Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stemoc (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 25 February 2018 (Undo the key term in BLP is the L, you are not only removing my comment but MY support for a blurb which you are intentionally trying to suppress, stop trying to abuse your admin rights, The Rambling Man made a poor nomination, should have been a BLURb). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

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.

Bashar al-Assad in 2018
Bashar al-Assad

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • 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.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

.

Suggestions

February 25

February 25, 2018 (2018-02-25) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

February 24

February 24, 2018 (2018-02-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Sridevi

Article: Sridevi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•Support Blurb - She was one of the best known comedians from Indian cinema and her career spanned several decades. She was the winner of several awards and played in numerous cult movies in both Hindi and Tamil. The article on her is detailed and well sourced --Manish2542 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manish2542: As this is a Recent Deaths nomination, support on the merits is not required; this will be posted once there is a quality update. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Numancia: Virtually unknown outside India? I'm from Mauritius where she is a household name just like in the whole of South Asia and everywhere where Indian films are watched. On the other hand, who is Billy Graham? Never heard of him before he somehow made the headlines on wikipedia

RD: Yang Rudai

Article: Yang Rudai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua
Credits:

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.

 Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I was adding the source at the same moment you were writing your comment. Please check again. -Zanhe (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Emma Chambers

Article: Emma Chambers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Credits:

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: Although she died on the 21st it was not announced until today. The article needs more sources (which I'll get to later, I don't have time right now), but is reasonably comprehensive if not astounding. Obits will help with this of course. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2018)

Article: Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2018) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This high-casualty military action has been in the headlines for the past week. Article seems adequate at the current time. LukeSurl t c 16:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Turkey's Afrin operation is also making headlines from time to time. Having one Syrian Civil War story posted to Ongoing and not the other seems arbitrary to me. And posting both would be too much for one topic. I could, however, support a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unanimous UN approval for a ceasefire seems notable enough, but should that make this ongoing, or should we have a whole new nomination with that as the crux? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support 1) It's a large scale and important offensive with huge civilian casualties, thanks to al-quaeda using the civilians as human shields. 2) it's all over the news. 3) the UNSC managed to secure a month-long truce, which is alredy ITN-worthy 4) Even Guterres commented on the offensive, stating that Eastern Ghouta is "hell of earth" Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

February 23, 2018 (2018-02-23) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] Ongoing: Battle of Khasham

As pointed out by !votes below, this item is not ongoing. There is also no consensus to post the item. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (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: Battle of Khasham (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2] [3]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The battle itself is long over but there's a surprisingly large amount of ongoing coverage. Details are murky. If indeed Russian mercenaries intentionally attacked a US base that should be pretty significant. Somewhat hesitant about this but nominating it to see what ITN thinks. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It happened on February 7th. I would have supported it 2 weeks ago. But it's not ongoing, and the oldest ITN piece we have right now is the school shooting in florida, which happened like 10 days after the battle. If I were you and was interested in the syrian war, I'd nominate the SAA intervention in Afrin. Seems like the absolute madmen actually did it and that's actually hug news and a severe blow to the american attempts to destabilize the country and put as many of their bases there as possible. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Ongoing" means the event, not the coverage. GCG (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose decidedly not ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (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.

February 22

February 22, 2018 (2018-02-22) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Stéphane Valeri elected as the new president of Monaco's National Council

Articles: Stéphane Valeri (talk · history · tag) and National Council (Monaco) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Stéphane Valeri is elected as the president of the National Council of Monaco. (Post)
News source(s): "Stéphane Valeri élu président du Conseil national". Nice Matin. February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 24, 2018.
Credits:

Article updated

 We rarely post anything about Monegasque politics and while it is a small principality, it is home to many (billionaire) investors who play a huge role in our capitalist system globally. Valeri ran on a "Monaco first" platform.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Przewalski's horse

