Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2017

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

August 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 31

[Stale] RD: Richard AndersonEdit

Article: Richard Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC News
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Joemcphilly1960 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Philip Cross (talk • give credit) and RadderGuy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American film and television actor, sourcing issues in fimography Sherenk1 (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not notable enough, not referenced enough pbp 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Notability" is irrelevant here; if they're notable enough to have an article, they're notable enough for RD. The referencing does need improving though. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

August 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 30

[Posted] South Asia FloodsEdit

Article: 2017 South Asian floods (talk, history)
Blurb: At least 14 people are killed in the Indian city of Mumbai as nearly a month's average rainfall fell yesterday during the worst monsoon in years. More than 1,200 people have been killed in Northeast cities, Gujarat, Bengal, Bihar states of India, and countries of Nepal and Bangladesh in the month of July and August.
Alternative blurb: ​About 1,300 people have been killed across South Asia due to monsoon floods.
Alternative blurb II: Monsoon flooding in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan leaves nearly 1,300 dead and affects 45 million.
Alternative blurb III: Monsoon flooding in India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, covering a third of the latter two and affecting about 45 million people.
Alternative blurb IV: Monsoon flooding affects 45 million and kills nearly 1,300 in India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Tiven2240 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Nizil Shah (talk • give credit) and Rashkeqamar (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This cannot be ignored/not posted any more. I have linked the various articles but given importance to South Asia floods as lots of people have died across South Asia. I agree that articles need to updated/merged. Would request experienced editors to help. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose For such a major event effecting so many people, the article is currently very light on useful details. It would need a major expansion before posting to the main page. --Jayron32 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Floods in SE Asia over several months at this time of year is a regularly occurring event, and has always caused a large loss of life (100s) over that period; its unfortunately but that happens in that part of the world all the time. As it is not just a singular event, its difficult to support something like this (Didn't this also just get nominated a couple months back?) --MASEM (t) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hasn't there already been an article for this at August 2017 Nepal and India floods? It seems to me that a merger of these (and likely other articles covering these seasonal floods) is necessary. SpencerT♦C 15:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yup, if all the articles on South Asian floods are merged as shown here: Category:2017_floods, it would definitely receive support Sherenk1 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this typical, if tragic, event. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
How is it "typical"? Did you even bother to read the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, from 1975 to 2000, Southeast Asia averaged more than 2000 flood deaths per year. Typhoons and other events make some years worse than others, but 1200 deaths during a summer monsoon is not that unusual. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This certainly needs to be posted, though we're gonna need a better blurb (one that puts the focus on the overview article) and it would be nice if the main article is of high quality when it goes up. ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Without judging the merits of this, the blurb is far too long. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. A death toll 40 times higher than Harvey, a population greater than that of Australia affected; if this happens every year, we should damn well post it every year. As for the blurb, I'd suggest copying content (with attribution) into 2017 South Asian floods, and nominating that instead. @Sherenk1: you are under no obligation to do this yourself, but it would help. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec) Comment I agree that the blurb needs substantial rework to bring it down to a reasonable size and that 2017 South Asian floods should be the bolded article - something like, Nearly 1,000 people are reported dead in India, Nepal and Bangladesh in the worst monsoon in decades. However, that article needs very substantial work before it is ready for the main page. The content has mostly gone into the more-specific articles linked in the blurb rather than the main article; and it has a section attributing the floods to AGW, sourced entirely to primary news sources. GoldenRing (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support We have a very large number of readers in South Asia, particularly India. We are doing a disservice to them and to all of our readers by ignoring this enormous disaster which has left hundreds if not thousands dead. The fact ITN prominently features the Texan disaster but ignores this much more severe disaster is an appallingly blatant case of WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    We are not ignoring it at all, though. We're just late, in part because the articles on the subject are a bit awkward at the moment. ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. If someone can work up a decent blurb, linked to a decent article, then posting this seems reasonable. Right now, we don't have either. I also consider my support "weak" because flood deaths are, sadly, not very rare in South Asia. The region averages 2000-3000 flood deaths per year, though usually these tragedies are associated with typhoons rather than unusually severe monsoons. Dragons flight (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: is the typical period for flooding in SE Asia over? The reason we have not posted this as, while compared to Hurricane Harvey or Typhoon Hato which were very short, devastating events, the annual rains and flooding in SE Asia have consistently ended up killing many people over several months, similar to tornado season in North America. If this is the known end, then maybe it is worth summarizing, but if there's a good chance for more, then this is not the right time to post. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    Based on typical weather patterns, there are probably about 4 more weeks of intermittently heavy monsoon rains. Dragons flight (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    Then I would !vote Wait for another month so that we can post the net damage/casualties that have happened, to avoid arguing for a re-posting should there be a major major storm that drastically increases it in those 4 weeks. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Vanamonde's comment. Clearly a significant event and has been receiving a lot of coverage; the article definitely needs a bit more expansion however, which main page posting would hopefully create. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: This was previously debated back on August 24th. Someone decided to copy the whole debate over here again. The main article has not been edited, so nothing has changed. Unless and until the main article is edited to contain a level of writing commensurate with the importance of the event, it will not be posted. Please stop complaining that nothing is being posted. If YOU want it posted YOU write the article. --Jayron32 15:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for ongoing upon article improvement. There's a lot of recent news on this topic, and it doesn't seem to be abating. Our article says that "More than 24 million people have been affected," and I've seen news sources that say it's the worst flooding in three decades. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Vanamonde Christ, we even went to the trouble of writing WP:BIAS...? — fortunavelut luna 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant disaster, article is barely Start class but good enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is just good enough to post. Is in the news and a major event. Blurb needs to be made a bit more concise to post though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support The current blurb won't do but otherwise this is certainly ITN material. The article quality is not the greatest but it is no longer a stub and appears adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • See here: "...much heavier than usual monsoon rains, Bangladesh, India and Nepal have been affected by the worst floods in decades impacting on almost 41 million people and killing thousands." "More than a third of Bangladesh and Nepal, and large areas of India have been flooded, and the situation is expected to worsen as monsoon season continues through the end of September." Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That's why I suggest waiting on this until the end of the September if it is only going to get worse. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Isn't that why we have "ongoing"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
        • These floods occur pretty much regularly and seem to last 3-4 months, and kill the same magnitude of people. That length of time is not appropriate for an ongoing topic (only meant to be a few weeks), and the fact these are regular occurrances over a long period of time diminishes the newsworthiness of it: its like tornado season, hurricane season, wildfire season, typhoon season, blizzard season, etc. And we're not posting all of those only if there's a major incident (something akin to Typhoon Hato, but that's not related to this part of Asia). Otherwise, a summary blurb when the season is effectively over and they can tally total death tolls and damage makes the more appropriate sense for ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
          • If something is ongoing for years - for example a war - it tends to go in the Portal:Current events/Sidebar, so this should go there if Masem's argument that it is 'ongoing for too long' to be in 'ongoing' applies - or moved there once 'ongoing' time limit (such as that is) has been reached. And this should happen every monsoon season - it should be in itnr - first major destruction of 2017 monsoon floods - could end up in ongoing - and then 2017 South Asian floods appear in the sidebar once that article moves off the ticker.EdwardLane (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support easily worth posting, affects multiple countries and millions of people. Article quality is sufficient for me. Post now and if it gets worse either update the blurb or add to ongoing. Banedon (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub, offers barely more than a death toll. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - A gigantic tragedy worth an ITN blurb. Agree article can use improvement, but it's good enough and will get better. Jusdafax 04:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This is at least 10 times more serious than Hurricane Harvey. Makes no sense not to post. -Zanhe (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - poor quality article, and not unusual for South Asia. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt. This is easily more significant than Harvey. I just read the bolded article and the quality seems sufficient to me. -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment A number of !votes comparing this to Hurricane Harvey (and none comparing it to Hato) fail to recognize that the 2017 South Asian floods is a far cry from Hurricane Harvey or Typhoon Hato in terms of quality. That's why this article hasn't gone up. The floods have killed over 400 people in India and the whole section is four short sentences. Fix it up and it'll go up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just taken a stab at rewriting the article. More contributions would be absolutely welcome. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but not keen on the alt blurb's vagueness. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, thanks, Ed. I'd say this is ready to be posted. We can make the blurb more precise, as more details become known. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt II (tweaked a bit) is good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted I've gone with alt-IV, though there's not a lot in it. User:David Levy do you know of a suitable satellite image or similar? GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't, unfortunately. If I find something suitable, I'll add it. —David Levy 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sumiteru TaniguchiEdit

Article: Sumiteru Taniguchi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Sufficient length and reasonable sourced. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the article about this individual, I'm amazed that a survivor of one of the atomic bombs dropped during WWII was able to survive this long after the catastrophic event almost 75 years later. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Glad to see something brought into shape so quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Queensferry CrossingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Queensferry Crossing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Scotland, the Queensferry Crossing is opened to the public.
Alternative blurb: ​In Scotland, the Queensferry Crossing across the Firth of Forth is opened to the public.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First major crossing over the Firth of Forth in more than 50 years. B Class article. Would like a more recent image without the cranes. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there some sort of significance to this bridge opening? Is it being reported on outside of the UK? I think we need to ask ourselves if we changed the country from the UK to anywhere else if we would still post this. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this isn't even the top news here in Scotland today (that would be the resignation of Kezia Dugdale). --LukeSurl t c 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose regretfully, but based on Luke's comments, this isn't really "in the news" per our usual expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article looks good, six year construction for a bridge that is nearly 3 kilometers long. However, it doesn't seem particularly newsworthy, especially compared to the upcoming bridges listed in this article. ~Mable (chat) 09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do like a good bridge, but for ITN I think there needs to be a superlative or something else really significant before we post. The ones claimed in the article that I can see are "the UK's tallest bridge", but that is only 50th in the world according to List of tallest bridges and so not really that spectacular; and "the longest triple tower cable-stayed bridge in the world" - List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans#Longest cable-stayed bridge decks puts that into context as the fourth longest cable-stayed bridge in the world, and the three longer all have more spans, but this is too technical for an ITN I think. Luke's comments are another reason to oppose. I also note that the article hasn't been fully updated with parts still in the future tense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Solid, well referenced article. --Jayron32 10:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Well-sourced and well-written, I do not see the problem with nominating this event. Kirliator (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There does not seem to be any really unique or special about this bridge besides being a new bridge - not a new design, not the longest/tallest, not a critical piece of infrastructure. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • While I agree with the oppose, I'm not sure I agree this isn't a critical piece of infrastructure - it's not the most critical bridge in the UK (I'd personally rank the QE2 Bridge, Second Severn Crossing, Kingston Bridge, Glasgow and Avonmouth Bridge higher) it is in the top 10 as the old bridge would need to be completely closed if this one wasn't built. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I meant in terms of the number of persons/traffic size it serves and the need it serves. The Chunnel, for example, is a critical piece of infrastructure as it connects England to mainland Europe via road. Whereas if New York should build yet another bridge to Manhattan to help traffic alleviation, that's far from critical (in global scope). This seems to be helping to shorten an otherwise longer drive around a body of water, which is great and all, but not critical. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm actually pretty sympathetic to this. Infrastructure projects aren't major flashpoints like most most ITN postings, and its a little arbitrary when we post (groundbreaking? completion? opening ceremony?). However, unlike many of the things we post, which will be lost, in time, like tears in rain, projects like this will have a real, physical presence for decades, possible a century or two and will be written about in encyclopedias long after we're dead as meaningful entities, not just historical curiosities.
I understand that this isn't the sort of thing we do post, but would it hurt if we did? Say that we posted every $1bn+ public infrastructure project that had a decent article on completion? If this lead to a rash of quality articles on public infrastructure that would be a nice problem to have, though inevitably we'd let through more of Wikipedia's general bias into ITN.
Colour me neutral. --LukeSurl t c 13:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with this sentiment and I love a good infrastructure project in ITN, but compared to other bridges slated to be completed in the next few years, this one simply doesn't stand out. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and I say this as the author of six FAs on bridges). It's a nice-looking bridge and is going to have a significant impact on traffic congestion and on property prices in Fife, but the bridge doesn't set any longest-fastest-highest records, connect two previously unconnected places, or do anything else to single it out from any other bridge. As has been (almost) pointed out above, this isn't even the top story in the Edinburgh Evening News, let alone of significance to the broader world. ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, actually, it is the longest bridge of its type in the UK. It would make a nice change to post some technology news instead of doom and gloom. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Woo!! Scotland in the news! Break out the ginger wigs and Tam o' shanters: [1]. -- C. U. Jimmy 123 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC) far more substance than other news items I've seen recently.
    • I don't see how a bridge opening is a bigger story than the biggest boxing match of 2017. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm suggesting, like User:LukeSurl (who changed his mind), that this will be slightly more permanent. Whether that counts as "news" or not, I'm not sure. A lot of news is just hype, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess the difference is that the "boxing" match has already been forgotten while this construction will survive and supply for decades. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
        • A fight watched by 10 million people "forgotten"... They all have amnesia? How long will it take for the bridge to have 10 million people cross it I wonder? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure I see the analogy at all. And yes, the fight is long forgotten, it proved nothing and is completely out of the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A new bridge? So what? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We haven't an architectural achievement posted on the ITN board since that tunnel in Switzerland was opened. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lacks international significance and isn't the top story even in Scotland, as pointed out by Iridescent and LukeSurl. Banedon (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No international significance. More of a local interest story. Bridges open literally every day. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news and will get more attention when the Queen formally opens it. And I like the incidental detail about the discovery of the earliest known dwelling in Scotland. Andrew D. (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The Queen? Queen of where?--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Uganda? or possibly Dundee? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Could be Queen Margrethe, who knows? There's so many possibilities.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's of interest to me of course because, well, I heavily contribute to the Scots Wikipedia, but international significance to qualify for ITN? Not really. --AmaryllisGardener talk 06:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 29

