| sign = --[[User:Jinkinson|<font color="green">Jinkinson</font>]] [[User talk:Jinkinson|<font color="blue">talk to me</font>]] 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| sign = --[[User:Jinkinson|<font color="green">Jinkinson</font>]] [[User talk:Jinkinson|<font color="blue">talk to me</font>]] 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
}}
*'''Oppose''' Relatively high profile (as most of these seem to be) but ultimately nothing will change and this is just another day another shooting incident. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
==== McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ====
==== McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ====
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A shooting is reported at the Fort Hood Army Base near the US town of Killeen, Texas with reports of at least four deaths, including the gunman, and 14 injuries. (Washington Post)
California State Senator Leland Yee's attorney Paul DeMeester is replaced by former San Francisco assistant district attorney Jim Lassart. (San Jose Mercury News)
Government sources claim white powder in an envelope and possibly a swastika have been sent to the home of the Irish Minister for Justice and EqualityAlan Shatter, who is embroiled in multiple political controversies. An army bomb disposal unit has moved in on Shatter's estate in Ballinteer, Dublin. (Independent)
Oppose Relatively high profile (as most of these seem to be) but ultimately nothing will change and this is just another day another shooting incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I am seeing some worldwide coverage of this(though generally not as a/the top story) but IMO this boils down to essentially a local story; a US court interpreting US law. I don't think we would post similar rulings from other nations. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reason as 331dot - I know in terms of politics within the US this is huge, but that's a very minor segment overall. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with 331dot. Electoral finance is an issue in many nations, but I doubt we would post developments relating to it in any other nation. The ruling is interesting but hardly surprising, in light of Citizens United. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Jayron32's current absence, I feel duty bound to remind those voting above that the instructions say do not "complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't oppose this because it relates to one nation or a particular nation, I oppose it because I don't think this is a story of wide importance outside of the US. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I know quakes of large magnitude often get posted, but given with quick preparedness much of the threatened coastlines were evacuated and some damage on land, this really isn't that strong a quake to consider. But that said, I see the tsunami warnings are still up for some coasts, and in the night hours we might see more reports of death/damage, so this may get worse. But if all that remains is the 5 deaths, after the warnings are taken down, then I don't think this is really significant. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per that article, "The government said the declaration of a disaster in the regions of Tarapaca, Arica and Parinacota was aimed at "avoiding instances of looting and disorder"." - eg preventative, not for immediate emergency response. I would still argue this really wasn't much on the larger scale. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Total death toll is six, and it hit 100 km offshore of a relatively uninhabited region. Unless this turns out to have a bigger impact then is currently apparent, I don't think that reaches the significance threshold. Yes it's a big earthquake, but if it didn't do much then the encyclopaedic value is low. I'm willing to reassess if more facts become available. Modest Geniustalk11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport an 8.2 earthquake with a 7-foot tsunami and at least half a dozen dead would be a shoe in anywhere else. I am reminded of the sign on the newsroom wall reported by John Maxwell Hamilton in Hold the Press: "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not singling out Chile, only the fact that while it was a 8.2 mag quake, it happened offshore and thanks to rapid response by the various regions it would have affected, most of the danger to human life was averted. Per this CNN, even three of the deaths were from just heart attacks, not directly from damage from the quake, and most of the human-structure damage were to 2500 low quality homes. That's not really a huge loss of human life or financial damage. All tsunami warnings are now cancelled and while they did see 6 and 7-foot waves on some shores, these were mostly evacuated or not populated to begin with. If the same quake happened, say, near California but the same preparedness occurred to minimal life and damage, I still wouldn't recommend it for posting. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would expect a better update. At present the article is very stubby (lots of sections, but 1-2 sentences in each.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A 7.x quake just occurred in the same area. Might need to adjust the blurb to mention this aftershock. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NATO suspends "all practical civilian and military cooperation" with Russia as a result of the annexation of Crimea, and no sign that Russian troops have withdrawn from the Ukrainian border. (CNN)
Mr Justice Nial Fennelly will be appointed to chair the Commission of Investigation into the Garda controversy. (RTÉ News)
The Irish Government will establish a Cabinet committee to examine proposals for an independent police authority and other justice reforms, which will be chaired by the Taoiseach. (RTÉ News)
The Department of Justice releases a letter sent on 10 March from then Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan in which he warns them of the recording of phone calls at Garda stations. (RTÉ News)
Nominator's comments: This is an update to a story we published in January. STAP cells are back in the news, but this time because it seems the "groundbreaking" results may have been faked. The possible fraud is not *that* huge of a story, but is certainly making some headlines. Since we published the original headline, one could argue that we have a duty to publish the update as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose less opposed now than I was to posting the original stories--not the kind of retraction big enough for a front page. Maybe just go back and revdel the whole thing?
