifted. The fire started yesterday when a pickup truck struck a power pole. (CNN)(NBC News)
Amid frustrations with the ongoing economic crisis, Puerto Rican Democrats vote in the Commonwealth's primary with front-runner Hillary Clinton forecast to win following yesterday's sweep in the Virgin Islands' caucus, moving even closer to locking up her party's presidential nomination. There are 60 pledged delegates at stake. (AP via U.S. News & World Report)(CNN)
Hillary Clinton wins Puerto Rico's Democratic presidential primary and, according to the Associated Press, is now less than 30 delegates short of the 2,383 needed to win the nomination. (AP)(NPR)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose at this time. A relatively minor crash, and reading the BBC article it sounds like they already suspect what might have happened (a lightning strike affecting signals). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iff the lightning strike was the cause of the accident, then it is a significant development. Modern signalling systems are supposed to be immune from such events, and should always fail safe. As the article states, the cause is "under investigation". It is not our job to pre-judge the cause. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the alleged lightning strike, which I stated was only suspected, it's still a relatively minor accident. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose unless and until it becomes clear that it has more significance than it appears to have on the surface - the lightning strike theory appears to be principally (exclusively?) media speculation at this point. I note we didn't post the Dalfsen train crash in February and this strikes me as a similar scale of event to that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - People are unfortunately dead but this is not a catastrophe that stands out in any way, the lightning hypothesis aside '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