[Posted] RD: David TangEdit

Article: David Tang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: AlastairBurt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Zanhe (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Good article, referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose. I've added citations that cover most of what was unreferenced, but there still a little bit more than needs a reference or removal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: thanks for improving the references. The unsourced sentence is someone's personal opinion and not essential to the article, so I went ahead and removed it. All remaining information is now sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Support and mark ready now that has been fixed.Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] North Korea fires ballistic missile over JapanEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: North Korean August 2017 missile launch over Japan (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea fires a missile over Japan.
Alternative blurb: North Korea fires a ballistic missile over Japan for the first time in history; Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzō Abe, calls an emergency UN Security Council meeting.
Alternative blurb II: ​In an unprecedented act, North Korea launches a KN-17, nuclear capable intermediate range ballistic missile over Japanese airspace; Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzō Abe, calls an emergency UN Security Council meeting.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top news story for multiple agencies. 2017 North Korea crisis has a referenced paragraph in the Timeline section on this. LukeSurl t c 09:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until North Korea hits someone with a missile or someone else is provoked into hitting back. They've overshot Japan with missiles before. This is just more saber-rattling. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's sabre-rattling, but I think it's significant sabre-rattling. Case-in-point, the two previous rockets you mention which overshot Japan in 1998 and 2009 were (ostensibly) satellite launches, whereas this launch is explicitly a military exercise. --LukeSurl t c 09:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article quality is sufficient and article is well-referenced. If I had any criticism, it's that the reactions section is WAY too bloated. Just because someone said it doesn't mean we're forced to include it, and the reaction of an unnamed Swedish source in the Swedish consulate is hardly important enough to this particular subject to merit inclusion. --Jayron32 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – According to the article as it is now, "An emergency UN Security Council meeting was called for later that day to discuss the event" is basically the extend of the impact of this event. I know that it is more significant than that, but not that much. Unless some party makes the decision to follow through with violence (be it North Korea actually attacking a country or Japan actually retaliating) there is just nothing really new about this. It's an extention of the standoff that has been going on all year. ~Mable (chat) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose standard practice of the pariah state. We had a nomination not too long ago about the alleged rumor that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead, but nearly all of us agreed that we should wait until that state actually strikes something other than the sea. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Saber-rattling still. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pure saber-rattling at its finest. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. They shot a medium-range ballistic missile over the territory of a hostile neighboring country. That's more than just saber rattling or aggressive rhetoric. Moreover, as LukeSurl notes above, the 1998 and 2009 launches over Japan were supposed to be satellite launches, while the August 29 launch was a military test. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nsk92: There is very little in North Korea that is not run by the military, and it is generally agreed that the "satellite launches" were military tests in disguise. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no such evidence to support your claim, unless you're claiming you've been given a security clearance now and could possibly know what the previous launches were actually doing. At any rate, such an argument is of little to no consequence, given that this time the DPRK publicly stated it was an IRBM launched over Japan (something they've never claimed or had the guts to claim before). Which is the reason it's a major geopolitical change. It's no different than how the US is hacked (or at least cyber attacked) by several world powers every day, and yet it isn't news... but you can bet your life's savings that if one of those countries came out and openly stated they were doing so... it would immediately be the Top Story around the globe. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose- Missile hits water, not very surprising and yet as we would expect. Now if this hits land and causes a large number of fatalities (albeit not recommended by the DPRK), then I would've support this. 161.6.156.119 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the new normal.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noting... this is an "unprecedented" launch by DPRK... this is the first time such a launch has ever occurred (an actual missile launch over the sovereign land of Japan... proving their ability to come within range of Guam). The response to this isn't going to be sanctions, even if the response isn't immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.224.108 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the BBC: "This is the first time [the DPRK] has fired what is thought to be a ballistic weapon over Japan. On the two previous occasions its rockets crossed Japan - in 1998 and 2009 - North Korea said they were for satellite launch vehicles, and therefore not weapons." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41078187 185.206.224.107 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Support - several of the oppose seem to not have read the article or news story. This is unprecedent, as the first DPRK missile fired over Japan. When was the last time a country has fired a military missile over another sovereign country? This does not happen often outside war. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reopened this due to your expression of support. The above comment that I initially removed was not an expression of support, but a comment, which is why I removed it. As stated above, North Korea has overshot Japan twice before with missiles(generally agreed to have been disguised as satellite launches). 331dot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we did not post the first two rockets being fired over Japan, you guys did no post the firing of the Hwasong-14, so it only makes sense that we not post this. 2600:1015:B100:8B14:141A:3365:FAE9:5013 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The "first two" were not nuclear capable missiles (as this one was reported by Japan/US intelligence to have been). This is literally unprecedented, and the Prime Minister of Japan said so himself. 73.78.64.221 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The 2009 rocket was posted [2]. You're right that we didn't post in 1998, but that was probably because Wikipedia wasn't founded until three years later. --LukeSurl t c 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Japan's government was sufficiently concerned to warn its citizens. Surely its judgmenet is more RS than those of Wikipedians. Banedon (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/28/politics/north-korea-launch-unidentified-projectile/index.html : "Tuesday's launch was particularly provocative as it was North Korea's first ballistic missile to fly over Japan."
  • New York Times: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/world/asia/north-korea-missile.html : "North Korea carried out one of its most provocative missile tests in recent years early Tuesday morning, hurling a ballistic missile directly over Japan that prompted the government in Tokyo to warn residents in its path to take cover. ... Only twice before has the North fired projectiles over Japanese territory: once in 1998, prompting a minor diplomatic crisis in Asia, and once again at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009. In both those cases, the North said the rockets were carrying satellites into orbit. In this case, it made no such claim. ... Even when it flight-tested an intercontinental ballistic missile on July 28, it was launched at a highly lofted angle so that it reached an altitude of 2,300 miles. But it flew only 998 horizontal miles, falling in waters between the North and Japan. The North said at the time that it did so in order not to send its missile over a neighbor. Thus, the missile test on Tuesday was considered especially bold."
  • USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/08/29/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile-over-japan/611119001/ "North Korea has twice fired rockets that it said were carrying satellites over Japan — in 1998 and 2009 — but Tuesday's launch was the first time it fired a ballistic missile over the island nation." (previous unsigned comment posted by IP 185.206.224.107).
  • Oppose - governments warn their people all the time - being overly cautious is a considerable part of their remit. This is just more angry yelling from the Supreme Leader with no real consequence. No one cares if the child is lobbing their toys from the pram unless they hit some one with one of them. So it goes for this projectile. Besides, if the United States has its way, we will having destructive weapons flying over the heads of non-combatant countries all the time. Just rhetoric at this point. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not about the warning. I know everyone hates Kim Jong-Un, but we shouldn't use that as a reason for not posting major geopolitical changes that will effect almost the entire world... inevitably. This is literally the first time a (nuclear capable) ballistic missile has been launched over Japan by the DPRK, and the DoD has revised its statement to note that it didn't just fall apart... its first two stages were, from the current sources available, successful. The Prime Minister of Japan has called this unprecedented, how can it possibly be that Wikipedia editors' opinions about world events outweigh the entire international media/political response to this event? Just because the boy cried wolf when there wasn't any wolf the first two times, we shouldn't think this is just "another case of saber-rattling" without evidence. That would seem to eradicate the entire point of having WP:OR. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - When you have CNN, USA Today, Financial Times, Bloomberg News, The New York Times and BBC all calling this an "unprecedented" action, that has never occurred before... and that caused major reactions in Japan, including real-world missile alerts to millions of civilians to get under cover, we simply can't pretend like this isn't big enough news to post here. We don't decide what's notable, the world does. And in this case, it's quite clear the entire world (including all of the international financial markets), are keeping a wary eye on this... and it's quite clear that it's completely notable. The previous President's of DPRK and the USA weren't as likely to push this to the next level, but as several analysts have pointed out, this very well might. - If someone can tell us how nuclear weapon news isn't relevant to all humanity, I'm sure we'd all be very interested. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • "Unprecedented" is used a lot more often than its meaning should be as attention grabbing (eg google news returns 6.5 million hits on that word, which for it is supposed to mean, is extremely high, and right now it is being applied to this test, Harvey, and about 3-4 other current events in the last week). No one is questioning the severity of NK's threat, but they've had missiles that were already with range to hit Japan; the fact that they used this test to route it over Japan changes little else besides more NK posturing. We have to be careful when the media "cries wolf" not to fall into the same sensationalism trap, given that our purposes is not the same as a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't know just how unfamiliar you are with this situation (or world/military/political history for that matter)... but the word "unprecedented" came straight out of the mouth of the Prime Minister of Japan. Unless Abe just got hired by Time Warner, I'm not sure your reply has any place here... besides to tell us your opinions on how media sources attempt to get ratings and that DPRK has attempted/failed to launch satellites in the past, which doesn't seem quite relevant. The Prime Minister of Japan doesn't bluff, nor has the PM of Japan been known to be a saber-rattler; they can't make offensive military actions, according to the treaties currently still standing, so I'm not sure I believe a country focused solely on defense is simply trying to help out News Corp's/Bloomberg's ratings. It's not the media I was talking about crying wolf, I was referring to the DPRK; this time they did more than just try to get attention, they made what can literally be seen as an act of aggression (and has been by Japan's/USA's governments). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A nuclear-capable missile is successfully fired in a deliberate act of aggression against a foreign country. This is well covered in the news. I fail to understand why anyone is opposing this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    They oppose because it is important to them that THEY control the narrative, and not reliable sources. They are angry that the reliable news media finds this newsworthy, and they use this corner of the internet to enforce their own personal control over the story. Elitism, in other words, pure and simple. --Jayron32 10:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
  • That's pretty offensive, just saying. Banedon (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, just plain accurate. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    You couldn't be more wrong with your offensive statement. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    We aren't here to talk about how offended you are by the reality of what's happened to ITN. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Though it seems we are here for you to complain and offend others. Got it. I also get the sense that you aren't new to ITN. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
─────────────────
The only way you could "get [that] sense", is if my observations were true. I rest my case. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't formed an opinion, but maybe you should be more worried about whether it is true than whether it is offensive? The word "offensive" really should have no place in a debate following Habermas discourse ethics rules. Thue (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I supported this nomination, as you can see above. But I still find this offensive regardless of whether or not it's true. Banedon (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Thue: Finally... a man who understands proper argumentation. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Firing a missile over Japanese airspace goes way beyond sabre-rattling. Clearly news-worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally think that posting an event intended to scare the public is not what the News bulletin on this site is for. I do admit this is an 'unprecedented ' issue, but as some users above have noted, I only see this as an act of saber-rattling as well as ranting and raving. Kirliator (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • What you "personally think" isn't what Wikipedia was built on. Unless you have a job title I'm unaware of, you aren't a journalist. Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be journalists, and they should discontinue attempting to decide notability on their own "personal" merits as if this was an actual newsroom... or as if the term editor equates to actual editorial supervision (as in a newspaper). The media is covering this as a top story, therefore, so should Wikipedia. If not, there will be a clear geopolitical bias shown here by the the editorial community. There simply is no precedent for not covering an action from a nuclear power like this before. For heavens sakes, we had no issue posting boxing stats, but a deliberate launch by the DPRK over another country's airspace isn't front page worthy? What on earth is going on here. Would you seriously not find it newsworthy if a ballistic missile had launched over the USA or the UK? Is Japan just not important because they aren't an English speaking country? Seriously, many of you need to reevaluate your conclusions on this. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If you or anyone feels ITN should just parrot the press, be a news ticker, or just list the most visited pages, I await your formal proposal. Otherwise, please stop criticizing those that participate in determining consensus, which is how most of Wikipedia operates. No one forces you to be here if you don't like us or how we operate. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
And my opposition has nothing to do with the fact Japan is involved; please do not make accusations of bias. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is gained via discussion, argumentation, and sound reasoning used by those participating in both. It is ridiculous, therefore, in the process of finding a valid consensus to ask someone to stop talking (and passively-aggressively suggest they leave the site) just because you don't want to hear what they have to say. I've made my basis for my argument quite clear, now you can either reply with an argument with better reasoning... or, you can stop trying to play Sheriff. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
And I only seconded a very valid observation by Jayron32 (who it appears is an administrator, unlike yourself), so please... do not play me for a fool. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to leave,"passive aggressive" or otherwise, nor did I ask you to stop talking. I have as much right to "play sheriff" as you do to do what you do. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You implied it, and you damn well know it. Now are you actually going to present a logical counter-argument to my above comments, or are you just going to sit here making sure you have the last word? And if the last sentence is true, then you should probably revisit your idea to have me "please stop criticizing those that participate in determining consensus". I hate to break it to you, but I'm also a part of the consensus process. Just because I'm using an IP, I shouldn't be treated as if my understandings of Wikipedia policy are any lesser than you. And until you can point me to the policy that states I'm unable to comment here, I suggest you find something better to do with your time. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't care if you use an IP or not but it would be nice if you were honest about the idea that you obviously aren't new to this page. As long as you aren't socking I don't care how you edit. I've never said that you know less about policies than I do and I apologize for giving you that impression- but I haven't asked you to leave(I would flat out say it if that's what I wanted to say), only stated the fact that if you dislike us and how ITN is so much no one is forcing you to be here. If you want to be here anyway, fine with me. You can have the last word all you want; fine with me too. But I will stand up to people making inaccurate statements about my motivations and the motivations of others here and call out offensive behavior. I've said all I care to say about this event and its merits for posting, at least to you. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You're continuing to deflect from the issue at hand: there's no logical reason, nor is there any precedent, for not posting such a blurb to ITN. And you have once again failed to produce a single counter-argument to my many listed arguments for this being posted to ITN. This isn't the place for general discussions or for you to vent your feelings about me. Either discuss this blurb (by providing logical/policy based counter-arguments), or seriously stop harassing me. (And Wikimedia wonders why we have editor retention issues...) 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm deflecting nothing, but have it your way. You obviously get to get in "passive aggressive" digs at me but whatever. My rationale for opposing this nomination is at the top of this section, and I stand by it. This event is a nothing burger that will likely be surpassed with the next missile NK tests in a week or so. When they test a nuclear bomb, or actually hit something(intentionally or otherwise) with a missile, or provoke someone to retaliate, give me a call and I will be there to support it. Politicians give statements about world events frequently and governments warn their citizens of dangers frequently. The UN Security Council is in session 24/7 to discuss anything at any time. Doesn't mean anything will come of it. (331dot (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
And I've laid out exactly how your argument's premises are flawed. Yet you still won't address/nor counter my counter-arguments. Repeating yourself can be fun for some, but it isn't for me. Whether or not DPRK launches another missile soon... this launch was "unprecedented". We didn't not cover Hurricane Harvey just because more severe hurricanes might make landfall (which they very well may this year), and hell we've even covered Hurricanes that haven't made landfall simply because of their measured strength. Of course there will be new actions from the DPRK every day, just as there will be from NATO and the US. That's why it's called news. Also, they've already tested nuclear bombs several times... according to OSINT, even. And you clearly lack any knowledge of the UN Security Council if you think the Prime Minister's/Ambassadors of the world are 24/7 sitting or are available in or around the Council room (can they make decisions by proxies? sure... but the UN Security Council isn't NORAD, like you're making it seem). The meeting wasn't even able to be convened for at least several hours after the launched missile had fallen into the sea. The issue here is that this DPRK ballistic missile launch went over Japanese sovereign (U.S. allied) airspace... for the first time in the history of this conflict. All media outlets are reporting this as big news, including almost every international financial news site out there... and if we are to take the words of the US President (the most powerful man in the world) seriously, as by this point we should, there will likely be an unannounced launch on the DPRK at some point very soon. We can pretend this is just the same old same old, or perhaps just allow ourselves to auto-pilot our responses to this... but, if we read the sources out there, they disagree with our wishes for world stability. They read loud and clear: This has never happened before. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting your views on this matter, as I have done as well. The debate society is elsewhere; I can only post what I think. I have no further comment. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Since I wasn't looking for the "debate society", that comment was literally made to be rude and aggressive towards another editor. To end a discussion with that, without even addressing any of the points laid out by myself, just proves you're unable to make anything close to a strong case for your argument. - Ad hominem isn't necessary for those with sound arguments. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not my intention at all, please assume good faith. If you think that's rude and aggressive, we have very different standards about what that actually means. I've posted my views on this nomination, you posted yours, we conversed about them for a bit, we don't agree. That's fine. I don't think we need to discuss it further. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Until one of DPRK's missiles hits something other than water (or is shot down, if such is possible). More gunboat diplomacy, 21st-century-style. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If DPRK hits an actual target... there's a high chance there won't not be any servers for us to post on (or at least the electricity to access them) in the aftermath of what could really happen (after all, you state an interest in the first two occasions in World History). But, please... obviously we know more about SE Asia/Pacific geopolitics than the Prime Minister of Japan - and every analyst in every source regarding this. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Hey, Sca, I thought it was The Donald that had the gunboat here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No, 'twas Josef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Extreme support – Unprecedented. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fake news, you Western pig-dogs! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - When multiple reliable sources call a news event unprecedented, I'd say that overrides the poorly conceived rationales of opposers. I call on admin to post this blurb, discounting the !votes of a few ITN participants. Jusdafax 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose plenty of things are "unprecedented" but don't therefore automatically justify a position at ITN. This is getting closer to being posted. If it had actually fallen in flight and hit Japan or hit something on its landing, I'd be in favour, but right now, we're just rattling again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If Russia shot a missile over the UK's airspace into the Atlantic (for the first time in geopolitical history), caused major panic via emergency alerts, and had PM May call the act "unprecedented", would you honestly come to the same conclusion? To most in Asia this would seem to be another case of WP:SYSTEMIC. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Why not log in to continue this discussion with your regular account? And as to your point, Russia hasn't been posturing and sabre-rattling and pouring pointless rhetoric over the UK for the past three decades. Russia hasn't been testing ICBMs or nuclear warheads near the UK. I'm sure this can find a home at ja.wiki or ko.wiki or nk.wiki, but right now this is just an incremental change from the last NK missile story we booted the long grass. And hell no, it's not bias, I was a strong advocate against the MOAB posting from the Americans a while back, how dull was that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
        • 1. No, and I'm not violating any policy by doing so (I guarantee a checkuser can guarantee I'm not sockpuppetting here). 2. Might I add only some Wikipedia editors think this isn't giant news, only some Wikipedia editors, not the media, not the United Nations, and definitely not the Prime Minister of Japan. When did this become a newsroom exactly? It seems like every media source could have the headline "North Korea begins the first stages of WW III" and many editors here would just say... "meh, just saber-rattling". The thing everyone is forgetting is that what is often followed by an unfamiliar rattle, is a bite. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man changed his above comment after I had replied to it... I do not have the time nor energy to monitor each comment made and revise them. But, I find it necessary to point out that the entire point of asking if Russia did X would Wikipedia do Y was precisely because it hasn't happened before... just like there has never been a nuclear capable missile launched from DPRK over Japanese airspace. And as to your first point (not the irrelevant account question) Russia has been doing exactly that (saber-rattling/exercises/threats) to the EU... which if I recall correctly, the UK is still a member state of. And it's been for a lot more than just three decades. It, in fact, is the very reason NATO exists (and why US Marines just got stationed in Norway). So, once again, your argument has so many holes in it... it could be used as a colander. 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 185.206.224.108 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
          • We'll post the bite, don't worry! All the best IP! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
            • 3. It would make sense that you would be against the MOAB posting, if you're against this. All that shows is that you potentially have an anti-war (or at the very least, anti-US led actions/wars) bias; sorry, but you being British shouldn't outweigh literally dozens of reliable sources. 4. Aren't you not supposed to comment on the actions of other editors that don't concern you? 5. No, this will be posted; your attempt to dissuade admins from doing so are going to have little if no effect considering you haven't provided an argument for how you somehow understand this conflict better than the PM of Japan. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
              • What a bizarre outburst. If you're so sure it'll be posted, just relax and wait for the admin to come and do that. I'm not attempting to dissuade anyone from doing anything, just offering my opinion. Thanks for being so expressive though, it's brightened my day a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                • Yes, so bizarre. It's like it came out of nowhere... or perhaps someone made an obviously passive-aggressive comment prior to mine, but I'm sure that's just my brain talking. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                  • It was the "this will be posted" thing that did it for me. Sounded a little ... odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                    • Odd? Why on earth would that be odd? Is it completely out of the ordinary here for you for you to not get your way? 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                      • No, it's not "my way", it's my opinion. And things are frequently posted with which I disagree. The oddness comes from your definitive statement that "this' will be posted". A little authoritarian for an IP avoiding scrutiny I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                        • Semantics. And, in what way does a statement of certainty, (made from a logical assessment of the arguments for your side being much weaker than those for posting the blurb), become authoritarian? Do you think I'm going to magically log in to another account and then close this with all my clearly stated intentions of nefariousness? Quit the hyperbole, and quit playing with fire. I shouldn't have to ask ArbCom to put this page on their watchlist. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
                          • For hyperbole, see "playing with fire" and "I shouldn't have to ask ArbcCom to put this page on their watchlist" and "this will be posted" and "your argument has so many holes in it... it could be used as a colander" and "literally dancing on the line that ArbCom gave you". I (and several others) gave opinions that you clearly don't like, you've expressed your dismay, I think we get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the folks in Hokkaido don't get instructed to hide in the cellar every day, do they? Martinevans123 (talk)
    Looks like good practice at this momentous time. This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    And if such a drill happened anywhere close to where you live you'd be singing a different tune. The MOAB dropped in Afghanistan, this IRBM launched over Japan. Obviously it will take major military power getting to the western hemisphere before you find anything related to pol/mil important enough to post. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well, quite possibly, but this, as I noted, is a mere extension of the rattling. If it had actually hit anything, I'd be all over like a tramp on chips. But it didn't, so I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds utterly terrifying: [3] But then I guess I can't comment, as my country doesn't live under a certain 72-year-old shadow. Martinevans123 (talk)
    How close does the rattle have to get before it smacks us in the face? 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Martinevans123, the empath!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    You're literally dancing on the line that ArbCom gave you. Stop please, it's distracting the shit out of this discussion. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Don't worry, IP:185. I don't feel belittled by all this sabre rattling. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, don't worry IP, I think Martin can handle it. And no, I'm not "literally dancing", I'm sitting in my study in bright sunshine, waiting for my BBQ, enjoying the moment and wondering what scrutiny you're evading. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    And I should have additionally noted: This was not a drill. Not one single Japanese civilian knew that the launch was going to happen before it did, and over 5 million Japanese people were warned in the region to take immediate cover (real world, not exercise). If you don't see how that's actual news, well I don't see what is. There is no policy anywhere that states "saber-rattling" (especially of this magnitude on the part of DPRK) isn't notable, nor that statements from political leaders like the PM of Japan (and several UN Security Council member states) are considered to be "saber-rattling" at all. When a sovereign nation, protected by the US (a nuclear power) by treaty has another nuclear power (North Korea) launch a missile over it... everyone with a lick of military experience would treat that with great severity. But, please... levity is clearly the tone I should be using here (and this is the last time I'll ask you to stop commenting on my lack of logging in... I did not come here to be harassed by you today). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, I was being flippant with Martin, who invariably (until his empath revelation today) responds in kind with sarcasm and bizarre links. I wish you all the best with your endeavour here, your enthusiasm is clear for all to see, and hopefully you'll get what you want. But don't forget, most of us are just giving our opinions, nothing more sinister than that, unless you know more about all of us than we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    "most of us are just giving our opinions, nothing more sinister than that" - So being "flippant" on purpose towards another editor is... just "giving [your] opinion"? Please... 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, Martin gives as good as he gets. That's all you need to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    From the NYtime article "Lt. Gen. Hiroaki Maehara, the commander of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s Air Defense Command, said that the armed forces did not try to shoot down the missile from North Korea on Tuesday because they did not detect a threat to Japanese territory. But when the government detected the launch and followed the path of the missile, it warned citizens in its path to take cover — just in case any parts fell on Japan." [4] This is a case of media sensationalism. Yes, they warned citizens to take cover but not because they feared a warhead detonating on JP. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    From the mouth of the Prime Minister of Japan (otherwise known as Lt. Gen Hiroaki Maehara's boss, or the leader of the entire nation of Japan): "The ballistic missile launched by North Korea flew over our nation and landed in the Pacific Ocean. We, as the government, were completely aware of the movement of the missile since immediately after its launch and in order to protect the public we had a well prepared system in place. This reckless act of firing a missile over our nation is an unprecedented, serious and significant threat, one that seriously diminishes the peace and safety of the region, and as a result we have lodged a firm protest against North Korea. We have also requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. (emphasis added)". You can keep trying to make this look like it's media sensationalism all you want, but it isn't. The only reason it's sensational is because the launch went over sovereign allied airspace, and the item launched was a nuclear capable ballistic missile that can reach Guam. Oh, and it had never, ever happened before. - Your argument is looking weaker and weaker by the second. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, Masem, for posting a good example of why this is being overhyped. We aren't any closer to WWIII than we were the day before this. Trump's position has not changed(and he was known throughout his professional life for misdirecting adversaries and keeping them guessing). 331dot (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    When your done with it, would you mind passing the crystal ball to me next? (And I'll note for the fourth time now that you've ignored and refused to actually counter any of my relevant arguments.) You really, really may not like who I turn out to be when I log in (there's a good reason I happen to be very versed in our site's policy), and I swear to god if I have to log in to my account to make you listen to reason, or even try to make you present any true reasoning of your own (as in presenting valid counter-arguments), this site has some serious, serious issues. The Foundation is working on editor retention, yet you seem to be working your hardest to not even consider that you might have reacted in a severely incompetent manner when dealing with new users. I'll allow you some time to reflect on that. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    WP as a whole, much less ITN, does not deal with reacting to Fear, uncertainty and doubt. No major power has issued a former challenge or declaration , initiated sanctions, asked the UN to step in, or any firm reaction to NK. Further, these types of international trespass events happen all the time. Just last month China warned the US about its patrols in its own waters, a fleet completely capable of launching nuclear weapons if it carried any. We obviously didn't post that. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    I am not interested in and have no desire to force you to identify yourself, you can edit as you see fit as long as you aren't socking(which I don't believe you are), but you clearly are not a new user. For the rest, see my reply above. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    And even think about the Chinese response. From the Telegraph: "The launch also prompted a stark warning from China that tensions on the Korean peninsula had reached a 'tipping point'. ... Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a briefing in Beijing that the situation was 'now at a tipping point approaching a crisis'." That isn't even close to saber-rattling or media sensationalism, that's just a straight up formerly stated warning to the world at-large from the government of China (which is just... the world's second strongest superpower). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support First time launches have a precedent of being posted. The international seriousness is enough, that I have to assume "Western Pig-Dog!" opposes are jokes, not actual racism or insanity. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • ITNR is only for first time launches of space-capable vehicles. Further, we actually don't have 100% on what missile type was actually fired, so we don't know if this is a new type or not. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There are two sporting events covered in the template but an act of aggression by a nuclear-capable country with very tense relations with a notable world superpower isn't. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – largely due to the fact that this is technically seen as yet another test of a missile that basically ended with the same result as past tests, by splashing down on water. Sure it flew Japan, but I find it misleading that some of the sources, as well as some users on here, claim that it is enough reach Guam, however according to all of the provided sources, the missile flew roughly 2,700 kilometers, in case you guys are wondering, Guam is just beyond 3,500 kilometers, thus even if this same missile had been fired in the direction of the U.S territory and had the same results, it would've failed to reach the island. If you ask me, this topic is only the Red Scare all over again. KatnissEverdeen95 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • What on earth has this got to do with Guam? Are we back to the "only matters if it can hit the US" nonsense again? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
      • NK's goal is to threaten the US, so that does matter- but that user was only using Guam to judge the distance. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. Japanese citizens fleeing their beds, to hide in shelters, at 6am in the morning, is just an irrelevance then. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
          • As I pointed out above, the only reason those under the flight path of the missile were told to take shelter was in case there was falling debris from the missile itself; the gov't has no concerns that it would actually strike Japan once they identified its flight path. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Thanks for clarifying. But I'm not sure that subtlety would have been immediately apparent to those being woken by their cellphone beeping alert at 06.02 on Tuesday morning. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. I saw this as useful discussion not as "an argument". And I don't see how discussion makes something stale.
  • Suggest Closing Discussion due to the fact that an argument has already broken out on this nomination alone, and that another one is beginning to spark. This topic is already beginning to grow stale. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
  • Support Closing Nomination – Oh my god, really people?! Does a discussion like this really have to turn into anarchy? For the past day alone, I have been getting dozens of emails from this site, with almost all of them from this page alone. After reading the post made by an anon ip that is hell-bent on getting this nomination posted, I believe that this nomination is in fact getting out of hand. It is time that voting on this nomination ends before a real cyber-conflict occurs. SamaranEmerald (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Dozens of unexpected emails? You poor thing. I hope they're not waking you at 6 am. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • You're literally the person who set your preferences to email you. Complain to a mirror, or take this page off your watchlist. Discussions don't end just because they make your phone have notifications, for crying out loud. 185.206.224.107 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose article is too brief to overcome the sense that this is a negligible escalation. HOWEVER, does anyone else get the sense that ITN has a blind-spot when it comes to reporting these "ratcheting" events? This is absolutely an escalation of prior tensions...but a small one. By a thousand cuts we end up in WWIII, and ITN doesn't post a thing. GCG (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
After 7,800 words, suggest close!Sca (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - POV vilifying of North Korea. Unless that missile launch killed someone or until UNSC meeting decides to invade NK. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Many countries test missiles regularly splash downing into an ocean. Israel overflies Crete and/or Italy and/or Tunisia at about the same range when it tests a missile or space launches without a drama; should we do likewise for these launches? The missile was easily in space when it overflew Japan at about 400 km up. Objectively I don't think this is notable enough for the front page. Rwendland (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Who's minding the shop? Sca (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 28