Support, since it was given prominence on Wikipedia's front page, this of course should be given the same prominence. And let this be a lesson for all of you; don't believe the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there are several points that are important to note here: (1) the findings are subject to appeal, which Dr Obokata apparently intends to pursue; (2) there is another investigation underway, by the editors of Nature, to determine whether the paper should be retracted; (3) only some of the charges were upheld and it only relates to some of the research; (4) the committee did not find that the falsification was intentional; (5) the committee did not make any inquiry or finding on whether the STAP cells were in fact created; (6) another researcher has just claimed to have replicated her results. See this Guardian article[3] and the report itself. [4]
All in all, I am not convinced that things are sufficiently clear at this point to post. In particular, I am concerned that it is premature to post this before the appeal or the other investigation has been completed and that the blurb might give a misleading impression of what has (and has not) been concluded, since a sufficiently nuanced treatment would be impossible in the concise sentence required. These misgivings are heightened by the BLP implications, given the serious nature of such findings for the professional reputation and career of the scientist. Neljack (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: It's happening now, I created the article an hour or two ago, the recall doesn't seem to be the kind that happens very often, and it's getting a lot of media attention. --Jinkinsontalk to me18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Begin sarcasm) Exactly right, The Rambling Man, mass recalls happen all the time, which is why, when Toyota recalled 6.67 million of its vehicles, as you alluded to above, we didn't create an article on it. Or even if we did, we certainly didn't feature that article on ITN. Because if we did, we would see a template on the article's talk page saying, "A news item involving 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 30 January 2010." So obviously, just because another major car manufacturer recalls 6.26 million cars doesn't mean that's newsworthy. (End sarcasm) Jinkinsontalk to me20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you placed this indented comment in the incorrect location. Either way, I still don't think it's ITN worthy, nor do the two other editors you've omitted from your mini-rant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a highly notable business story that has been among the top business stories for months. True, it is a slow moving story and so no single point jumps out as "let's post now", but the story is quite clearly important. This is probably the best chance yet to post it, so, considering the total impact of the story not just this part, I think it is a clear case to "support". --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is off the back of a previous, much bigger recall, which (unless I'm mistaken) we didn't post and was far more significant as it involved actual casualties. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Thaddeus has a very good reasoning on this one, but it's still not clear when this story will end and what will be its ultimate effects. I'd say that the problem here is when to cut the line and post it on the main page. Maybe it's better to see first if the number of 6 million cars along with the other effects for now mean something compared to other cases in the industry. We had a similar nomination relating Toyota few years ago, but I don't remember if we posted it then.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's now a new recall for ~870,000 various Chrysler SUVs, and while I can't give a link as I'm only seeing the story on twitter feeds, the US DOT is going to be auditing the NHTSA over these recalls (specifically the GM one as the instigator). There might be a singlular larger ITN/C story here. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Fermi paradox has been solved
April Fool's joke. It's no longer 1 April, so there's no reason for this to hang around. Also, jokes are only supposed to be played until midday! (this was posted at 14:24 UTC) Modest Geniustalk23:09, 1 April 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's comments: In past years, there has been some support for posting quirky blurbs on April Fool's Day in the rare instance where the story itself is significant. I believe that is what we have here. This is an interesting new theory about the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which killed 90% of life on Earth. It was published in a prestigious journal (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and is legitimately "in the news", but also allows for a quirky blurb. I also offered a serious blurb for use after April 1. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose To me it makes us look like click-baiting sites that take research findings and turn them into provocative headlines. Sorry. (The journal article in question is here, for anyone else looking for it.) wctaiwan (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the story would be below the usual standards for significance were it not for the April Fools potential, but I'm not an ITN/C regular, so I'm not sure if my assessment is accurate. wctaiwan (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like all research, it is backed by facts (now explained in the article). Of course it is only a proposed theory at this point - whether it is widely accepted will not be known for a while (like all research). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it has something going for it, I would accept the alternative "regular" blurb. Looking back at the heated discussion in 2011, WP:AFMP never worked well with the WP:ITN bit. --Marianian(talk)03:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it's not speculative. There have been many theories on the event that caused Permian–Triassic extinction event. It is one of the many theories floating around. The theory needs to be more credible and should have gained more acceptance from the research and the scientific community than others. Having one more theory and "In the News" candidate doesn't make it ITN worthy. I would suggest posting it only when it becomes more credible than others. However, the article is definitely making the news around the world.Regards, theTigerKing19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this nom was based on merits not joke qualities, so I'm striking teh April 1 blurb and leaving it open. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support firstly because it is an interesting story about an overlooked important stage in Earth's history, and secondly, because such hypothetical scenarios can never be confirmed without a time-machine (i.e. any other alternative will not be any less of a speculative hypothesis). Nergaal (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (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.
Weak support the article isn't the greatest I've ever read, and relies on some "insider knowledge" to get the best from it, but it's adequate and the subject is reasonably notable, although not that much in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It presumably would be removed after April 1 as "stale" (it is 1 day older than current oldest story). That said, the template blurb was not suggested for April 1 purposes.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See conversation above - it was supported but a tiny bit late to be posted. I decided to "revive" it as an April 1 nom, possibly with a punchier blurb ("An asteroid is found to have rings." was suggested). It is a pretty "unbelievable" (but true) story either way, which traditionally has been the point of April Fools mainpage items. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2014 (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.