 
Articles: Przewalski's horse (talk · history · tag) and Wild horse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Genetic studies determine the Przewalski's horse (pictured) to be a feral horse and not the last extant undomesticated wild horse. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Przewalski's horse is reclassified as a feral horse, making the wild horse extinct.
News source(s): Science, Times, Independent, Sky News, Science Daily
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Potentially major change published in the peer-reviewed Science, but I'm putting this before updating just in case. Brandmeistertalk 11:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random flight/train crashes aren't really that interesting either.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many wholly unreferenced paragraphs in the Przewalski's horse article. In general, I'm in agreement with User:Signedzzz about the likely interest there is in this story. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I would probably argue this event is notable, it has enough problems as to make fixing the article a job for editors experienced in the subject, and unless you can find an editor who is willing to take the time, I cannot support it. Inatan (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose. The article about the horse is busting at the seams. Although nevertheless an intriguing (and somewhat tragic) discovery, it is largely trivial and arbitrary. Although covered in several science papers and websites, most conventional news and media are turning away from this discovery, and those that do cover it are not front page news, this is what turns me off. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SamaranEmerald Coverage does not constitute whether or not an event is ITN worthy, I have seen world events before that that were posted on ITN and yet received barely any coverage. Kirliator (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

February 21, 2018 (2018-02-21) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Politics and elections