[Closed] Iran nuclear dealEdit

Has no chance of reaching consensus to post; our time is better spent elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Donald Trump orders the CIA to produce the evidence he needs to find Iran in violation of the nuclear deal
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nothing has truly happened here, merely just the president asking the CIA for some evidence. Not notable unless evidence is found AND sanctions are imposed against Iran. Andise1 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN worthy until the Trump Administration actually finds proof of the violation. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a mere formality, the news is that the "proof machine" has been turned on. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post accusations or similar types of stories. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the agreement is cancelled or actual falsified evidence is made public as such. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere accusations and investigations are for Current News, not the ITN board. As Andise1 and Hornzilla78 have noted, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has violated the nuclear deal yet. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Antifa in BerkeleyEdit

Closing political statement disguised as a nomination. Likely too minor anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: So finally the MSM admits that antifa are the violent ones. That itself is newsworthy. 172.56.15.108 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your pro-Trump bias is showing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such violent protests seem to be the new norm (and there's been plenty of similar ones in Berkerely over the last year), but the lack of deaths or massive property damage here makes this not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yawn. When Antifa protesters start to kill their political opponents or reach a higher casualty count, call me. Besides, there is no article whatsoever about this attack, and your target article is a disambig page. Anything to get some good fake news for Supreme Daydreamer on the front page though. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor event in US domestic politics, not on a par with the type of events ITN posts. Target article is too broad in scope. --LukeSurl t c 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Close - Obvious bad faith nom.--WaltCip (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 27

RD: Ebrahim YazdiEdit

Article: Ebrahim Yazdi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
Nominator: Nightdevil (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iranian dissident and minister of foreign affairs in the wake of the hostage crisis NightD 06:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose as significantly lacking in references. There are several explicit citation needed tags in addition, and I've added a refimprove-section tag to the "Career and political activities" section rather than add more than a dozen inline tags. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition to sourcing issues above, can we get any type of ISBN or similar for the "Selected Works"? --MASEM (t) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs ref and is a complete mess of an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