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 article is updated and the referencing addressed.
The artist was the mixer for people such as Michel Jackson and Whitney Houston he is widely viewed as the godfather of house music, while Barack Obama sponsored a Frankie Knuckles day for him in 2001, and he had a Chicago street named for him at the site of his former club, The Warehouse (source of the name of the genre) in 2004. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready -four net supports after 24 hours, article is udpated, subject undeniably highly influential in his field. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Highly anticipated statement on whether climate change is real or not; last report was 7 years ago, and this will be highly debated and contested, I'm sure. The first blurb is neutral, but given the key fact of this report - that climate change is effectively proven beyond a doubt - I provide the altblurb that makes this clear (to note, the BBC source uses the "overwhelming" word in quotes). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The report is not a policy statement - it is a summary and conclusions reached about how climate change is happening and effects on the Earth without any other changes. Also, note the neutral blurb does not say assert, but even in the second, you cannot 100% prove climate change is real (human perception is only too limited timewise) but when 100s of leading scientists in the field say with a very high degree of confidence that there's something happening (like, 99.999+% confidence), "assert" is a fairly correct word. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a peer-reviewed scientific report by experts, not a "policy statement". It relates to a major global issue and is receiving lots of media coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not just for reasons above, but also the topic matter in general is very notable. Whether it will entice readers to take action is beyond our control, though (note to self: WP:NPOV). --Marianian(talk)02:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated/not ready - other than 1 sentence in the lead the entire article has not been updated to reflect the fact the report is out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support pending article updates. The IPCC reports are major milestones in an ongoing (decades long) story, which we otherwise hardly cover. However, as ThaddeusB notes, the article has nothing new since the actual release. There are tons of secondary source here, although I supposed most could guess what the report was going to say. Modest Geniustalk23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decades long story? Is that a joke? Sea levels have been both hundreds of feet higher and lower than they are at present due to change in mean global temperature. During both periods the entire planet was covered with megafauna which died out not due to temperature change, but due to meteor strikes and human overhunting. "Decades ago" the story was the oncoming ice age. That we are already entering the next ice age is the recent consensus based on observations [6] rather than models. In any case, to say climate change is overwhelming is not a scientific observation, it is a policy conclusion. The IPCC exists to issue reports. We do post scientific discoveries. We don't post policy statements. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming, and supported by an extremely strong scientific consensus (approx 97% of published papers, vs 1% against and 2% uncertain). It has become apparent over the last few decades. The fact that there are larger and longer-term natural variations is irrelevant. Modest Geniustalk11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The report is building on decades of work. It is also still not a policy statement. To be accurate, this is part 2 of 3 parts - part 1 was a policymaker executive summary, part 3 is "mitigition of climate change" which is likely the policy statement (and not the core of the report), but this part 2 is the most objective statement from the hundreds of participants - here's the evidences, here's our conclusions, here's what we project without changes. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, part 3 is to be released by the 14th, but again, this specific part 2 is the one that everyone focused on to see if the scientific community has asserted that climate change has occurred.) --MASEM (t) 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but it should be combined with a mention of the background for the PM change, namely the French municipal elections, 2014 which needs a major expansion. Those elections have been widely covered in international media. France is a G8 country and one of the leading countries in Europe, so I don't think mention of French politics should be restricted to the presidential election every 5 years. Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The PM certainly isn't a "figurehead" in France, as TRM suggests. France is a semi-presidential system. That means that power is shared between the President and the Prime Minister (and his or her government). Both are important and powerful positions. The comparison to the Governor-General of Australia is off the mark, as the G-G actually is a figurehead. Neljack (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of posting the nomination now is to discuss and debate whether the start of the Indian General Elections of 2014 could be posted in ITN or not. The results of the franchise is an ITNR. But there are some worth-while reasons why the the start of the month long voting process is as good as an ITNR. 815 million eligible to exercise the franchise, 100 million more (number larger than entire Europe) than that organised exactly five years ago. 3% of them would be aged 18 or 19 then. It would be the longest and the most costliest elections in India (second only to US in terms of cost) ever. The first phase of voting begins in a week's time from now (April 7, 2014). The article is updated till date.
Most of those are good reasons why the election results are ITNR, but not reasons why the beginning of the voting should be posted. I don't believe we post the start of voting for other elections (including early voting periods in the US). 331dot (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As grand as an Indian general election is, the start of an election is not inherently notable enough for ITN. Save posting till when the results come through. Redverton (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as th emost idiotic nomination on ITNC yet. The precedence set by keeping this as , I imagine, a sticky has a whole bunch of repercussions. ABasolutely didly squat repercussionsLihaas (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Lihaas' Comment The article would be making news around the world in a week's time. The rationale of having it nominated as ITNC was that no-where down the future, in the history of mankind, so many people would be voting in a national election. Nowhere in the comment I had proposed to keep the article as sticky. Had it been the case, it would have been an altogether different discussion on this page.