[Posted] Billy Graham

closing down to put an end to pointless off-topic discussions. --Jayron32 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jay – The last four posts were not off-topic. Sca (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2018 (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: Billy Graham (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Billy Graham, widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century, dies at the age of 99. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ U.S. Christian evangelist Billy Graham, known for his mass-proselytizing crusades, dies at age 99.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Billy Graham, widely regarded as the most influential Evangelical preacher of the 20th century, dies at the age of 99.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC) + — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should just delete that section; most of those awards probably aren't notable anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quite a big deal, and the article is OK. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support on article quality. There are a handful of spots where a cite is needed but overall the article is in good condition and these can be quickly fixed. Support Blurb on the importance of the subject. Graham was an absolutely iconic figure both in the United States and globally and will certainly be remembered as one of the great figures in the history of Evangelical Protestantism. Unquestionably meets our criteria for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD A couple of CN tags but nothing that should prevent posting in my view. Neutral about a blurb; I concede he was influential within he's field but he's hardly a global icon in the mould of Mandela.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. He is easily the most recognized clergyman in the world excepting only the Pope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm an ignorant neophyte, but I have to admit this is the first time I've heard of or seen the name "Billy Graham".--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I had never heard of him before I moved to the US.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Curious how old these editors are. I'm 38 and definitely caught Graham in his waning years; any younger and he may seem irrelevant. But his influence was massive and global for decades. GCG (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 41, if you must know :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was 99 and has been semi-retired for a long time. Also (and I am not making any assumptions regarding anyone's personal beliefs here) people who are religiously indifferent or are non-believers aren't likely to keep tabs on famous clergy. I am also quite sure there are people who have no idea who Nelson Mandella was. In fact I am fairly sure two such are relatives of mine. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion as main news. For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men. werldwayd (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - not a fan of the man's work, but his notability is unquestionable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not a question here. It is how much of an impact on the world that his death has/may create. He was 99 so his death was not surprising (I had thought he passed already), and while its still early in the news cycle, I'm not seeing the type of shock and awe we'd associate with a blurb-worthy posting like Mandala/Thatcher or Bowie/Prince/Williams. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, with rare exceptions the standard is not the impact of their death, but rather their life. Madella's death was long expected and had virtually no impact as he had long retired from politics. We typically give blurbs to people who were in the top tier of their field. Graham unquestionably fits that criteria. It is of course also true that we occasionally give blurbs in cases where a very well known figure dies unexpectedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) "shock and awe" has never been a requirement for posting a blurb on ITN, and for good reason. Shock and awe is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Graham is a world-famous white Christian Evangelical who I don't think is a raving right-wing fruit-loop. That's notable in itself ;-) One would like to think he would at least attempt a cup of tea and a sit-down with Richard Dawkins without each other screaming at 120 decibels. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the standard is being misstated. It is not "world changing," Mandella did not change the world. He changed his country. The standard has always been that the subject is generally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession. World changing is silly. We would have a death blurb maybe once a decade if that. And virtually everyone outside the field of politics would be excluded. Graham definitely meets the traditional criteria we have always applied here for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in almost every way. I'll just point you to WP:ITN/DC which states that blurbs are limited to "major transformative world leaders", which Graham was not. You can't narrow things down to a tiny field just to claim this person was important. In a century's time, people will still be talking about Nelson Mandela. They will not be talking about an obscure preacher. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that Billy Graham was an obscure preacher than all I can say is that we do not inhabit the same world and further discussion is pointless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb According to WP:ITN, blurbs are for the deaths of "major transformative world leaders in their field" and in the field of religion, Billy Graham meets this standard. Additionally, his death is receiving substantial coverage around the world [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], [11]. SpencerT♦C 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb "He was widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century" from his biography says it all, biggest christian figure of the 20th century. Claims that he is a obscure preacher are outright laughable and i am not even close to being near the US. Here's a bit from an article i read about his death "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. counted Graham as a close friend and ally, once remarking, “Had it not been for the ministry of my good friend Dr. Billy Graham, my work in the Civil Rights Movement would not have been as successful as it has been." GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb we might as well quit doing these blurbs altogether if this one isn't posted. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RD or blurb, there's gaps in sourcing throughout, and all the list of honors at the ends needs sourcing before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon to judge about a blurb (I'm usually the first one opposing them, so maybe he does deserve one). News seems to be recent, let's wait a little and reassess? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD. Oppose blurb. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is the person with a statue in Washington DC and a U.S. national holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. King is honored for his social/political activism, not his influence in religion. If he were remembered chiefly for his influence in religion he would not have a statue paid for with public funds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Article should be highlighted as leading news. As a minimum, his name should be mentioned as Recent deaths. werldwayd (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb international transformative impact in the field of religion far beyond his roots in the American South or even his denomination. One quibble though, I think it worth noting that he is considered the most Protestant preacher of the 20th century for NPOV reasons. One could reasonably argue that John Paul II brought down the Soviet Union with his preaching (not an argument I am making, but one that has been made in reliable sources), and I am sure that there are Orthodox clerics who one could argue with as well (Ad Orientem would likely be better at thinking of them than I am, to my shame.) @The Rambling Man and Coffee: what are your thoughts on this? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer alt: that has recently been added by Ad for NPOV reasons. I didn't even begin to get into non-Christian preachers (which reasonably would include clerics of other religions whose preaching has also had an impact (positive or negative) on world events comparable to Graham. I think the sourcing would generally agree he was the most influential evangelical preacher, and this is typically what is being referenced, even if in shorthand. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Graham is the single most influential preacher of the last 50+ years and unlike most famous "pastors" was near universally respected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb – Long a household name in the U.S. and fairly widely known internationally. Altblurb offered to avoid subjective "widely regarded ... most influential," which smacks of hagiography. (Is no recent pic available? This one is 52 years old.) Sca (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any altblurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Ad Orientem has added one, although it doesn't address the hagiography issue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Somehow mine got overwritten. Now restored above and Ad Orientem's moved down as Alt2. Sca (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember being dumb-founded thinking that Superstar Billy Graham was going to proselytizing on prime time TV. GCG (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an anonymous poster, I don't think my voice should weigh too much... but I do come here on occassion to see the discussion on cases which I think are notable enough to get a blurb. I'm glad to see that most of the people posting here seem to be getting it right. Graham was knighted by Queen Elizabeth and spoke to over 120K at a rally in England---the largest religious rally at the time in English history.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with a simpler version of altblurb2. Obvious overwhelming support for posting a blurb but keeping this open for any additional comments. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support blurb - It's interesting to see a lot of people who do not regularly participate in ITN/C come out of the woodwork to support a blurb for this person. That may speak volumes to his outreach. Moreover, to my relief, it may represent a loosening of the blurb standard so that we get out of this "Thatcher, Mandela, Thatcher, Mandela" mantra we otherwise seem to be constantly stuck in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Comment Post Posting Oppose blurb on article quality His well-known homophobia is not referenced even once. His misogynistic views are skated over. Article is incomplete. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I recognize that the "if x then y" argument does not apply in ITN. However, I nonetheless find it seriously off-kilter that Le Guin's death was rejected for a blurb while Graham's is almost immediately posted -- and that the arguments for each are almost mirror-image. U.S. residents may have failed to notice that Graham's primary impact was almost totally inside the U.S. (In secondary impact, eg. charitable organisations working abroad, his work is comparable to dozens if not hundreds of others.) He did establish a number of successful firsts in the field of evangelical religion, mostly related to commercializing it. Others have done similar things before him, less successfully. Others have gone considerably further than him since then. He is a significant marker in a U.S.-based roadmap which goes back to Civil War England, but within the broad view he is only another such marker. (Religious rallies of that nature actually go back in the U.S. at least as far as the U.S. Civil War -- and most of those who held them then are forgotten today.)
At a neutral WP, we obviously don't use "For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men" as a criterion. (Probably just as well, or else the words "appalling and immense ignorance" might well resonate with other decisions which have been made here.) With Le Guin, I suggested two objective measures for a writer which would be necessary for a blurb: academic analysis and marketplace analysis. The comparable objective measures for Graham would be worldwide media coverage of his death (not just the U.S.) and an identifiable widespread social change brought about specifically as a result of his work. For Graham, I see significance, but I don't see worldwide reaction in any way comparable to the U.S. versions, and I don't see a clear social change which can be laid specifically at his door. That kind of thing merits an RD, not a blurb. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On no planet and in no town is Guin more known/notable then Graham, it's not about religion either. You're comparing a genre writer to a major preacher who advised MLK and presidents. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my fault if you cannot remember all the literature you should have studied in high school. How many English-language U.S. schoolchildren have there been since 1969? That is the minimum number of how many people ought to know of Le Guin. It is one of the basic texts, after all. L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e, not "genre". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i am in Australia and that's the thing, i know Graham but not Le Guin, also F-a-n-t-a-s-y and s-c-i-e-n-c-e f-i-c-t-i-o-n writers are genre writers, sorry to say. GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was a lot more than just a minister, he ministered to 2.2 billion people. His social views are not relevant to the fact that he was influential. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it worse.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to right the great wrong of homophobia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should we post POV-pushing blurbs on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's POV to call him influential. He was incredibly influential, as evidenced by his personal relationships with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. People can judge for themselves his best and worst qualities. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Influential in the United States perhaps. Not influential in Monaco, believe me. We are not USApedia. If we are going to keep the word "influential", the blurb should read "in the United States" after "influential" at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, not this argument again. Influence is influence, even if it doesn't touch every country. Maybe he was/is influential to Christians in Monaco, I don't know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No he was only influential to the 2.2 billion people living in the United States. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that being a Christian minister disqualifies one from a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually post blurbs for RDs. He was not well-known outside the US, and he spread discrimination to boot. There shouldn't be a blurb. We will post a blurb when former president GHW Bush dies--I am sorry but Billy Graham was not on the same level at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we will, though. Bush was a one-term president, and he was widely perceived to be riding on the political coattails of Ronald Reagan, who himself would be blurb-worthy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions 1) The blurb feels a bit weasely to me: "one of the most influential" is not a wording that's commonly seen on the main page. The quote is present in the article, but it is sourced to one book, which seems to be some biography published last summer. 2) In any case, should the blurb be "one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the 20th century in the United States"? I must admit I've never heard of him before, so I'm not sure about his international reach. Isa (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb would be more NPOV than Altburb2 for sure. Except we should add, "known in the United States".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Agree with Isa that "one of the most influential evangelical preachers" is too weasely. While I understand Fuzheado's motives in toning down the description, I think it comes across as a rather obvious bid to avoid criticism of a subjective assertion. I would point out that Alt1 is entirely factual. Sca (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (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.