August 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 26

[Posted] RD: Tobe HooperEdit

Article: Tobe Hooper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Pawnkingthree (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Influential horror film director. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. No citations lacking. Article looks ready. 174.92.77.18 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Filmography section is unsourced. While the films are less of an issue (eg easier to prove out) the other works definitely need it. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Filmography does not constitute controversial statements in my opinion. WP:V states that only controversial statements need be readily sourced. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • We still require filmography sections to be sourced. Its not controversial so we don't have to remove it per BLP, but lack of sourcing means its not meeting BLP requirements. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Consensus is that all aspects of a biography of a person who has recently died, including filmographies and similar lists, must be sourced before being posted to the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Floydian. Citing the filmography is just busy work and is not required by WP:V. Per WP:BLUE, we really don't need to cite that he directed The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. What we're deciding here is whether to add his name to the RD list on the main page. And notice that we never have citations for these entries. This demonstrates that citations are not always needed. Andrew D. (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    "we never have citations for these entries" this is patently false. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    Oh and BLUE needs an actual link! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's the current RD line from the main page: "Recent deaths: Izak Parviz Nazarian · James Joseph Dresnok · Thomas Meehan" There are no inline citations in this. The idea is that if the reader wants to verify these deaths, they can click through the blue links to find more details. Exactly the same principle applies with filmographies. If readers want to confirm the credits for a movie they can click through to the movie page. We don't need to repeat inline citations at every stage of the process, especially for well-known credits like the director. It's just busy work and clutter. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Poor example and your false assertion remains false I'm afraid. If the linked articles have no reliable sources to verify the claim, it's a plain and simple failure. Articles on the main page have been reviewed, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You will note that James Joseph Dresnok's filmography section is entirely referenced (neither of the other two have an equivalent section, but their articles are also fully referenced). Wilhelm Killmayer's list of works were required to be entirely sourced (see nomination below). Bruce Forsythe's filmography and discography are fully sourced, Glen Campbell was not posted because his discography was not sourced before it was stale (nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
(I think you mean Filmography, as Glen Campbell discography is a separate article? Although, as I recall, the Filmography was fully sourced. It was a few items in Awards that were not.) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I note that James Joseph Dresnok's filmography only has three entries, all cited to the same source. The trouble with the unreasonable demands for busywork citations is that this discriminates against veterans who had a long career, appeared in numerous productions and so have a massive list of credits. Robert Vaughn is an example I recall that never appeared at ITN because of this nonsense. We really don't need citations to remind us that he appeared in The Magnificent Seven, The Man from Uncle, Hustle, &c. If there's something obscure that's contested then that's no big deal – an unimportant detail compared to the major productions which most everyone is familiar with. Perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew D. (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate that long-careered actors suffer from this, but this is required sourcing by BLP/WP:V. It's not busywork, it should have been added when the film/etc. was added, given that many of these filmographies likely started by copying the lists from the unreliable source IMDB. It's the fault of the editors that have been developing these articles to not include sources from the start) And no, it's not the starring roles in major films that are usually a problem, it's everything else that is difficult to confirm. There are sites that are similar in function to IMDB but have curation and are reliable (tmc.com I believe is one), but these often miss some of the smaller roles too. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just had a look at a random two of the blue-linked entries in the television sextion filmography that you (Andrew D.) state should be used for sourcing. The Equalizer (TV series) and I'm Dangerous Tonight, the first article does not mention Tobe Hooper and the second doesn't cite any sources so even if blue links were acceptable, these two at least do not satisfy WP:V. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Perfect is the enemy of the good"? Nope, no-one's asking for perfection, just that items we post to the main page comply with one of our fundamental policies, i.e. WP:V. It's terribly sad that experienced editors think that relying on blue links which themselves don't provide verifiable reliable sources is adequate. That's hardly seeking perfection, it's simply asking for the bare minimum for verification of claims. What's "well known" to Andrew Davidson may well be "never heard of it" to many of our other readers, as his strawman argument so adequately demonstrates. Let's not have this silly argument again, provide verifiable reliable sources for claims inline and don't rely on the obviously unchecked BLUE claim Davidson makes. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:V only expects inline citations for quotations or material which is likely to be challenged. Filmoographies are not usually controversial and a source is usually implicit – the credit reel for the production. Putting an inline citation for Hooper's directing of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is just busy work which not required by policy. In any case, this is quite irrelevant for RD where the only fact that we're stating is that the person is dead. That's the only fact for which we should ensure a confirmed citation. The general quality of the article is irrelevant because people are reading it in large numbers regardless and that's because it is in the news. Here, we should just focus on the tiny increment that we're placing on the main page and that's just the person's name; not his entire history. Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, BLP applies, and just because Andrew Davidson knows that this individual directed an episode of The Equalizer, that doesn't mean our general readership does. Plus as adequately demonstrated, your approach (BLUE) is doubly flawed when (a) items aren't linked or (b) the verification fails in the linked article as well. Your "busywork" argument equates to laziness in citation. Many articles have benefitted enormously (like this one, well done to Pawnkingthree) from diligence, not a sloppy slapdash approach to pushing sub-standard BLPs to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've now added citations to the filmography section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as article is now fully referenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support Article has been fully sourced even the filmography section. Well done! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    Which would be true if ref 24 (hollywood.com) actually contained a URL. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced. Well down Pawnkingthree. Capitalistroadster (talk)
  • Weak oppose' referenced, but really the "Career" section is very poor indeed for such a luminary director, basically five or six bullet points which are actually already covered in the filmography, with very little encyclopedic value whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Muzaffer İzgüEdit

Article: Muzaffer İzgü (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hürriyet (unfortunately couldn't find any English-language sources but all national Turkish news outlets have covered this)
Nominator and updater: GGT (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent Turkish author. Have worked a bit on the article, and whilst there certainly is much room for improvement, I do believe it is of sufficient quality at the moment. GGT (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. While there is indeed room for improvement (the split between "life" and "personal life" based on the current contents seems a little odd), it is all referenced and with no significant gaps I don't think there is anything sufficient to keep it off the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Seems fine for sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Good referencing and article has been well updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Women's Rugby World CupEdit

Article: 2017 Women's Rugby World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Women's Rugby World Cup concludes with New Zealand defeating England in the final.
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Aircorn (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The women's equivalent of the men's Rugby World Cup. Probably the only women's rugby event likely to ever get posted. We have recently had the Women's cricket world cup and the Solheim Cup so there is precedence for posting top level women's sports events. Also the tournament only happens once every four years. It is also growing in popularity and viewership.[6] AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support we posted the equivalent men's article per ITNR, this is the very pinnacle of the sport and the article is in good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly internationally significant sporting event with a well-written article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is main-page quality. MurielMary (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregorEdit

heat > light. --Jayron32 14:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In boxing, American Floyd Mayweather Jr. defeats Irish Conor McGregor.
Alternative blurb: ​In boxing, Floyd Mayweather Jr. achieves his 50th professional win against Conor McGregor.
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The fight starts in a few hours (as of the time I am nominating this) so wanted to nominate it early to seek consensus on whether this is worth posting/make sure the article is in a good state. Andise1 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose This is like posting when the price of ice cream changes. Not news.172.56.7.69 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Newsworthy topic. However, it would be a good idea to wait until we know the result.Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support on the merits. This match has been sufficiently hyped for long enough that it's newsworthy whoever wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have zero interest in boxing or MMA as a sport and even I'm aware that this is considered a huge match with expected 50M + viewership to watch the result. I would agree this is an ITN-worthy event; however, obviously we will need a summary of the fight when it is completed. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Extreme oppose - The hype will way surpass the actual spectacle.--WaltCip (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This was hyped enough to be on the top 25 several times and we know the result, so why shouldn't it be posted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Would support if/when article is sufficiently updated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Where is the article on the fight? That needs to be the bolded item in the blurb. And it's "Irishman" or "Ireland's" not "Irish." Pawnkingthree (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the blurb to add the link. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support One of boxings biggest fights if not the biggest, ever. international impact too. the most bet on sporting event in history. GuzzyG (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Except one of the contestants wasn't a boxer? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I too know little of boxing but do know that this is an important fight. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a pure money-making exercise with no lasting impact at all. No belts were won, lost or unified, just all about the hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It's better than a punch round the lugs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Waltcip. Neljack (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • CommentThe event is certainly significant - not just the boxing/MMA crossover but also Mayweather surpassing Marciano for the longest undefeated record – but there no details on the fight itself. Will support when the article is updated. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this saw so much news coverage leading up to the actual fight that not posting it would be silly. Let's not forget that the continued coverage indicates heavy interest as well, even if it's not for a title. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but needs update. I think boxing is a stupid sport, but I'm also not afraid to admit this got a lot of coverage and interest both before and after the fight. No titles were exchanged, but some records were apparently set. However, I do think the target article needs a description of what happened in the fight before this should be posted. Dragons flight (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All hype, no titles, belts etc at stake. Not ITN-worthy. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the richest single sporting events in history, and massive news coverage around the globe. If we post women's golf and don't post this then calling this section "in the news" is laughable. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Suppose. This is one of the most significant sporting events in history. HampsteadLord (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Could you clarify its historical significance? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Isn't that beyond obvious? Richest fight in history. Longest undefeated streak with 50-0. A cross-over bout with the two top attractions in boxing and MMA. HampsteadLord (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not that much richer than the last fight, and the streak is irrelevant, Mayweather fought a non-boxer. Freak show, was more like interesting than it might have been but ultimately trivial, just PPV money shot, encyclopedically bereft. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    TRM, see my comment below on historical significance. Whizz40 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now No match summary, so this article doesn't match "In the News" requirements" Harambe Walks (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Massivly over-hyped match between a former champion and a mediocre boxer. A show match basicaly and another nail in the coffin of boxing. Nothing noteworthy about this match other than the promoters ability to milk viewers, which they did very well to be fair. 91.49.75.44 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Mayweather's 50th professional win surpasses 1950s world heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano's perfect 49-fight record.[7] Whizz40 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The idea that ITN/C is a gatekeeper for our readership is especially silly in this case. The top read articles on Wikipedia yesterday were
  1. Conor McGregor
  2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
  3. Joe Arpaio
  4. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
  5. Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor
The sporting events we currently have listed at ITN – 2017 Solheim Cup and 2017 Women's Rugby World Cup Final – barely registered. Nobody cares what you guys think we ought to be reading. They just go ahead and read what is actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes and anal sex is also very popular with our readers, what's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Then "they" should be here participating. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, it's strange: we are posting non-events that nobody cares about, like those two, and debating whether to post important events that are in the news and which people are reading. HampsteadLord (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If people want to replace ITN with a list of the top 5 viewed articles, the talk page is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Anal sex isn't news. This is. It was the boxing match of 2017. And yet we won't post it at "In The News"? Pending the update of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
After you posted this, The Guardian posted an anal sex story. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
And here's a useful source that combines the two. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good article on a topic which is highly newsworthy. The case for this is very strong and as used Andrew Davidson there is a large number of readers interested in this. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not the biggest boxing fan, but this was a big news, big money, record-setting fight. Good enough for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because, imo, this doesn't reach the threshold of an ITN-item. Instead, this is spectacle and hype and PR, all of then rolled into one so as to create an "event." If it is news, it's been labeled and packaged as such, to appear like the real thing, instead of what it really is: a money-grab hustle. This is not real news. This is fool's gold. Christian Roess (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • You don't like that it's news, it's still news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a question of what I like or don't like. What I like or don't like is "emotion." I don't let emotion take the place of facts and evidence when I make an argument. This is not news, and either you can see that or you can't see it. Nothing I can say will make you change your mind. You think it's news and I can see that it's not. Christian Roess (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the hype machines, per TRM, Waltcip and Mjroots. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, the fight was overhyped, and arguably not even that competitive. However, like it or not, it was a major and unprecedented event in boxing, watched by millions of combat sports enthusiasts (as well as more casual fans) internationally. If e-sports is good enough to be on the front page, this certainly is. CompactSpacez (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This fight is one of the most financially successful bouts in boxing history. Not to mention, it was most likely Mayweather's, one of the sport's greatest, last fight and a record-setter at that. If that is not historically significant, I do not know what is. Do this many editors just hate boxing now?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's enough support to post this, in my opinion, but the article is in need of a description of the actual fight. "Mayweather won, then retired" isn't enough information for readers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There are enough supporters when taken in isolation, but equally there is a lot of opposition. I'm not seeing a consensus to post (or to not post) at the moment. That might change when the article is improved, but it might not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not seeing the consensus either. If is does get to pass, (and I fervently hope it doesn't), "defeats Irish Conor McGregor" reads as gibberish in British (and Irish) English. "The Irishman" would be grammatical (or "Irishman", if we're dumbing down to informal journalese). - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Are the nationalities even relevant? AIUI they are competing as individuals not representing their country? Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Agree. We don't describe the nationalities of most people mentioned in ITN (i.e. we don't remind readers Roger Federer is Swiss every time he wins a major), and this doesn't seem necessary here. --LukeSurl t c 11:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Nearly all the opposes seem to say so because it's just "hype" which by definition makes it "In the news" and thus should be listed. (Especially when the two sporting events on currently don't even come ANYWHERE close. But yes, let's deprive our readers of the "hype" (aka mainstream news) and provide the niche. GuzzyG (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If being in (mainstream) news was the sole criterion, ITN would be flooded with incremental updates on the minutiae of celebrities lives, the latest film releases, the latest results of several dozen football, rugby (league and union), American football, Australian rules football, ice hockey, cricket, baseball, basketball, hockey, motor racing, horse racing, etc leagues/competitions/events, the internal political updates of around 200 countries and their subdivisions, etc. I don't have an opinion about whether this event rises to a level of significance sufficient to be posted or not, but something being hyped beyond its actual importance is a valid objection. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it just me or are we still missing a description of the fight? --MASEM (t) 14:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the supporters here seems very keen to add one? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not doing busywork for the sake of some articles which are being read by millions regardless. I watched the fight on YouTube soon after it finished but giving an account of what happened would be shot down as OR and it's probably not what our readers are looking for. If you check out the stats you'll notice that most of the attention is now on Mayweather's article which got 1.7M readers yesterday. Meanwhile Women's Rugby got 2.5K which is derisory. If you look at a professional sports page like the BBC's, even Quidditch gets more attention than women's rugby. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Since when did post selection become a fucking popularity contest? By your twisted logic we should drop all news in small countries because people will care less about it than Americans sports. Jeez... talk about a backward approach - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I spent a reasonable amount of time writing a reasonable article on the game and submitted it here with no guarantee that it would get posted. In fact I was expecting it to receive quite a bit of opposition. Yet no one appears willing to add a couple of simple sourced lines to an existing article that already has good support for posting. At the end of the day it does not matter just what the readers want to read, but what our volunteer workforce are willing to edit. AIRcorn (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding sourced prose to an encyclopaedia article is about as far as it is possible to get from busywork. Your comments about women's rugby are irrelevant to how ITN works at present - if you want to change that you know where the talk page is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How about all these Defenders of the Faith tripping over themselves to conjure new criteria when the current rules are insufficient to stop a story they don't like? Not encyclopedic! Pure hype! Sex is popular too! This article is plenty good enough to post, it's in the news, and people are looking for it. It has almost no chance of getting posted because the naked emperors have made their decree. I get that you shouldn't base your edits on if something is going to the mainpage, but you can hardly blame someone for getting discouraged. GCG (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The full description of the fight itself currently is this : "Mayweather Jr. defeats McGregor in 10th round." Is that really enough? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Then let that be their objection. THAT can be easily remedied. You can fight the anal sex defence. GCG (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not just go ahead and remedy it, if you feel strongly about it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And sourcing is not an issue [8] We don't need round by round, but it seems to suggest that while McGregor had the advantage in the first three rounds, Mayweather overpowered him and wore him down enough that the ref called the TKO by round 10. Add a tiny bit more and this is then set. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Was just surprised that, in an article of 35,122 bytes, we just had those seven words. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a money-making spectacle. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • One that's in the news. By that logic, aren't all sporting events "money-making spectacles" that should never be posted? Where is that in the ITN rules? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking of seeking my fortune in standing long jump. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I added a fight summary section to the article. It's not super comprehensive by any means but it is something and can definitely be tweaked or expanded upon. Andise1 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's already out of the news. Hype only. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Says what happened. It's educational now! And still in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
Yep, this should now be ready to post. Andise1 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
2,700 words of disagreement later. Sca (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at this point, it's reasonably complete. There's a few numbers I'd want to see - namely how many people were estimated to have watched it (from post-match, not pre-match numbers) also noting there were a lot of illegal streams out there (3M viewers from those), how much betting money changed hands, and some of those types of details but they're not essential to the bout itself. Everything is now there and sourced. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb now that a fight summary has been added. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would someone mind marking this as ready? Andise1 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "retired boxer beats non-boxer for a lot of money" is not a news story of encyclopedic importance, let alone "one of the most significant sporting events in history" or other such nonsensically hyped comments. BencherliteTalk 07:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I hate, hate, hate this match. Hate the cynicism that allowed it to be scheduled. Hate the promoters' smug and accurate belief that the sheeple would hold their noses to hide the stench of the s--- they knew they were buying. Hate the media for churning a new non-story every day leading up to it, condemning the hype with their words while building it with their ink. I agree with every opinion raised in opposition here. But I don't IAR because IDONTLIKEIT. GCG (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - personally, I would rather apply hot lead to my eyes than watch this match. Nonetheless, the media coverage of it has been deafening, the amount of money involved is significant enough to shatter most records in either boxing or UFC, and the fight was watched by 100's of millions of spectators, a sum large enough to place it with cricket and football in the upper echelon of global sports. The primary objective of ITN is to facilitate readers in finding articles that they have interest in owing to the subjects of said articles being in the news. While anal sex may attract the attention of many readers, it does not do so because it is in the news, so to cite it is to construct a false equivalency. The opposition has thus far amount to little less than it was a money-making spectacle (a fact that doesn't relegate it from the news in the slightest, or else half of the items posted here would be excluded - acquisitions are just money-making exercises), it is not an important sporting event as no titles were involved (ignoring the fact that the fight enabled Mayweather to surpass Marciano, such rationale would see the niche, broadly ceremonial and honour-based Solheim Cup struck as it is not a Major of the women's game, but rather an elaborate spectator-aimed procession (no intentional sexism - similar sentiments are held by me towards the Ryder Cup)), it was all hype (and said hype is the reason why it is in the news - the Premier League is on ITN/R ahead of other leagues due to the hype it generates, especially on en.wiki) or WP:IDONTLIKEIT (not a valid argument against a nomination). A cornucopia of RS are reporting on this, and we are not divine deities who decide whether or not an item is worthy. There are no existing concerns with the article, and for all intensive purposes this should be posted. Like many others, I abhor the fight and everything it stands for, but I am not blind to the fact (a fact that can't be stressed enough) that it is in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR - whether or not us noble custodians feel it should be, this is in the news and should be on ITN given its irrefutably, unquestionably gargantuan sporting scope.
  • Support This event was probably the most-anticipated boxing match of the last few years and it got 100x the ratings of the Womens' Rugby World Cup. This is the very pinnacle of boxing and the article is in good condition. Tocino 03:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • "very pinnacle of boxing" calls for a [citation needed]. BencherliteTalk 07:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not sure how "basically retired boxer comes out of retirement for £100m to fight non-boxer" could be considered "the very pinnacle of boxing". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted I realise there will be some here who don't like this, but it's my reading of the consensus. I'm generally weighing opposes on the grounds of 'hype' less than others; part of the purpose of ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. While that's not quite the same as 'hype,' it's related to it and that part of the purpose is clearly applicable here. Opposes such as TRM's make more sense to me, but I think they are outweighed by the support. I'm still a bit surprised at the brevity of the description of the match, but for all I know, that's normal in boxing articles and I think the update is enough for this be posted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's a shame, even more so because the majority of the support wasn't for the 50th win blurb either, just for the mere spectacle and cash freakishness. Especially as several other boxers have won 50 fights in their career.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed. 50 career wins doesn't get him anywhere near a list of top 10 career wins in boxing, and goes completely against the general approach of ITN not to post sporting statistics. Furthermore, opposing on the grounds of "hype" is completely in line with the purpose of ITN: "In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest — that is encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event — rather than conventional news items". If an event is hyped, then by definition its importance has been exaggerated, and by posting this, ITN has been sucked into the hype. BencherliteTalk 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Then by all means suggest a better blurb; I was taking into account the (in my view well-founded) opposition to posting the nationalities of the contestants. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well I would rather see it pulled than re-worded. It's not in the news any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Pull. There is no consensus above to post - hype as being equally valid to concerns about significance for any other reason - we don't post almost any of the massively hyped UFC or WWE events for example. I fundamentally disagree with user:Stormy clouds unsupported-by-evidence assertion that this had "gargantuan sporting scope." let alone that this scope was irrefutable or unquestionable (particularly given that many people did indeed question it). The update to the article is also not really sufficient by the standards we expect of other sporting events. "The most anticipated boxing match of the last few years" is irrelevant really, on the first Sunday in September I'll be going to what is almost certainly the most anticipated event of it's kind for the several years, but I wont be nominating it here because this is completely irrelevant to whether it is newsworthy (it isn't) - being anticipated like that is solely a function of the artificial hype surrounding this event (per Bencherlite). It was best summed up by someone above, "very good boxer beats mediocre boxer." Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. GoldenRing quite adequately explained their reasoning for posting, which I agree with- many(though not all) of the opposes boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If people here don't find this newsworthy, then they should speak to the media. I would add that I saw far more news about this fight than about any UFC or WWE event(the latter of which is scripted and not a true sporting event). 331dot (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, most of the opposition related to the relative insignificance of the fight, i.e. it was just for the money, not belts, titles, etc. So I don't think it was in any way "IDONTLIKEIT" from most of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    What evidence have people provided for their assertions that it is not significant? Assertions without evidence are meaningless, and serve no purpose. They might as well be ignored. --Jayron32 10:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    As you know, the burden is on supporters to prove the significance. Many people have noted this is not a belt fight, not a world title, not a meaningful sporting competition, has little or no EV beyond the $$, so, what's the "significance". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) X2 @GoldenRing: While I did vote against this nomination, I am really struggling to see consensus here. We do not post stories purely on the basis of coverage in the news; if we did, we would have posted Kim Kardashian's jewel theft and other such trivia. Therefore any nomination, and it's supporters, must demonstrate significance as well; and in such a situation, opposition based on hype is relevant, and support that does not demonstrate significance becomes less strong. Pull Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull The circus has already left town on this, and it's not even yesterday's chip wrapper; what tiny legacy it may never have had is already long-forgotten. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull rather than the opposition being wrong, some of the hyperbole from the supporters is simply incredible. Not only was this fight of basically no encyclopedic value, it had no real sporting value either. A lot of money went on it and was won from it, but that's not uncommon. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If this is not of encyclopedic value, I await an AfD discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Although there is vocal opposition, I still think there is sufficient support to post this. I don't quite know what to make of suggestions that an item four days old is stale and I think I've explained my rationale, both here and here. However, any uninvolved admin should feel free to revert without consulting me if they think differently. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well some example of the support votes: "Support", "the pinnacle of boxing", "it's educational!", "why shouldn't it be posted".... so the vote-counting fails there, as does the "why this is significant enough for main page inclusion". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The latest daily stats show that this match is not stale as the two boxers are still both in the top 10. Other trending items include pages related to Game of Thrones and Hurricane Harvey. Women's rugby is the topic that is really stale as it had no traffic to start with. The hot item in women's sport is actually Maria Sharapova, following her victory in the US Open. If we just used these trending stats to drive ITN, the process would work so much better. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a reason we don't have any professional boxing entries on ITN/R, despite it being a major sport. With a vast array of belts and weight classes, there's no objective way to determine which fights are particularly notable. So we really only have the level of media attention to go on. And this fight, for better or worse, was one of the most widely covered fights in a while. Helps that it turned out to be a relatively decent contest after all, and not the embarrassment many expected. Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Conor_McGregor#Fight is pretty paltry though, but I guess it just passes. --LukeSurl t c 11:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Again with the IDONTLIKEIT voters making up criteria. "It's not in the news anymore" is not a criteria; when things happen, RS report on them for awhile and then they report on new things. That's why it's called NEWS. "Encyclopedic Value" is not a criteria; WP:N is, but if you tried to suggest this isn't WP:N, you'd get laughed out of town. So you use EV, which has no criteria and is utterly subjective. GoldenRing has done the right thing in ignoring those votes that have not followed the rules. There are a lot of people (incl admins) who have valiantly defended Law & Order here in the past who have lost their damn minds on this thread. GCG (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    No matter how many times you shout it, IDONTLIKEIT is still not relevant to the majority of the opposition (and certainly no more than the ILIKEIT is relevant to the support). I really couldn't care less about the event, but I do care that things are not posted to ITN without consensus and for reasons explained repeatedly, I do not see consensus for (or against) posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