Lihaas frequently posts comments on this page. I would respect him for the experience he brings in with him. Wiki provides room for personal judgements if they are supplemented with data/facts as justifications (which was missing in this case). If people are still unfamiliar with the Wiki guidelines, I would suggest them to take some time out and give them a careful glance.
It doesn't matter me if any any of my ITNC nominations makes it to ITN wall or not or if they are defeated heads-on. But, what definitely matters to me are the meaningful discussions and debates that goes along with it. Regards, theTigerKing19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"politician found guilty of bribery, no great shock" It is a former prime minister in a first world country, convictions in that class does not happen every day. "several maintenance tags" - It has two "expand this section" tags in irrelevant sections. That doesn't seem important enough to stop posting, it is not important problems like neutrality. Thue (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not either or. IIRC Silvio Berlusconi's conviction was not posted either? In that case it was absurd for ITN to not post that, and no good reason to not post Ehud Olmert. Thue (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak oppose. From what I read, the charges have to do with his time as Mayor of Jerusalem, not as PM. Also, he is not a sitting PM. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we'd be saying John Major isn't a sitting PM if he were convicted of bribery. Unusual news regarding head of state of a nuclear power. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, is right, Olmert is not the Queen of Israel. Unfortunately, making that point doesn't address the postworthiness of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Former head of govt being convicted of corruption seems worth posting to me. I don't see that the fact that it relates to his time as Mayor, rather than PM, affects that. We posted Jacques Chirac's conviction for corruption even though it related to his time as Mayor of Paris, not as French President.[10] And it hasn't stopped this from getting lots of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clarification of being "by the same host" makes it seem like it is trying to carve out this distinction rather than a more natural aspect. And of course, this ignores any possibility that the show could be brought back at a later point (ala Doctor Who). --MASEM (t) 14:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The clarification about being hosted by the same person is the carve out I'm talking about - that it, the show has from its start with the same host and now the show is cancelled/ending. Not really a significant factor here. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trivia. It's not the "longest continued running show" and you have to parse that list with the qualifier to reach this show. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Notable development in a controversial issue which gets worldwide attention and deals with international politics. Article has a small update but probably needs a little more. --331dot (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle: a major step in a controversial issue likely to be of interest to readers. A larger update would be preferable, and could someone rewrite the lead to remove the concerns in the tag? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but like Espresso Addict, I'd prefer the lead to be sorted out, rewritten, whatever, to remove that tag. Update is adequate, rest of the article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. The lead does not strike me as particularly inappropriate, it can always be improved, of course, but I find it passable for ITN. The update later on is fine. --Tone19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we now post articles at ITN with maintenance tags at the very top of the page? Per the criteria for updated content "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." (And I do support this story, wholeheartedly...) If it's not inappropriate, why not remove the tag? I'm guessing we ignored all rules here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my point here. I would not post an article with a top-level orange tag that was in place. Yellow is passable. --Tone20:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks all, will bear that in mind next time, yellow = hello. After all, it always shows Wikipedia in its best light to main page an article with a three-year-old maintenance tag right at the top, regardless of what colour it is! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
belated ultra strong oppose it doesn't mean f*** all. and neither japan nor Norway nor Iceland would do f*** all to please the hyper partisan morons at the ICJLihaas (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Japan has already said that it will abide by the Court's decision.[11] I imagine it will just establish another "scientific" whaling programme that isn't caught by the Court's rather narrow ruling. Also you really shouldn't be referring to living persons with that sort of abusive language. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's better to swap the Southern Ocean to a more convenient name, such as southern part of Pacific Ocean or whatever it is. Per Southern Ocean, neither the International Hydrographic Organization nor the National Geographic Society formally recognize it and I was taught there are just four oceans. Brandmeistertalk16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught there are five. And this is a global encyclopaedia, so one nation's geographic society doesn't count for much. I will respect the International Hydrographic Organization, but it's interesting that at least some member nations use different nomenclature. HiLo48 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: An update of the occupation of Legislative Yuan. The occupation was nominated and supported by many, but was not listed because of neutrality problems of the article. Now the article is neutral. (Refiled under 30 March) --Jabo-er (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle: It might need to be a bit broader than what I see as a single march. After addressing that, I think that will be the ideal ITN for April 1, even though it isn't a joke (SPOILER: it meets the notability criteria). --Marianian(talk)15:01, 1 April 2014 (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.