[Withdrawn] Thomas C. Wales case

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2018 (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: Thomas C. Wales (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States' FBI indicates the unsolved slaying of Thomas C. Wales, the only federal prosecutor ever assassinated, was probably carried out by a professional hit man. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, law enforcement announce the unsolved murder of government official Thomas C. Wales may have involved a conspiracy among a small group of people.
News source(s): Seattle Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: An update into a criminal investigation may not normally be newsworthy, however, given this was a high-profile assassination that has been unsolved for 16 years, and the recent announcement the only significant update on the case in that time, I think it warrants an ITN mention even though it is US-centric. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that it's US centric, but more that it has no notability outside of a specific minute niche of interest.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the nominator mentioned "US centric" as a concern, I was simply informing them that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure there's a BLP issue here since the B is about someone who is decidedly not L. That said, the reasoning presented has changed my mind as to the utility of this as an ITN candidate and I withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: The BLP issue is with regards to any suspect their is; posting a development in any criminal cases could suggest the suspect is guilty before their case is adjudicated, which we cannot do. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any suspect(s), but I suppose I could be wrong. Chetsford (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (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.

February 20

February 20, 2018 (2018-02-20) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

February 19

February 19, 2018 (2018-02-19) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Sergey Litvinov

Article: Sergey Litvinov (athlete, born 1958) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN CTV L'Equipe
Credits:

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: Olympic gold medal winner and world champion. I've sourced this as far as it needs. It might need a little tweaking but the basics are there. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

February 18, 2018 (2018-02-18) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] RD: Idrissa Ouedraogo

 
Article: Idrissa Ouédraogo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; AP (via NZ Herald)
Credits:

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.

 — Hugh (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Peggy Cooper Cafritz

Article: Peggy Cooper Cafritz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 71st British Academy Film Awards

Article: 71st British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri wins five awards, including Best Film, at the 71st British Academy Film Awards. (Post)
News source(s): Screendaily
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

''[[Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri]]'' wins five awards, including [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]], at the '''[[71st British Academy Film Awards]]'''
— Hugh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The movie should be italicized, and I've added the italics in the blurb above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Looks like those concerns have been addressed since we !voted. The article seems to be at a similar level to last year's. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Article is much improved. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704

 
Article: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Zagros Mountains killing all 66 people on board. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 crashes in the Zagros Mountains, with 65 people on board
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Early reports, article obviously needs updates as does blurb when they decide no-one survived. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just made the wording more standard and straightforward, as in the Saratov Airlines crash. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been corrected. I've pasted in the new blurb as ALT above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful when deleting references which are used multiple times. I fixed two orphaned references that you removed when the numbers changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it's better to be half right or half wrong. One of those has since been binned. So we're left with two that contradict the content. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the numbers didn't add up, the other details were used throughout the article. Please don't summarily delete named references without checking the mess you leave afterwards. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making it look tidy. I'd be reluctant to deliberately re-add links with incorrect information for something that's on the main page. Those sources are still wrong. I thought you might have had an opinion on the new blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with it looking neat, it's to do with replacing references you summarily deleted. The sources may be out of date, but that's commonplace with ITN items. The references were used for other verification, so please don't do that again without fixing the issues you leave. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're still wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to fix them, but don't just delete them when they're used to reference other items in the article. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free also, as nominator. Although the original blurb we had now seems less than ideal for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you. The published blurb is fine, the news sources naturally differ on their numbers because of the situation, the original blurb has been superseded. Do you have something to add that benefits our readers here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't follow me. I just make a mess, it seems. But at the article talk page you tell us the original blurb was "bullshit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did make a mess. And don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And good luck with future nominating blurbs. "Thanks again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need luck, and please don't make any more of those kinds of edits. You made a mess. I fixed it. If you need help with how to use named references, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a number of lines in mind already. Thanks for just letting go with this so quickly, after giving just a subtle hint of wrongdoing. Would anyone care to hat this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this line of "conversation" is going nowhere, could an uninvolved editor close down the nomination please, the referencing issues have been temporarily resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=827555910"