On my talk page, GoldenRing posted the following:

"On a pure nose count, I made it 20-13 in favour posting, which I think is often enough sufficient support for an item to get posted at ITN; there was significant opposition, but I didn't feel that it outweighed the support. I explained why I didn't feel the opposition had wholly made their case; essentially, the item was very much In The News and readers were obviously looking for it (given the page-view statistics quoted). I don't think dismissing that as being due to 'hype' really washes. It fits with the purpose of ITN, to bring attention to articles that readers may be looking for because they are in the news. Add to that that some of the support was on the grounds that the description of the fight itself was insufficient, and this had been rectified. I'm a bit bemused at the suggestion that the update is insufficient when this is the diff from the end of the match to now - with nearly 100 edits. If I've really missed something here, I could be persuaded; I'm no boxing fan, after all, and my inclination is to join the IDONTLIKEIT chorus. But I can't really see a 'no consensus' outcome as the right reading of this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)" [copied here to avoid loss of context. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)]
Nose count is irrelevant. As repeatedly noted in the nomination, being in the news is necessary but not sufficient - it also has to be significant and that's where the disagreement lies. I and others, particularly Bencherlite, have explained why hype is relevant to sorting out the true significance of something. The number of edits to the article since the match is irrelevant, as is most of what has been changed - what ITN requires of sporting events is a prose summary of the match. There are a grand total of two short and fairly thin paragraphs describing what actually happened during the match which is really rather pathetic for something that is supposedly so signficant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The article about the match seems to be the weakest of the three linked articles. We should make Floyd Mayweather Jr. the bold link as he's the guy that won, establishing a new record, and his article has a reasonable account of the fight and plenty of history and background too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that the match actually wasn't that important and somebody reaching an arbitrary number of wins is? Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and support - Biggest star in MMA (ever) fighting the biggest PPV draw in boxing (ever) and the greatest boxer of our generation. Two worlds coming together for the first time in an event of this importance. Mayweather, coming off from a two-year hiatus, and attempting to break his 49-0 record (also held by Rocky Marciano) to fight the most popular MMA fighter of all-time in his prime. Very newsworthy if you ask me. MX () 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • In other words you're saying it was just a hyped exhibition match. All the more reason to pull. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    Nope. My argument was that this was a historic event for combat sports. MX () 19:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    It was not part of a championship or competition, it wasn't a title fight, it wasn't between two great boxers or two great MMA figthers, it was an exhibition between two people from different sports competing to get sponsors PPV money in match of no more significance than the occasional rugby league vs rugby union games are historic events for rugby or for ball sports. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    You'll need to tell that to the record number of people who purchased this on pay per view(according to the article) and who were projected to bet on it. Personally I don't like boxing, either, but this was clearly significant even if not a title fight. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: You're wrong. This fight was not an "exhibition". This was an official, professional boxing match. In addition, boxing title fights are not a requirement for ITN (I'm not saying you're claiming that, but since you brought it up, I just wanted to clarify). MX () 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    "official, professional boxing match" and "exhibition match" are not mutually exclusive things as this fight demonstrates. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and Keep seems like this is the big talk around this page it seems, I heard about this fight on the news station I generally watch daily, and it seems that this event is spreading like wildfire. I don't see the reason why this should not be posted. Kirliator (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedic for Boxing as one of the biggest fights in history and the biggest of the twenty-first century. More newsworthy than the women's Rugby world cup. Saying something is hyped cannot be encyclopedic is complete baloney and subjective babble that is not fit for a encyclopedia, next you'll say The Beatles isn't encyclopedic because they were hyped in their hey day. GuzzyG (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull. Is it encyclopedic? Yep. Is it In The News? Yep (well, it was a few days ago). Does the hook tell us why? Er, no. Would we put up a hook for Hurricane Harvey that read "It's raining quite a lot in Texas"? Of course we wouldn't, but that's about the value of the one we've got now. Mayweather winning a 50th fight would never have got as far as ITN (or indeed out of the boxing sections of the newspapers), but it was purely the unprecedented freakshow element of the event that propelled it onto the front pages. Short version - we have a hook on ITN that doesn't explain why the story is on ITN in the first place. Fix the hook or pull it. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
In fact, there's still news about McGregor and Mayweather less than an hour ago and within 24 hours. This is still in the news, though probably not in the news you read or care about (not that that matters). MX () 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That isn't the point, as I thought my comment made clear. It's the hook that's the problem. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Never said that was the point. It is just a comment for others to read, and a direct response to your "well, it was a few days ago". Cheers, MX () 19:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I've replaced the satellite image of Hurricane Harvey with a photograph of Floyd Mayweather Jr. because the blurb for tomorrow's featured article, Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, is accompanied by a very similar image.
    Should the boxing item be pulled before 00:00 (UTC) on 1 September and no new item with a suitable image has been posted, please revert to File:Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan (cropped).jpg or simply remove the section's image for the time being. —David Levy 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    The day has ended, so File:Harvey 2017-08-25 2230Z.png is available for use in the event of the boxing item's removal. —David Levy 00:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep pulling blurbs looks ridiculous unless there is some blatant article issue or the posting admin went totally off the rails and none of those are the case. The oppose camp made their point, you don't like it. Don't worry, someone will bat 100 tests in cricket and we'll be posting it because 1 billion people in India soon enough. Move on already. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The point is that we don't post arbitrary sports records, such as batting in 100 tests, or winning 50 boxing matches (unless it is an over-hyped pay per view exhibition match it seems). I neither like nor dislike boxing and have even less opinion about MMA, but what I do care about is ITN stories getting posted when there isn't a consensus to do so - as there very clearly is not here (there isn't a consensus against posting either, but until now no consensus always meant something was not posted). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see why pulling any item ever "looks ridiculous". It's just an editorial decision. It's had it's time. I'm all for "moving on already"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It must surely hold the record for the most post-posting alterations to a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 25

[Posted] RD: Margaret MoserEdit

Article: Margaret Moser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Austin Chronicle
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Hurricane HarveyEdit

Consensus is clearly against an ongoing listing at the current time. Discussion of a blurb can continue in the nomination below. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hurricane Harvey (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: WClarke (talk • give credit)

  • Support, I agree that a blurb for Hurricane Harvey should not be added until there is sufficient information on the impact of the storm, but for now it seems appropriate to add it to ITN as an ongoing event, especially considering that the storm is expected to stay over Texas and possibly Louisiana for almost all of this coming week. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@WClarke: That's not the intention of Ongoing, which is to highlight articles which are incrementally updated but whose individual updates would not merit posting blurbs. It isn't for merely posting something that is happening. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We generally do not do ongoings for weather disasters. Right now, there will be flooding, but it looks like extensive warnings have prevented any serious deaths, so we'll need to see how bad those floods are - will they be Katrina-like or much smaller in scope. If they rival Katrina, then there may be appropriate ongoing for the relief efforts, but we're still far too early to tell that. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Systemic bias much? It's the middle of hurricane/typhoon season in the northern hemisphere; what's so significant about this one that you'd think it warrants a slot in ongoing, in comparison to Typhoon Hato or any of the other destructive hurricanes that will follow in the next few weeks? ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Read the guidelines. The fact that an event will affect one nation is not a reason to oppose it. Your objection amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF and this is the first major storm to hit the US in 12 years, the worst to hit Texas in over 50. Remember, Texas is the size of France. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's not bite the newcomers. This seems to be a good faith nomination by someone who maybe doesn't understand everything here. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your definition of "newcomer" appears to differ somewhat from mine. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
They were new to here, which was my point. I only hope they weren't scared off, as the more that participate here the better. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent: I have over 1500 edits and have been editing for about a year and a half, so I also wouldn't consider myself a newcomer, though this is my first time posting a candidate for ITN, so sorry if my idea of an "ongoing event" is incorrect. I wasn't trying to do any harm. This storm is heavily affecting my region right now, and I was simply looking for a good temporary compromise to add it to ITN without a blurb, as proposed below. In this case, "systematic bias" is quite a heavy term to be using, especially considering that this proposal would only add a single wikilink to the main page. I don't like arguing on Wikipedia, I usually try to avoid confrontations on talk pages, and I have nothing further to say on this. Sorry. WClarke (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not what Ongoing is for. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this makes sense, given the storm is expected to last through weds and drop over 3 feet of rain, an entire year's worth in some of the range it will hit. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. This isn't TexasWeatherWatchapedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - Not sure about ongoing. As one of the TC editors, I would say that it would have been worth chucking up on the main page as soon as it made landfall since it was the first major hurricane (Cat 3 or above) to make landfall on the United States since Wilma 2005. Major hurricanes are renowned for causing major deaths and damages and its worth noting that Trump signed this off as a major disaster as it made landfall. The fact that it is very likely to stall for a couple of days just makes it worse imo. This is also going to be worse than Katrina in terms of rainfall which only dropped a max of 17" where as Harvey will be dropping between 20 and 40".Jason Rees (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not looking to have any significant damage as far as death count or costliness. Sure it's severe flooding, but not big enough of a deal to warrant ITN recognition. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Hurricane HarveyEdit

Article: Hurricane Harvey (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Harvey, a category 4 hurricane, makes landfall in Texas
Alternative blurb: ​Texas is impacted by Hurricane Harvey, a category 4 storm
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Harvey makes landfall in Texas, causing catastrophic flooding
News source(s): ABC News Hurricane Harvey: Eight killed as storm hits Texas (Also reported on radio WKYW)
Nominator: 24.63.117.181 (talk • give credit)

 24.63.117.181 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose, at least for now. If it does significant damage or causes a lot of deaths or there is something else notable about it, then I'll reconsider but simply making landfall is not singificant on it's own. See also the #Typhoon Hato nomination below. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's going to cause a lot of damage to infrastructure at least - and I wouldn't be surprised if the people who have ignored the evacuation mandates thus far are hurt or killed. 24.63.117.181 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    Vote struck now the event isn't speculation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait We generally only report on hurricanes/typhoons after casualties and damage has some assessment. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

*Wait per Masem's statement, until a confirmed report on the damage and death toll, this is not ready for the ITN bulletin. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support for immediate posting. The article is 20,000kb long, the storm has made landfall as a Cat 4, there is at least one directly reported fatality, it's the strongest to hit Texs in over 50 years. People are coming here now for reliable information. This is called "IN the news", not "What happened yesterday". μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We're not a newspaper. People coming here for news are coming here for the wrong purpose. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
By your logic we wouldn't publish a blurb on the KT event until a full count of extinct taxa was made. ITN is the perfect place to come for a comprehensive, source-based, neutral, non-sensationalistic description of a current event. What exactly do you think our readers are interested in? Knowing what a clique of self-important doorkeepers have posted in the name of fighting systemic bias? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
But we don't know if it is a serious event yet, one fatality is not much. Compared that to the Typhoon a few sections down, with 18 confirmed deaths; we'll not likely post that because that's a rather small number for a storm of that size. We can wait to see if this is really as severe as it could be, or if it sputters out when it makes landfall. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a quality article about a current event. --Jayron32 02:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - President Trump has already declared this to be a major disaster. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article but wait article is in good quality, but until further information is revealed, I suggest we wait on this nomination.