Is this a presidential, or a Prime Ministerial system? There is no way even to tell this from the election article which doesn't link to the Slovak presidency, while the Kiska article links, unhelpfully, to president. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prime minister has more power, in principle. However, president is still the head of state. Kiska's article is really thin but the election article is close to posting quality, I am just missing some reactions and some sources in the second round. Willing to post, then. --Tone19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until referencing issues are fixed. I tried to make a few cosmetic and grammar changes, but someone with more time and patience should take a look since it's not great. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first same-sex marriages take place in the United Kingdom after they were given the legal authority to proceed in England and Wales from midnight UTC. (BBC News)
Txs Lihaas, I have now updated the new article with the Senegal info and corrected a bad re-direct link from the original page.. Lozion (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - getting lots of international attention, and there's that ever so slight possibility that this spreads and wipes out half of our overpopulated world ('bout time). - Floydianτ¢18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its got more than the prose requirement, and far more than many articles that are posted with merely votes. Maybe remove the background section? (i added that as tempalted on a previous article)Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
supportin principle since this is a major outbreak which presumably will have high readership interest. If I am not mistaken this seems to be the most deadly outbreak since 2008 and the first to include three countries at a time--although I am not sure of the latter. In any case, the strongest rationale here seems to be readership interest in a scientific issue. (Compare this to the 30-fatality airplane crashes we post.) μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Lihaas has provided the framework and I added the material. I'm admittedly inexperienced and could use some guidance and help with what I feel is an important issue that merits its place ITN. Lozion (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added WHO updated material and rearranged the background section as a See Also.Lozion (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sierra Leone & Liberia info added. WHO confirms cases in both countries. Lozion (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An important story that readers might not otherwise hear about, thanks to systemic bias. Article has been improved, though ideally the referencing could still do with a little work. Neljack (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I guess West Africa wording makes it clear it is international. Otherwise we can still list the countries. --Tone07:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've capitalised 'Ebola'. The article should be moved to reflect the proper capitalisation (as I understand it, 'Ebola' refers to the disease, 'Ebola virus' is an informal name for the virus, which is technically Zaire ebolavirus species in the Ebolavirus genus). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: World's most prestigious classical architecture prize, with a prize money twice as high as that of Pritzker, and an ITN/R to boot. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Horst-schlaemma, there is an architecture prize listed,(just posted in fact) but it isn't this one. If you think this one should be ITNR, please start a discussion on the ITNR discussion page with your reasoning. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb (for any award if its not clear what the award actually is for) should give some context for why the person won. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, from the Notre Dame piece, one could add "...Botempi, known for "new classicism and urbanism" building design, wins...", since that seems to be why the prize was given to him. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not seeing the press coverage to support the assertion that this is a prestigious award. Specifically, I see a total of one source (in Italian) about Bontempi winning that is not a press release. An an article about the Pritzker Prize, the Chicago Tribune writes "Other awards, like the Richard Driehaus Prize for traditional and classical architecture, come with more money ($200,000 versus the Pritzker's $100,000) ... But only the Pritzker has the capacity to galvanize the world's attention." [13] --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coverage will increase tomorrow, because it is awarded tonight (well, this evening in Chicago time). It's the very same for Pritzker, you won't read too much before the actual ceremony happens. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Pritzker is for an architect "whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision, and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture." No mention of any limitation in terms of styles. Certainly it has tended to go to modernists, but then modernism is the dominant architectural style of our time. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the source posted by Thaddeus seems to suggest this isn't as notable a prize, nor is this getting wide news coverage. If it can be demonstrated that it is notable, I would reconsider, but I haven't seen that yet. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
South Korea sends the remains of 437 Chinese soldiers that fought during the Korean War back to be buried in China as a gesture of friendship and healing between the two countries. (Yonhap News Agency)
Buddhist mobs in western Myanmar reportedly target foreign aid groups and workers in reaction to supposedly disrespectful treatment of a Buddhist flag. (CNN)
Support A new head of a prominent international organisation - an important position, particularly given recent events. Neljack (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not a brilliant target article, but a prominent position as Neljack notes, and one which I'm surprised doesn't make it to ITN/R (not that I'd support it in its current state mind you...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the position is so important and we, thereby, should post this appointment. Please note that NATO comprises only 28 countries in the world and is very far from being a global organisation such like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, Interpol and several others. If we really should regress on posting such things, then it would be inevitable to consider posting of changes and appointments within organisations like the Arab League, the African Union or the Latin Union. Given the recent events, I'd say it's just another reason to oppose this, as our goal is not to favour any of the sides in the ongoing political circumstances; it'd have been a valid reason to support this if the appointment were made earlier than expected in response to or because of the recent events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't favoring NATO; we would post a change in the President of Russia (which is, in fact, ITNR). Other international alliances or groups can and should be considered on their merits, though not all such groups are military alliances. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. NATO is the world's most powerful international organization, way ahead of any other such organization including the UN. We do also not abstain from posting important material like this in order to advance Putinism, and there are hardly any sides to speak of in regard to Russia, viz. it's Russia (or more correctly its dictator Putin) against the rest of the world. I also don't see any reasons we shouldn't post the most important position within the African Union, although the African Union is far less powerful than NATO. Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should accept votes illustrating personal views on the topic. Phrases like "the world's most powerful international organization, way ahead of any other such organization including the UN" and "more correctly its dictator Putin" are not helpful in promoting any nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable to request evidence of their view (or to post evidence to discredit it) but the viewpoint(we don't vote here) shouldn't be dismissed; it should be weighed accordingly. That said, I can't say I disagree with their former viewpoint; there are very few similar military alliances and they don't include the nations with high military budgets(like the US). 331dot (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support World's most powerful international organization in military terms, and its significance has only been bolstered with the recent return of Cold-War-like conditions to Europe. And since three of the largest Anglophone countries are anyway members (this is not the Russian Wikipedia), I think it's clear we should definitely post this. --hydrox (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in terms of influence, the appointment is at least as influential on the international scene as that of UN Secretary-General, probably more (while the UN has more members, the NATO has much more practical influence). This is one of the handful of the most influential positions in the world. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This isn't ITNR, as the Governor-General is the representative of the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) not the head of state themselves. As such, I'm not even sure is it notable enough to pass this process, though I am willing to be convinced. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De facto head of state is still not the actual head of state, so this isn't ITNR. The Queen could have opened the Olympics but deferred to the locals(I think there was a Republican referendum around that time). 331dot (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even de facto. Modern Governors General could be considered, at best, to be ceremonial heads of state. In Canada at least, the de facto head of state is actually the Prime Minister and I doubt Australia is any different in this regard. It's been decades since a GG has acted against the wishes of a PM, and to do so now would put a country on the fast track toward abolishing the symbolic links to Great Britain's royalty. Resolute15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Not being on ITNR is not a valid reason to oppose something, in my opinion. Most of the stuff we post is not on ITNR, so the lack of appearence on the list seems meaningless, and a pointless reason to oppose. Otherwise, the article is in solid shape (short, but not lacking) and the event itself is in the news prominently. Go for it. --Jayron3201:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose because it isn't ITNR, I oppose because the importance and/or notability here has not been demonstrated. News coverage has also not been demonstrated, even from just Australia)though I presume it exists). 331dot (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the position is largely a figurehead and honorary(most of what they do is based on what the PM asks them to do), which wouldn't matter if this was the actual head of state, but it is only their representative. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As someone from a country that has a Governor-General, I cannot see why we should post a change in a position that isn't the head of state or government and has very little practical authority. The Governor-General is basically there to host events, cut ribbons, receive visiting dignitaries, give out honours, and rubber-stamp whatever the Cabinet decides. A large proportion of the population couldn't even tell you who the Governor-General is. A change in G-G just isn't regarded as that big a deal. Frankly a new Treasurer/Finance Minister would be much more significant and would get more media attention. I would note that there are 15 Governors-General in the various Commonwealth Realms, so if we start posting them there will be several new ones per year. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This appointment will have no real impact on the country. This G-G will do the same things as the previous one. The only thing that has made this change more notable than usual is that the Prime Minister chose it as an occasion to re-introduce Knights and Dames to Australia's honours system, giving a damehood to the departing G-G and a knighthood to the new bloke. Subsequent jokes in parliament led to the speaker banning laughter. THAT'S more newsworthy than the actual appointment, IMHO. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the scandal rages on, it emerges Martin Callinan, who resigned as Garda Commissioner this week, wished to withdraw his use of the word "disgusting" to describe the behaviour of whistleblowers but was prevented from doing so by officials in the Department of Justice. (RTÉ News)
Iwao Hakamada, the world's longest serving death row inmate, is freed from a Japanese prison and granted a retrial after serving 48 years. (Washington Post)
It is announced publicly that, three months ago, doctors at the University Medical Center Utrecht, in Utrecht, Netherlands, successfully implanted a 3-D printed skull (most of it), from Australian company Anatomics, in a medical first, into an unnamed female patient. (NBC)
The journal Science publishes that an international team of scientists have for the first time successfully replaced one of the sixteen chromosomes of the genome of a yeast cell with a synthetic DNA chromosome. (BBC News)
A study finds that Cuvier's beaked whale is capable of diving to a depth of 3.2km and staying under water for 137 minutes, both records for a mammal. (News.com.au)
Nominator's comments: Unlike resolutions in the powerful Security Council, resolutions in the 193-member General Assembly cannot be vetoed and are not legally binding, but just(just) Eleven nations voted against it (supported Russia). I feel that UNGA reflect the true world opinion. (After all, The parliament is bigger than the cabinet) --Khushank94 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The resolution may reflect "world opinion" outside the Russian realm, but it will have no practical effect. Sca (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While this determination came from a broad international body, as Sca said it will have virtually no effect. It was already known that most countries opposed or declined to comment on this situation, this vote just formalized that view. If this was a Security Council Resolution, that would be different(but we won't have those since Russia will veto them). 