*Wait I will likely support this if this storm gets reckless, but until then I suggest we hold on the process until new updates about the storm comes in, which will likely be soon. SamaranEmerald (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose so what? Once the destruction has been assessed and iff it's significantly notable, then we can review the blurb and the article in that context. That the hurricane has arrived is of no interest to our encycloedic audience, what happens next most certainly might be. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your ability to judge the interest of our encycloedic [sic] audience is suspect to say the least. Even though it's on the front page, Haryana riots has received half the readership of Hurricane Harvey, which is not. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not American Wikipedia, I suggest you re-read, if something actually notable merges, we can consider that in the context of a properly updated article and a useful and interesting blurb. And as for noting my typos, please, pot-kettle applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
There are currently 3 India-centric stories at ITN, including a staggeringly irrelevant train accident. Clearly Indian bias there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
We can't change the bias of where news happens. So three major issues around India happened this week. Next week it may be Europe, the week after North America. We don't consider this part of the news if we are selecting news stories from the start that represent broad and/or global interest (which for the India ones, I fully agree they are broad stories). --MASEM (t) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I think a complaint about too many India-related stories is actually progress. Usually it's the other way around. A country of well over a billion people deserves a little attention occasionally. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it actually does something encyclopedic. — fortunavelut luna 08:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. Reports seem to indicate it will stall over the area and just keep dumping feet of rain, causing flooding. If that happens or there is other significant damage, it may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem, 331dot etc. We're not a news ticker, which is what this would end up being if we posted it now. Obviously if the outcome becomes more severe this can be re-visited. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed that the nomination does not provide links to the news sources above, could someone fix this? Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mjroots. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hurricane Harvey: Eight killed as storm hits Texas μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not ready. The article doesn't mention the deaths, and that would be biased to post this over the typhoon that has killed 18. I'm not saying this can't be ITN, but the storm died a lot faster than forecasted, let's wait to see what the rainfall brings. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Also - not that it's a death count race - that article's been amended to one death now (and that in a house fire). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, too early to post. Looks very much like going to into the systemic bias category as well. Storm in the US = notable, storm in asia = non notable. Interest in the article of any current news surely cannot be the only measure, as due to the nature of location of most users of the english language Wikipedia would massivly scew any viewer numbers of articles, i.e systemic bias. 91.49.76.33 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Flood event will be the bigger story over the coming days. Wind-damage largely confined to small towns along the immediate coast. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Support – Historic flooding ongoing and only getting worse with more rain expected in the coming days. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait – It's dying down. One hurricane-related death reported. Disaster for some, but little wider significance.
→ However, flooding in Houston seems serious. Sca (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my explanation a section above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, and Wait. The death toll has been revised down to 2. There are up to 48-200+ people unaccounted for. Flooding will continue over the following days and the record-breaking rains may themselves merit posting. This is the first category four landfall in Texas since 1961. 184.151.36.136 (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and Wait. The death toll has risen to two but authorities have yet to visit the worst affected areas and are unlikely to be able to get in for a few days. There are flood warnings in Houston, the fourth biggest city in the US. This is the dominant story in the US and making news throughout the world. The economic impact of the storm is also big as much of the US oil industry has shut down. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

*Wait until we know the extent of the flooding. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support The storm has stalled and is causing historic flooding. While the death toll is mercifully low, the damage is already reaching levels that are likely to put this event near or at the top of the most expensive natural disasters in US history, and we are only about half way into it. The article is up to date and in good shape and this event is getting extensive global news coverage. I am not seeing any justification for further delay in posting this. (Note: I am currently on an extended wikibreak and am only online for brief periods once or twice a week. Messages directed to me may nor receive a timely reply.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support immediate posting, per Ad Orientem above. The storm has already broken all records in Texas in terms of rain and flooding. What else are we waiting for, until Houston gets washed away? Nsk92 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Count Iblis (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to stress that we're trending on geographic bias here, with both Typhoon Hato below (which has estimated $1.6B in damage + 24 loss of life) and the general SE Asia flooding not being supported. I know Harvey is all over the US news, its a infrequent area of hurricane strikes, and the damage is likely just as severe, but let's remember this is a global work; if we post Harvey but not post Hato, we're clearly exposing our bias. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. My thoughts also align with Ad Orientem. Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so it broke Texas records, and......? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • A city of 2 million is underwater, with rains to continue until at least Tuesday. The damage is going to exceed Hurricane Alicia from 1983. It's Katrina-level destruction. What is your point, exactly? 158.93.6.11 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The city is underwater? Like Atlantis? ok, support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
        • FEMA says it's gonna take "years" to fully recover. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Here's the livestream, bro. Atlantis, Cantref Gwaelod, Rungholt, whatever: [9] 158.93.6.11 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb with Hato (see below). Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb with Hato. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why combine? Either post them both, post neither, or post one or the other. Conflating two completely unrelated disasters on opposite sides of the Earth in order to combat systemic bias is a terrible solution, IMO. They both appear to be notable on their own merits, however, so I support posting them both, but separately. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't object to separate blurbs either. Let's just get them both up one way or another.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support first major storm to hit the US in over a decade, Houston inundated with water. Somehow the "low" death toll in the US with it's emergency management, strict building codes, evacuation procedures and storm tracking is what, "not significant"? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually Houston is well known for its lack of strict building codes. That's part of the problem it's facing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose combined blurb. I don't have a strong opinion about whether this should be posted, but if it is it should not be combined with an entirely different event in an entirely different part of the world that coincidentally happened within a few days of this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and combined with Hato blurb, both occurred within the same time and have not been posted yet. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but mention flooding in blurb - This is a significant storm for its significant rainfall and flooding, which I think should be mentioned in the blurb (I proposed and support ALT2). It has already caused significant flooding in the 4th-largest US city (Houston), which has seen 15-25in (38-63cm) of rain in the 72 hours up to 13:00CDT on Sunday ([10]) and where much more rain is still to come...an additional 20+ in (51+ cm) of rain is forecast from 00:00UTC 28 August to 00:00UTC 2 September! That period doesn't begin until Sunday evening, photos/video from the area on Sunday already show significant flooding (see, eg., [11]). Isolated areas around Houston could see rainfall totals of 50+ in (127+ cm). [12] Tropical Storm Allison, which also produced significant rainfall in the same region of Texas, is already the 13th-costliest tropical cyclone in US history and so Harvey, with more rainfall than Allison, will likely be among the costliest tropical cyclones to ever impact the US. AHeneen (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. There has been a recent upsurge in the severity of the storm, as evidenced by slew of supports with no intervening opposes on the merits of this particular storm. The discussion on whether Hato should be posted may continue. -- King of ♠ 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Good decision. The National Weather Service has tweeted "This event is unprecedented & all impacts are unknown & beyond anything experienced. Follow orders from officials to ensure safety. [13] Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My explanation was deleted -- why? Second from the top -- everything I said (and others answered) regarding record-setting interval was deleted, leaving only "Neutral". I had thought this was against WP policy in such discussions, never mind that ITN discussion specifically asks for such explanation. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Some IP removed it [14], no idea why, might have been unintentional editng conflict. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The truly interesting thing is that the bare bones of the vote was retained, but neither the "but" nor the explanation I made and others expanded on which, though I did not feel qualified to opine on myself (I also pay attention to Philippines typhoons etc), I did see as being relevant to the choices made by others. This was not a straight removal. (In passing -- remember how Katrina unfolded? The initial hit was originally celebrated as a non-event. Houston is not below sea level (most of it), but it is essentially still swampland.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - It is fascinating to see comments like "this is not the American Wikipedia" which contain clear bias. I suggest we consider sanctions, such as a topic ban, on those who habitually dispense such bile. Jusdafax 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Cecil AndrusEdit

Article: Cecil Andrus (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, AP via USN.
Nominator: Sca (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Idaho governor (four terms) and U.S. Interior Secretary; noted environmentalist. Sca (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support wavering only on a CN and a few par in the second term as gov'n lacking sources. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    The AP story on his death is available here.Sca (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in addition to the explicit citation needed tag there are several completely unsourced paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Article text is not bad, but I added more inline tags that need to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Some of those [citation needed] tags appear to concern political events that are part of the historical record, and not in question. Sca (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose if they're in historical record, cite them, shouldn't be hard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose governors in the US seem to be largely unheard of outside the state they... well, govern. Many of them only become prominently known if they participate in a presidential campaign. This man, at least in my opinion, is one of those such individuals, which is why I am against posting this. Kirliator (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Kirliator: how well known a person is is irrelevant - anybody who has an article is eligible for recent deaths when they die if their article is good enough. Article quality being too poor is the only reason we didn't post this governor. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Haryana riotsEdit

Article: 2017 Haryana riots (talk, history)
Blurb: Violence has broken out in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh after a popular guru, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, was convicted of rape.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 28 people are killed in riots in Northern India after guru Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is convicted of rape.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian Washington Post
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Shinnosukeandme (talk • give credit) and Rashkeqamar (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top BBC news Sherenk1 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Have added an altblurb. Support in principle (a curfew is in place across Punjab's three largest cities, internet has been cut off, and the army has been deployed) but right now Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh's article has a big neutrality tag on it. I don't know enough about to case to know whether it's appropriate to remove it. If an article is created about the riots, that would be better as a main target. Smurrayinchester 12:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see mention of the conviction, but nothing about these protests in light of that in the target article, which I think is the clear news item rather than the conviction alone. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I will add I think this is definitely ITN material, but we need an article on WP that covers it in fair enough detail to post. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; the current article "buries the lead" as it were; the story is the reaction and protests, and we don't have an article about that, nor do we have extensive coverage of said protests in any article. We need something else for posting if we are going to post this story. --Jayron32 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - 28 people are reportedly killed and army has been called in (Indian Express). - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, needs more updated content. The surprisingly large number of people apparently killed in post-conviction rioting certainly is worth of inclusion on ITN, but right now we don't have an article that really discussed the post-conviction events. Even the coverage of the rape charges seems quite sparse. So, while I think the story is worth covering, I don't think our articles currently provide adequate coverage. Dragons flight (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mfarazbaig has created an article (in the nom). Sherenk1 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant and unusual nature of event. 2607:FEA8:1CE0:3D4:51E:5BE5:9EAE:6C45 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks to Mfarazbaig. Though the new article is short, it touches on everything I can find in RS. GCG (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The article is in decent shape; I'd only add something that points out that Singh was (apparently?) a popular figure, hence while thousands of his supporters gathered and why this turned into a violent protest. Barring that the article is reasonable at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak OpposeThe article is basically a stub with headers. There is no real background on Singh or any indication why his conviction would lead to such violent protests. There are mentions of deaths in the lead, but nothing in the body except that violence erupted. There are some pretty big responses that are dealt with in an offhand way (army deployed, borders sealed etc.) and could probably be elaborated on. Only weak because the incident is definitely notable and the article is not far away from being acceptable. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the top news stories for the threads I read, and is a serious event. It's ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Thryduulf: Please remove the word "guru" from the posted blurb per WP:HON. Thanks! Jim Carter 10:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jim Carter: your ping did not work for some reason so I've only just seen this, but anyway changes to posted blurbs are dealt with at WP:ERRORS not here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

August 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 24

[Posted] Typhoon HatoEdit

Article: Typhoon Hato (2017) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Hato kills at least 18 people during its landfall in southern China.
News source(s): AP
Nominator: 69.166.124.225 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 69.166.124.225 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment we didn't post Noru, Nesat or Banyan, is this particularly notable for the loss of 18 lives in China? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major disruption and significant death toll. -185.17.207.128 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is decent, though I've added a single cn tag that should be addressed. @TRM Given the paucity of quality articles outside the anglosphere, I think we should judge this solely on its merits and not relative to similar events. There are sources calling it the costliest typhoon on record in the area, which seems enough for the main page in addition to the casualties. Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose low death toll, we have had nominations like this before in the past as stated above Like the Rambling Man notes, but none of them pulled through. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose due to the fact that Hurricane Harvey above is more ITN worthy, as well as the low casualties. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Damage is estimated at over $1.6B, and the death toll is over 24. Clearly a major storm. Article is well sourced and fairly complete for what we know now. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Masem makes a compelling argument here and regarding bias in the Hurricane Harvey nomination above. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - as notable as Hurricane Harvey, both should be posted ASAP. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a combined blurb? The main issue with Harvey is the flooding that is going on(and has made it hard to assess hurricane damage) 331dot (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb If you can't beat them, join them, and I agree with a combined blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb they are both noteworthy and this would address the systematic basis issue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in the Hurricane Harvey section above, but keep them separate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose combined blurb. I don't have a strong opinion about whether this should be posted, but if it is it should not be combined with an entirely different event in an entirely different part of the world that coincidentally happened within a few days of this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and combined with Hurricane Harvey above, it would be very interesting if we do this. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it quite concerning that despite greater cost and loss of life, this has yet to be posted, but Harvey just was. This is a perfect example of systemic bias; the fact that Harvey is featured more prominently in the American news does not mean we should ignore global significance. We are a global encyclopedia, which happens to be written in English; or at least we should strive to be. Vanamonde (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    For what it is worth, preliminary estimates suggest Harvey will have a far higher financial cost. I agree though with posting both. Dragons flight (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as separate blurb – Events are entirely unrelated and combining them implies some sort of connection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, though they are both major weather events of the same type at the same time. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
And? Would we combine blurbs if two independent countries held elections at the same time? Or two major sports championships coincided? Combined blurbs should have direct relationships. Similar, but unrelated, events occurring in multiple parts of the world is not a good reason for a combined blurb. Dragons flight (talk)
I don't really wish to debate it further but weather, especially hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, is a global phenomenon not limited to national borders, unlike elections. People reading about one hurricane might be interested in reading about another elsewhere in the world. However, I respect this decision. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that the World Series and the Japan Series have been combined before, but I'm not a big fan of doing that either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Jay ThomasEdit

Article: Jay Thomas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American television star popular in the 80s/90s. Unfortunately, well undersourced and may not be easy to complete all role sourcing in time. MASEM (t) 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor article, lame referencing. If he's such a megastar in US TV, I'm unclear as to why people aren't rushing to fix up the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 South Asian floodsEdit

Article: 2017 South Asian floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2017 South Asian floods affects more than 24 million people in Bangladesh, Nepal and India, takes death toll of around 1000.
News source(s): Aljazeera, AccuWeather, Voice of America, BBC
Nominator and updater: Mar11 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This event is a major consequence of Climate change and Global warmingMar11 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: duplicate nomination. Comments originally posted here have been moved to the more recent section titled "South Asia Floods" (see above).

Right to privacy in IndiaEdit

Article: Fundamental rights in India (talk, history)
Blurb: India's Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to privacy.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article not updated, "Speaking to reporters outside court, lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who represented the petitioners, described the ruling as historic." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This isn't a rewriting of the constitution or anything like that, it's just the courts clarifying that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty extends to the authorities gathering biometric data without consent. There are 200+ countries in the world, and (with the exceptions of a few dictatorships) courts issue constitutional rulings like this all the time. ‑ Iridescent 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. Reading the BBC piece, this seems like a big deal, not just due to the constitutional issue, but the fact that this could result in the undoing of a massive biometric data collection scheme, affecting a billion people (1/7 of this planet's population) as well as leading to greater LGBT rights in India which the court alluded to in its ruling. It certainly is not a rewrite of the Constitution, but often Constitutions are not interpreted in the way they are intended for many years(the US 15th Amendment barring racial discrimination in voting was passed after the Civil War but not really enforced by the courts as a practical matter until the 1960s). I think we could also use more India news as well. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pardon my ignorance, but isn't recognizing a "right to privacy" somewhat late on the sliding scale of recognized human rights (as compared to, say, recognizing gay marriage)?--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a reasonable metric with a smaller country, but India has a good chunk of the Earth's population, meaning this is new ground for many people, even if India is a bit behind the curve in terms of nations doing this. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
More to the point, "good chunk" here means "one out of every six". Quite literally, more than 1/6th of the world's population lives in India. That's a huge proportion of the population for one country. --Jayron32 13:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, but oppose on quality I saw this, and my read is that something that alters the way Indian law (that serves >10% of the worlds population) that affects all facets of the lives is important. Unfortunately, the article is in poor shape, lacking reference throughout, and the section of prime interest "right to privacy" is just a sentence and clearly not updated. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, Oppose on quality per Masem. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, Oppose on quality per Masem. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is it being opposed on quality when classified as a good article? Sometimes cannot understand Wikipedia :) Sherenk1 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It was promoted to GA in 2006, and rechecked in 2007. That's ancient history from a WP stance, and clearly the article has been updated without too much care to check the GA standards. Currently it would quickly fail them. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Specifically, Fundamental_rights_in_India#Right_to_Privacy needs to discuss this court judgement. --LukeSurl t c 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose GA or not, too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Right to Privacy in India was recognized as Fundamental Right in India by the constitutional bench of Supreme Court of India which is like the biggest judiciary thing in India. This should have been on today's news section of Wikipedia. Because Privacy is a rare right which the Indian citizens got from the highest court in India which the government was very reluctant. Also this news could have an impact on the rest of the world too considering privacy these days is increasingly a rare right in rest of the world too. Quality of the individual article should not have come into question considering the big impact of the news itself. because this is NEWS section and not some kind of "featured article" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklal84 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 23

[Posted] RD: Izak Parviz NazarianEdit

Article: Izak Parviz Nazarian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Torok, Ryan (August 24, 2017). "Izak Parviz Nazarian, businessman and philanthropist, dies at 88". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved August 24, 2017.
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iranian-born American billionaire businessman and philanthropist

  • Weak support well referenced and the article seems comprehensive. My support is weak because the "Nazarian was a billionaire." statement, currently a four-word paragraph, should be removed or incorporated somewhere relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I've moved it to the "personal life" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf: Would you like to change it to Strong Support now please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
No, but I have changed it to "support" (not that this is likely to have any practical difference). Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I suppose we need two more votes to go...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least one more. There is no formal requirement for what is sufficient, but I normally look for at least two opinions independent of the nominator (and me). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why everyone else is ignoring this...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither am I. I've added the attention needed tag to see if that brings forth any more comments. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf: Can you please just post it if no one else replies? There's nothing controversial about this nomination. And I am a little hurt that no one else will comment...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted I double checked to make sure the issue Thryduulf pointed out was resolved. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] SEA GamesEdit

Consensus against, as it nearly always is when there is a nomination for ongoing sporting events. BencherliteTalk 10:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Southeast Asian Games (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [15]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The event's already been going on for a few days. Source linked is just the most recent one I found via Google. Banedon (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is excellent: comprehensive, well referenced, good amount of prose text describing the events, up-to-date, etc. I would have no problems showing this as an example of good work on a current event. --Jayron32 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this regional event. I could maybe see posting a blurb at its conclusion. In general I maintain my opposition to posting sports events in progress to Ongoing, as Ongoing was never intended for that. I get this is a multisport event, but this is nothing like the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post content at ITN just because it's in decent shape, we post it if it has sufficient newsworthiness. The ongoing SEA Games does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait and post a blurb at the conclusion. I don't like sporting events in ongoing, there are too many at any one time. Will support blurb when concluded. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose doubt this will even blurb at the conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing per my opposition to all sporting events of lesser significance than the Olympics and Winter Olympics appearing in ongoing. I'm undecided at the moment about whether I would support a blurb on conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quite minor, even in the sporting world. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 22

[Posted] RD: Thomas MeehanEdit

Article: Thomas Meehan (writer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Broadway
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Meehan wrote notable musicals and plays from Annie to The Producers. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Surprisingly short article, but otherwise well sourced for posting. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Everything is referenced, decent start.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Weak oppose for lack of any mention about what he was doing between 1953 when he moved to New York and 1999 when he reflected on his work (other winning an award in 1977 and writing a libretto in 1984, about which there is 12 words in total between them). Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I've expanded the article with adding more information (sourced) as much as I could find. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Support and marking ready. My concerns have been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)--
  • Support I too was concerned about the long career gaps and the lack of information on his personal life, but this has now been addressed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support it reads like a CV but it's all referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being involved as it's been ready well over a day. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wilhelm KillmayerEdit

Article: Wilhelm Killmayer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR and others
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Dorglorg (talk • give credit) and Grimes2 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The German composer, a strong individual personality and influential teacher at the Munich music university, died on 20 August, a day before his 90th birthday (with celebrations on their way), - I believe he deserves an entry in Recent deaths. I began the article in 2011 as a translation from German, and looked at it again just now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. He has an article so he deserves an RD entry, but the Works section is almost entirely uncited. I've added a couple but I realised quickly that someone who knows more about the subject will be able to find sources much easier than I can. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(copied from your talk:) All listed works by Killmayer are published by Schott, where the details can be found: [16], click on Works, click on every individual work, see details and (another click) performances. Do we have to write them all individually? example: [17] - If yes, I simply don't have the time. In 2007, Schott also also printed a list of his works. Much less detailed and not by genre, there's the link GND in authority control, [18], 277 publications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I've replied in detail there, but yes we do need individual citations where a single citation does not cover them all - and the individual works are buried so deeply relative to the cite that they are all published by the same publisher that that does not cover them all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I've found that printed list: List of Published Works. Reliable source? Grimes2 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC) It has a ISMN number (979-0-001-18195-2) and can be downloaded. Grimes2 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If that is a reliable source (I don't know) and verifies everything on the list (I haven't got time to check right now) then that will resolve my objection. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Its a reliable source (Schott Music) but without author. I've verified everything on the list. Grimes2 (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Support now that the referencing seems complete. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Adequately referenced now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being involved as I was updating the template for two very long ready entries anyway and I didn't want this to get stale. I've listed this under the 20th as that the date of death given in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

USS John S. McCainEdit

Article: USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a collision involving the USS John S.MCain and an oil tanker, the United States Navy orders an operational pause for two months.
Alternative blurb: ​10 sailors are missing following a collision involving USS John S.MCain and an oil tanker near the Strait of Malacca.
News source(s): NBC
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Second major incident involving US Navy in past few months. Although to be confirmed appears to be significant loss of life. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Fourth in a year and 2nd in last 2 months. While individually the ships having a prang might not be of interest, the fact its been that many collisions and the loss of life tips it over for me. And clearly for the US Navy too, the 'operational pause' is effectively an all-stop on naval operations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support because this is part of the operations in the SE Asia waters over the last several months (and part of what NK has been sabre-rattling about), the combined effects are ITN worthy. It would be nice if we could get a target article for the current US navy engagement in that area of the world and how that relates, but that seems a bit too vague in scope. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A serious and troubling technical incident for the U.S. Navy, but I don't see much wider significance. Sca (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support That this is the second serious incident with loss of life in two months clears the significance bar for me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not of international significance. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@SamaranEmerald: International significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, it's in the news, no more or less internationally significant than divorce in India, an utterly irrelevant train wreck in India, a knife wielding terrorist in Finland, etc. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Sca's opinion, I personally don't see the impact this will have on the international community. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • An item doesn't necessarily have to have international impact to be ITN worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd consider supporting a single article that covered the impact on the US navy as a whole if there are any systematic failures or something else significant that link the events beyond just involving the US Navy in 2017, but on its own this is just a not particularly significant collision at sea that wouldn't even get nominated if it was any other country's navy (with the possible exception of the UK). Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Who says that this has no international resonance? We have container ships and tankers running all over the world. Many are flying flags of convenience. The dangers are enormous. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I think a major incident with the Earth's largest navy, larger than the next few put together, is of "international significance", which isn't required anyway. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is trivia, has no real impact, who cares other than to note that the US Navy need some driving lessons. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Or until they implement some meaningful ship control laws? Sorry for being pointy but it sprung to mind after some previous comments by... someone. 91.49.72.205 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose low causality count, short-term effects, easy to recover from, this is not ITN worthy. 161.6.7.32 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I saw some coverage of this, but it quickly died away, indicating both a lack of interest and of lasting impact. Yes the US navy did suspend operations for two months, but that's a single-country action. In fact, putting in "John McCain" into a news search yields results on the person as much as the ship, which is not a good sign. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major fatal naval incident with geopolotical implications. -185.17.207.128 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Triple Talaq in IndiaEdit

Article: Triple Talaq in India (talk, history)
Blurb: India's Supreme Court rules the practice of instant divorce in Islam unconstitutional
Alternative blurb: India's Supreme Court rules the practice of instant divorce by some Muslims in India unconstitutional.
Alternative blurb II: India's Supreme Court rules the practice of instant divorce unconstitutional.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: 65.95.136.96 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is not updated, major win for Human Rights and Women Right organizations Sherenk1 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Article updated now by editors. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Supportfortunavelut luna 08:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. Article is adequate, though the grammar is appalling in places. Vanamonde (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above, a significant shift here. Article is okay for posting, but as noted, it could be better in the longer-run. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting and notable change for India. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Big news in a country having one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. 42.109.221.19 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, the current wording (usage of "some") is grammatically confusing. I initially thought, "only some Muslims in India are now eligible for Triple Talaq? Only Triple Talaq in some cases has been declared unconstitutional?" Rigley (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Saying Islam is technically confusing. As there are many different practises of Islam in India. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Can you suggest something better? Also, changes to published blurbs will get a faster response at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    I added the 2 alt blurb. Why not let the reader make a judgment as we already have highlighted and linked Triple Talaq in India article. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Blurb1 is far better than either of the alternate blurbs. India doesn't have unified laws on divorce, with each religion having different law applying to it. It needs to be made apparent this applies to Islam, the triple talaq being an Islamic practice. --Inops (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Inops. The fact that this law is for Islam should be made clear in the blurb. 42.109.128.19 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 21


[Posted] RD: Comrade JoeEdit

Article: James Joseph Dresnok (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: James Joseph Dresnok, who defected to North Korea, has died
News source(s): WaPo, The Guardian
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RD Article is in good shape. Important note: While he died in 2016, the first note of that death came from a single source (NK News) in April 2017, but today everyone is reporting on it, now that that initial report was confirmed. This is one of those IAR cases that this is the right time to note his death despite it being a year prior and having been (barely) noticed before. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD. I agree that this is the correct time to post this death. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale, ho-hum story, man was unimportant militarily and would not merit an article based on his career. The timing of the announcement is highly suspicious, and seems to fit NK's propaganda purposes, not the subject's actual notability. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose more or less per Medeis. While for linguistic and cultural reasons most defectors chose East Europe or the USSR rather than China and NK, defections of Americans to the Communist bloc (either because of a genuine belief in the ideology or, as in this case, to avoid extradition and prosecution) were never particularly uncommon during the Cold War. This is in no way an unusual enough case to warrant invoking IAR to post his death a year after the event. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD This did not meet the qualifications for an RD until 8/21. It's not set in stone, but I think we have a general consensus that the date of first report in RS is used when there is a delay of more than a few days. GCG (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news now, post it now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so I'm confused, is it to be listed as "Comrade Joe" or "James Joseph Dresnok"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being involved as it's been ready for several days already. @The Rambling Man: I've listed it as "James Joseph Dresnok" as (in my memory at least) we normally only pipe blurbs to avoid parenthetical disambiguators and it was linked as "James Joseph Dresnok" in the proposed blurb above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 20

[Closed] Ongoing: Removal of Confederate monuments and memorialsEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Strong oppose This is the continuation of the Unite the Right rally stuff which was just removed, and it is all about internal US politics and ideology debate. Unless we're talking a civil war breaking out, this is inappropriate for ongoing/ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Care to provide a reason why this should not be posted? Or are we only trying to be silly today? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D4EF:2D0E:FF68:CB26 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
We're not a news ticker, we're a curated list of topics that happen to be in the news that have broad appeal. This may be in the news, but it is entirely all about internal US politics and ideological culture war, a high-interest story for the news, but not one that has long-lasting or broad appeal to en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not a reason, that's a rant. I would have thought someone not only opposing, but "strongly opposing" would have some justification, grounded in policy. You might note that the majority of news items we post are internal, domestic, local, whatever you want to call it. At least this one is also widely reported in international news. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:FD26:4474:8597:6C41 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Effectively, this is all summarized in WP:RECENTISM; while the statue removal and other fallout from last week are news items, what the long term effects are on the world picture are unclear and, at least based on other similar issues, unlikely to be a major issue worldwide a year or more from now. It's hot news-wise because it is a controversial topic that draws viewers and readers for news but as an encyclopedic topic, it is unclear of its importance in the big picture. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost trivial internal politics with no impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting these local internal issues. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the statues of various traitors get torn down. Not the most pressing issue of our time.--86.175.145.81 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – These local statue issues are likely to continue sporadically for a long time, due in part to legal processes, in part to deciding what to do with the statues. (In Lexington, Ky., for example, removal of two statues must be okayed by the Kentucky Military Heritage Commission.) Sca (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – I find it both amusing and annoying that people are still getting all defensive and condescending about the Confederacy and anything pertaining to it. As Masem and The Rambling Man put it, this is just a continuation of a nomination that was removed and has basically no long term impact. The war has been over for more than 150 years people, get over it. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
To quote Pogo, "There's no cause like a lost cause." Sca (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The removal is all over the news. She's not trying to defend anything. There is a long-term impact: those statues will no longer be there. Whatever reason they are being removed for (social cohesion, homeland security, or cynical rebranding/marketing) does not mean this is not significant (though perhaps parochial).Zigzig20s (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Monuments in public space tend to be controversial topic around the world. For example in my country there is currently debate about Marian column at the Old Town Square. This issue is deeply connected to European Civil War. Also there are currently seismic changes in public space in Ukraine, which should be also reflected if we decide to cover american struggle. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not "oppose an item because the event is 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.". Anyway, the article is little more than a list, and this item will be "ongoing" for a long time. Good faith nom, save it for the next time some Trump supporting Nazis murder an innocent woman. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That's terrible, and ahistorical (I've nominated The Jewish Confederates for DYK; the monuments have nothing to do with the protesters, although no one in the media [reliable third-party sources] seems to care about history, you're right.). But thanks for admitting I'm in good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2017 Solheim CupEdit