331dot (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 is fleshed out (I may do it myself). Even though it's non-binding, the UN finally did something in response to Crimean crisis and 100 votes supported the resolution, which is rather significant - it means that at least 100 UN members will recognize Crimea within Ukrainian borders (albeit personally I expected the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the region). Brandmeistertalk17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis, I disagree. For two reasons, firstly, distances in space are vast lengths so how can it be "itsy bitsy, teeny weeny"? Secondly, the previous object with the longest perihelion, 90377 Sedna (76 AU), was discovered in 2003. It has been 11 years since the discovery of an object at the furthest reaches of the Solar System. So, this is not an occurrence that happens as often as you suggest. 184.146.114.217 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A believe the press coverage is mostly because the discovers are calling it "Biden", rather than its significance. I would like to see an argument as to why this is "significant development in science" before I can consider supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB, this is a significant development in science because we are finding objects further from the Sun that we've never previously expected to be there before. We never expected the gravitational pull of the Sun to be strong enough to extend beyond 80 AU (Astronomical Units, which is 80 times 150 million km), the closest distance this new object orbits around the Sun. This will trigger off scientists into the greatest debate we've seen since the demotion of Pluto as a planet in 2006. Scientists will be spending years studying this object to understand its gravitational properties and to help explain why it's even possible to have an object so distant orbit the Sun. 184.146.114.217 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the article notes, we actually know that this object has the furthest away "close point" of any detected body in orbit around the sun. There is a lot we don't yet know here, but "Biden" as it is currently known in pop media raises a lot of questions about the Oort Cloud. I for one find it fascinating. News coverage is extensive and this is of interest internationally. Just how far does the solar system extend? This discovery shows there are likely to be more objects around our amazing neighborhood. Jusdafax03:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose it is not a dwarf planet and it will not be officially classified as such for maaany decades. Not many people know what perihelion is, so the notability of such a measurement is limited. Nergaal (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal, it doesn't matter whether it's classified as a dwarf planet or not (even though, it most likely will be and/or currently is considered as such). It could be a planet, a comet, an asteroid, or whatever it may be, the important point is still that its perihelion is the largest of any known object in the Solar System. For your second point, I don't understand how you can oppose this on the basis that "[n]ot many people know what perihelion is": if they'd like to find out what it means, they can simply click on the wikilink provided. If I'm not mistaken, In The News is for the purpose of visitors to Wikipedia to learn something new and if they don't already know what perihelion means, they will learn something new. 184.146.113.70 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for many of the same reasons that Jusdafax articulated so well. Today's Science Friday spent fifteen minutes discussing this newly discovered dwarf planet, and the implications that its massive perihelion may make it an Oort cloud object! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry Kralizec, but the phrase "its massive perihelion may make it an Oort cloud object", particularly appended with an exclamation mark, has tipped me over from abstaining. To anyone not deeply interested in the subject, this is not an important news story. Formerip (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose Minor transitional figure of Nixon administration, best known for opposing amnesty of draft resistors, while Nixon himself ended the draft. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He doesn't seem to have been a particularly important or prominent Secretary of Defense. The article also contains screeds of unreferenced material. Neljack (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the grouping together of these countries seems somewhat arbitrary (to me), the major headline was that 80% of the world was now polio-free which is obviously a good thing, but not ITN-worthy, as tomorrow it may be 82% etc. It's a great piece of news, just not convinced by the context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is like saying chicken pox has been eradicated in Texas and California. No? We are looking at temporary accomplishments acrost arbitrary borders. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the main "news" is that India is polio-free, which is defined as 3 years without a case. If I recall, someone nominated it on the 3-year anniversary and people said "wait until confirmed by WHO", which is what this is. India being free of polio is big news, although obviously it was expected. Given our preference for waiting until things are official, I support, although my personal preference would have been to post earlier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that (last I checked) India's about 1/7th of the world's population, and while it's not gone, this is an impressive feature of modern medicine. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One might as well say that 3/4 of the world is not at war, or 3/4 of the world doesn't have Barack Obama as president. Polio can still break out in all these places. Until it is extinct, the claim is premature. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove a negative (that no human has polio in the world), but we can go off statistical measurements that the disease is effectively eradicated. And to be called such from the world's most populous country which most live in 3rd world-like conditions, this is an amazing effort. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Huge achievement, collaboration between thousands of organizations (both governmental and NGOs). Billions of dollars invested in this, and India was supposed to be a hard nut to crack. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target article says nothing about this. What is relevant is that this is the first viable syntheic eukaryote chromosome. (Basically, first non-bacterial chromosome.) Saying it's the first yeast chromosome is way too overspecific. It would be like saying "first daisy blooms on Mars" when the daisy was the first plant to grow on mars. Support with update and better blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (it was on my list of potential nominees - there is a lot of notable news today), but I cringe at the state of synthetic biology, which is written as an essay/lecture. It might be better/easier to create an article specifically on this accomplishment, which to be clear is the first synthetic chromosome (red link=hint), not merely the first yeast one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's nothing specific in the existing target article, but I thought it worth a punt because it seemed a likely candidate. It's outside my knowledge zone so I was hoping for some help. It's neither here nor there to me really, but it does appear, considering the scientific community's consensus, that it's a truly significant breakthrough, and the nomination is based on the source I linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvement to blurb and article per Medeis and Thaddeaus. This is huge news but I agree with Medeis that this is monumental because this was the first synthetic eukaryote cell, not just yeast cell. I'm not opposed to the mentioning of it being a yeast cell in the blurb but we desperately need to fit eukaryote in there. I also agree with Thaddeaus that the Synthetic biology article has substantial issues that would be problematic for the front page. I lack the technical expertise to improve that or identify a more suitable target article. AgneCheese/Wine21:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (was considering nominating this). Needs a new article, really, and I agree with Medeis regarding the blurb, 'eukaryotic' needs to be mentioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult just coming up with a good altblurb will be difficult. I'd support something like "the first reproductively viable synthetic eukaryote chromosome ever is inserted into a yeast genome." That said, one might wish the authors of the paper were working on this for us. I've added it, but it needs linkifying.μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least offer a coherent point, AR. Are you suggesting that what is needed here are, say, supernatural, non-chemical, nucleotides? Explain your objection in biologically literate terms, NOT SCREAMING. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll say it a different way. What they did is very much not make a chromosome from scratch. They looked at an existing—natural—chromosome sequence. Identifying long sections of useless repeated sequences, and other junk, they then would create a short sequences of DNA without such "junk", and insert each into a yeast chromosome, bombarding or patching or splicing it into many many yeast cells, most of which either died or didn't take. They would then subject the population of yeast to a selection pressure that the inserted sequences had an antidote for, killing off the untransformed and/or unhealthy yeast cells. Repeat this over and over again, and you have a sort of Frankenstein's monster chromosome with some of the "junk" DNA removed, and with some of the natural sequence remaining. What remains, as it was subjected to selection pressures galore, will undoubtedly retain the crucial (essential for survival) sequences from the underlying natural chromosome. In short, they did not build a whole chromosome in a dish and slip it into a yeast cell. If you look at syntheticyeast.org you can read this for yourself. For contrast, read what Craig Venter is doing at Mycoplasma laboratorium.
Now, as for my comment about hype, I shall say this without capital letters: Scientists are under a (perverse) selection pressure to seek publicity for their work. This, combined with science reporters who were denied appropriate educational opportunities (they're ignorant) and are themselves under selection pressure to produce stories that sell ad space for toothpaste (they're desperate) with often cause science news stories to be given, shall we say, undue prominence. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alt blurb is incorrect. They used homologous recombination to replace the chromosome bit by bit inside the cell. Which is a lot less impressive than what the Craig Venter Inst did, since it's template-directed to an extent. Narayanese (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Article needs some cleanup help and possibly some expansion on the nature of the work he won for. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - article has now been brought up to the minimum quality standards. Since it is ITN/R, unless there are further quality objections the item is ready to be posted.
Nominator's comments: Important step in getting justice for victims of Sri Lankan war crimes. The Sri Lankan government has lost control of the "accountability and reconciliation" process, it is now in the hands of international bodies. --obi2canibetalkcontr16:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for findings Launching an investigation doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. The results might be important, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "authorising an investigation" is not really what I would consider newsworthy either, if something comes out as a conclusion, as Muboshgu suggests, we can revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for findings or charges. Many things get investigated, but such investigations don't always result in anything. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think war crimes findings, especially from an international body, are a different ball game than garden-variety criminal charges or findings. We have also posted the arrest or killing of notable fugitives. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A very unusual case that is drawing international interest. Hakamada has been in prison since the 60s on charges that many feel were false. He was granted a release & retrial today when the high court ruled that evidence was likely fabricated. It is just the 6th time in Japanese history that a death row inmate was granted a retrial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, it's relatively unusual, but would be more significant if he was found innocent rather than lined up for a retrial. It should be noted that the source I read said that he is "believed" to be the longest serving death row inmate, slighly different from the blurb's phrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon update. I didn't even think Japan had the death penalty, let alone they had someone on death row for close to 50 years. Very unusual situation, but article should be in good shape first. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - I've put a lot of work into the article. Still working on it, but I'd say its up to standard now. I have no problem with "Iwao Hakamada, believed to be the world's longest serving death row inmate, is freed and granted a retrial after 48 years in jail." if the posting admin prefers that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it many time w/o complaint. To me it is a way to say "this needs assessment" - surely we can trust our admins to not blindly post something simply because it is marked ready? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I would think 4 supports and 1 weak oppose is certainly consensus on notability. Additionally, I would like to think the article work is of good quality (it certainly is extensive at least) and a good quality update can bump a items with weak consensus over the top, per the instructions, so I find it hard to believe the item is anything but "ready". However, per your concern, I have marked it "Assessment needed" instead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we just posted a more notable step in Ukraine. I would assk, though, is this a record one-time IMF gift to burden a country with debt? I f so, I could changeLihaas (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Where Ukraine was going to get their bailout from was one driver of the protests that led to the ouster of their President; a notable development. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose currently. The "Comprehensive agreement" article is too short to be featured as a bold item, the "Moro insurgency" article has maintenance tags, and neither blurb is grammatically correct. Agree topic is notable, but we can't post below-par items. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the article could get a little more "beef" and if the references could be correctly formatted. Definitely very notable and important. Mvblair (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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
_at_the_Centenary_of_the_Kangaroo_March_launch.jpg)