Article: 2017 Solheim Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In women's golf, the United States win the Solheim Cup.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: We post Ryder Cup as ITNR, this is the women's equivalent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems to suffer a lack of refs. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aside from the problematic lack of references CosmicAdventure notes above, the article is also incomplete. There's no prose description of the events of Day 3 (Day 1 & Day 2 are light, but at least minimally acceptable). --Jayron32 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've added several references to the article already and will add more later tonight, along with a summary of the singles matches. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've added more refs and a prose summary of the singles session. Let me know if you think more is needed, as I can always find something else to write about. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support match summaries and refs look good to me. Jayron32? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    Looks fine now. --Jayron32 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 19:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jerry LewisEdit

Article: Jerry Lewis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

  • Oppose Far too little referencing. This would be a case of potentially a blurb as he had international fame, unfortunately the sourcing has a long way to go to get there, and I would only argue for a RD. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Switching to general Support , referencing has been significantly improved from this initial !vote. There is still about 4 para in "Going Solo" section that could use sources but I'm reading them and only see statements "He started in (blue-linked work)" which I don't see as controversial statements, and in the sake of timeliness, are reasonably fine. Key was that sections like personal life and awards were sourced, and the sourcing is definitely now in the right direction. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Once the sourcing improves a bit. It's not far off. I'd resist a blurb at this point. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Light on references in a few places. Aiken D 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Given his degree of fame it looks ridiculous for Wikipedia not to list him as a RD regardless of how the article looks. (Same for Dick Gregory IMO.) Otherwise the heading on the main page should be changed to "Recent deaths where the person's article is good enough", or something like that. Lewis is also notable enough for a blurb if the article is improved. Neutron (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a reminder that any person who recently died and has an article on Wikipedia is deemed notable enough to be posted. For RD purposes, Jerry Lewis is no different from anyone in the Deaths of 2017 article. The focus here is quality of the article, and a basically decent article should be referenced throughout and should ideally have no citation tags as Jerry's article does. I strongly agree he should be in RD and probably have a blurb given his influence in comedy and the American film industry, but for RD all issues must be addressed first. κατάσταση 01:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand what the current policy is. The problem is that most readers of Wikipedia do not know what the policy is. They just see "Recent Deaths" and expect to see the names of famous people who have recently died. There is nothing there to indicate that the criteria for inclusion are anything other than fame and recent death; and specifically at the moment, nothing to explain why Dick Gregory (who died before Jerry Lewis, who is listed) is not listed, and from the looks of things may never be. Neutron (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Neutron. It's ridiculous. nGamaliel (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 00:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Colin MeadsEdit

Article: Colin Meads (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: New Zealand rugby player Colin Meads (pictured) dies at the age of 81.
News source(s): [19][20][21]
Nominator: Aircorn (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: If there is a rugby player that deserves a blurb then it is Colin Meads. Article will needs some work though. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - One of the most recognized names in rugby.--Stemoc 07:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is lacking in reference, and I'm not seeing this as a blurb in any case, Jonah Lomu was blurbed I think because of the untimely nature of his death plus his super notability as arguably the best player ever, I don't think those parameters apply here. Would consider RD once article is fixed up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Lomu didn't end up blurbed, but had some support. Lomu had a large global presence and was a freak on attack, but he was not even the best winger (too many defensive issues). Even taking into account the futility of comparing different eras, most in the know would have Meads up there as the best ever (McCaw would give him a run though). AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - no brainer, household name, world famous. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- References looks adequate now. As for whether he should have a blurb, I'll quote Lindsay Knight: "As a sporting legend Meads is New Zealand's equivalent of Australia's Sir Donald Bradman or the United States of America's Babe Ruth."[22] These things are always a bit subjective, but I think most New Zealanders would probably agree with that statement. -- Shudde talk 17:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. An interesting person, but nowhere near the world-changing influence or major implications required for a blurb. Exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD can't speak to blurb, but I would ask if there are tables of stats for Rugby players for lifetime stats or the like. I don't know. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There doesn't seem to be to be as much focus on individual stats in rugby as in some other team sports, but there could certainly be a list of his international tries, and a table of his points scored against the other test nations he faced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Nowdays you can get all sorts of info for a player (tackles made, run meters gained, kicks in play etc), but there is not much beyond games played and points scored for players in Meads generation[23] Points scored is meaningless really as the point system has changed so much since he played and in some positions (including lock) you are not selected to score points. For example Owen Franks has played 95 tests for the All Blacks and has not got a single point for them. Also games played can't really be compared to modern payers as they just didn't play the number of tests they do now. He was a constant selection for the All Blacks for 14 years yet played only 55 tests, whereas Richie McCaw played the same number of years, but featured in nearly three times the tests. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Died at 81 because of Cancer. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article should be up to scratch for at least a recent deaths post now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've just tagged three missing citations (and the second location may require two separate cites). No opinion regarding blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: fixed the citations. What do you mean by second location? AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Aircorn: sorry that wasn't well phrased. I meant that the the second citation needed tag (from the top) that I added may require multiple citations to resolve. I'm happy to support now though as it has been resolved. I'm still neutral about a blurb though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD as referencing is now fixed. Oppose a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD and oppose blurb as it fails the Mandela/Bowie test. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD despite being involved as it's been ready over a day. I'm not seeing consensus for a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 19

Venezuelan parliament stripped of powerEdit

Articles: National Assembly (Venezuela) (talk, history) and 2017 Constituent National Assembly (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Venezuela, the Constituent Assembly strips the National Assembly of its legislative powers
News source(s): Guardian Washington Post
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: The elected parliament of Venezuela (the National Assembly) has just had its power to makes laws taken away. The rival Constituent Assembly, which is nominally supposed to be writing a new constitution, has almost unlimited legal authority and has ruled that the National Assembly is no longer entitled to legislate. The National Assembly has a majority of parties opposed to President Maduro, so he set up the new Constituent Assembly which is entirely filled with his supporters and seems to be setting itself up as an alternative parliament. We've discussed featuring the ongoing crises in Venezuela at various points, including the election of the Constituent Assembly, but consensus was that it should wait until constitutional changes were enacted. I was expecting that to be a new constitution, but stripping the national parliament of essentially all its powers seems to qualify. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Stripping the national parliament of essentially all its powers is obviously newsworthy. Thue (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I would recommend the blurb be clear that this is effectively stripping the elected representives of power and/or this effectively puts the gov't under Maduro's full control (if we can), to be clear why this is important. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because there are several unreferenced sections in the target article. Maybe if the opposition hadn't boycotted the special election they'd have a seat at the table. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    Fair point; unfortunately those sections are beyond my expertise (and Spanish language skills) to fix. 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis is much better, but seems to exclusively focus on the March-April supreme court events. Perhaps we could add a section there? Modest Genius talk 12:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    @CosmicAdventure: Most of the candidates of the election were going to be chosen by current governors and mayors, and since the government has delayed the regional elections because of the low popularity the ruling party still owns most of the states and municipalities, meaning that regardless of how many people voted for the opposition the PSUV would still have won around two thirds of the Assembly, being the reason why the opposition boycotted the election. More details here.--Jamez42 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I see references in all sections, I think the view or confusion above comes from the mix of two styles: footnotes as one style and source listed fully inline at the start of a section (e.g. "Under its previous 1961 Constitution") as the other style. Narayanese (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance but Oppose on quality the "structure and powers" section is completely unreferenced (I've tagged it as such) and there are others with unreferenced paragraphs (not tagged). Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment A question, not a complaint: why are the editors here not expressing NPOV concerns with these pro-Moduro actions? The free world has refused to acknowledge the ANC, it is a one party body, and the opposition National Assembly has refused to acknowledge it's power. To say that the ANC has stripped the National Assembly of its power implies that it can, which seems to be in dispute. GCG (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The National Assembly has long been stripped of its de facto legislative powers by the Supreme Tribunal, which has blocked several of the laws approved by the Assembly. The Constituent Assembly assuming its powers is just another proof of that. While I would have liked the news posted when the Assembly was elected and I think the blurb should clarify this situation in some way, Venezuela has needed an ITN article for quite some time now . --Jamez42 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Brian AldissEdit

Stale. SpencerT♦C 00:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brian Aldiss (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Briald (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: science fiction author Briald (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Leading figure in his field. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's nothing to do with his being a leading figure, the article is sorely under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A major figure in his field with articles in over thirty language versions of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks Colonel, funniest thing I read all day. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Importance is not particularly relevant. Article is still under referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Dick GregoryEdit

Stale. SpencerT♦C 00:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dick Gregory (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Funcrunch (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable activist and entertainer. Aware the article is undergoing cleanup currently. Funcrunch (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Aiken D 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious candidate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not at all, too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose He did lot of groundbreaking and controversial stuff, consequently the article makes a number of claims that need referencing. If he'd led a dull and unremarkable life we'd probably be able to get this up quicker. That's just the way of these things unfortunately.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until unreferenced material is fixed w/ reliable citations. Pawnkingthree's comment above is "on point." Gregory's was a dynamic and multifarious life and career, and he was consistently iconoclastic during every phase of it. I hope it gets the necessary attention quickly enough to allow posting. But unfortunately...(sigh)... - Christian Roess (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (from OP) I've asked for some help with sourcing. Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As he was a major figure in the civil rights era, it looks really bad that he's not listed when white comedians of the same era like Jerry Lewis and Bruce Forsyth are. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready. Suitably referenced now. SpencerT♦C 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Unmarking. Discography, books and filmography are still in need of references. All RDs are held to the same referencing standard, whatever their nationality or skin colour. BencherliteTalk 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terence CrawfordEdit

Article: Terence Crawford (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In boxing, Terence Crawford defeats Julius Indongo to became first fighter since 2004 to unify the titles of all four major sanctioning bodies—the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO.
News source(s): ESPN

Nominator's comments: Probably more buzz will be created next week, though... 61.245.26.5 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support don't see any reason not to. Banedon (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis (CA-35)Edit

Article: USS Indianapolis (CA-35) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreck of USS Indianapolis (CA-35) was discovered in Philippine Sea by the expedition crew of Paul Allen.
News source(s): (CNN), (Fox news), (ABC news), (BBC News)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: "Her sinking led to the greatest single loss of life at sea in the history of the U.S. Navy. On 30 July 1945, after a high-speed trip to deliver parts for Little Boy, the first atomic bomb used in combat, to the United States air base at Tinian..." This ship made world history. Jenda H. (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - don't see the global significance behind this. After all, if the wreckage were really interesting, it ought to have been found long ago (compare the MH370 search, which was of much wider scale). Banedon (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Erm. A few quibbles. First, at the time Indianapolis sank, the technology needed to find it didn't exist. Second, that line of thinking would have us not post Titanic if it was found today... Third, people have been searching for the wreck for years—but it's in the middle of the ocean, and this discovery shows that it's been located three miles (4,800 m) underneath the ocean, and on the side of an underwater mountain. Not exactly easy to find. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Right, the logic doesn't hold here - a military ship sunk during wartime cannot be compared to a modern commercial airliner. Trying to draw a parrallel in terms of "time to find" makes no sense. No one in search, rescue or recovery would ever make this comparision. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but it indicates that the wreck could've been found long ago, just the will to do so wasn't there. However if that's the case, then this wouldn't be very significant, would it? I'm not convinced. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm with Banedon, while the backstory of the ship is interesting (and tragic), the rediscovery of the ship has virtually no real national nor international significance. Now if this was the RMS Titanic or the RMS Lusitania (both of which had international significance), then this would be ITN worthy. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per past precedent with French battleship Danton. International significance thanks to the connection with the atomic bomb. Finding ships like this in the middle of the ocean only very rarely happens. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant maritime and historical discovery. As indicated, this has been hunted for a long time. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the significance here. It's interesting, would be fine at DYK, but only of mild local interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A truly significant discovery and the climax to a decades long search. Also the kind of thing people love reading about. GWA88 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Major discovery, nice article, "in the news", international significance based on the ship's role in WWII. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support – When I was in high school I read one of those WWII paperbacks about this tragic incident, so I found the news interesting, but I'm not sure how many general readers would. (The atomic bomb aspect doesn't really play much of a role in the shipwreck story.) OTOH, agree with GWA88 that people find stories of sunken, submerged, buried, frozen, secreted things in general very intriguing. Sca (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support because of its role in the eventual conclusion of WWII, and that it is the United States's worst maritime disaster. Also the length its whereabouts has remained a mystery. I saw a documentary about this a couple of years ago so the news was of interest to me too. Oh, and here's an international source as well. (BBC News) This is Paul (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - several unreferenced or underreferrenced sections. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - with the sourcing improved a bit. Rises to significicance because of the "greatest single loss of life at sea in the history of the U.S. Navy." -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Textbook example of some news of "encyclopedic value." --bender235 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most significant sinkings of all time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - The whole 'World War II' section cites only two references. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - reported on BBC Radio News and yes, "the greatest single loss of life at sea in the history of the U.S. Navy." But the sinking was news 72 years ago. This is just the relocating. It's not as if it's ever moved. By coincidence, the US Navy seems to be suffering a spate of collisions at the moment, and the latest one may be far more newsworthy than this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
At least in the U.S., this episode was notable not only for its 880 casualties, but also for the controversial court-martial of the ship's commander, Charles B. McVay, who was convicted of negligence. Although the verdict was soon quashed, McVay committed suicide 23 years later, reportedly tortured by guilt over the sinking. A very compelling story. Sca (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning. The news is about discovery of wreck not about sinking. The story about sinking of USS Indianapolis is widely known with many mentions in popular culture (Jaws, Simpsons ect...) Clearly entrenched in amrican psyche. Plus it is still in the news.--Jenda H. (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I realize the news is finding the wreck. My point is that it's the wreck of a historically notable ship. Presumably, quite a few readers could be expected to look up the relevant articles. Sca (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Jenda H., I too realize that the news here is the finding of the wreck. Essentially what I'm saying is - we don't have a new article called Discovery of the wreck of USS Indianapolis (CA-35). I think it's a similar point to the 'Titanic argument', above. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not all recovery of wrecks require a new article on their discovery and recovery, eg USS Monitor has the recovery as part of the article the ship. The Titanic is a vastly different case as one of the largest civilian maritime disasters, and it's recovery having a separate article makes a lot of sense in lieu of public conscious on this. This lacks that same public consciousness, but it still is a significant find and closes the book on the fate of the vessel, but it likely doesn't need a full article about its recovery. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. And I'm still a bit borderline on this. It's just that most of the newsworthiness is based on an event that happened 72 years ago. Undersea search technology moves on - interesting in its own right. I guess. But no-one has died in this incident. And even the exact site is being kept a secret. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – I watched an episode of Mysteries at the Museum that discussed about this shipwreck, did you guys know President John F. Kennedy was among the crew members? However my support for this is a bit low, while this was "the greatest single loss of life at sea in the history of the U.S. Navy.", I really don't see how this has any International and/or long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hornetzilla78: I think you are confusing the Indianapolis with the PT-109. JFK's article does not indicate any service on the Indianapolis at all, let alone when it was sunk. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: Hey you're right, probably got a little carried away, however, I could've sworn I saw an episode of that exact show pertaining to the USS Indianapolis's wreck, I'm not kidding. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article is not updated sufficiently. For example, they say that they found it, but not where, so that the coordinates in the article are now incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 16:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The location where they found it appears to be classified information (likely to prevent entities with other interests of trying to salvage the ship before an authorized agency can do so) so it unlikely the coordinates will be known for some time. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, the article also doesn't say how the wreck was discovered. So with only a one sentence update with very little information in it, this shouldn't be featured on the Main Page. Abductive (reasoning) 03:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 • Historical footnote: Mochitsura Hashimoto, commander of I-58, the Japanese submarine that sank the Indianapolis, "lost his entire family in the Little Boy atomic bombing of Hiroshima days after the sinking of Indianapolis." Bizarre.... – Sca (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Further historical footnote: quite a lot of folks "lost their entire family" in that one, I think. Hashimoto was lucky enough to be safely aboard I-58. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There's still a touch of irony to it, though. Sca (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Total solar eclipse (for posting after 17:15UTC, 21 August)Edit

Article: Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A total solar eclipse crosses (animated path pictured) the contiguous United States, while a partial eclipse is visible across much of the Americas.
Alternative blurb: A total solar eclipse (animated path pictured) crosses the contiguous United States for the first time since 1918.
Alternative blurb II: A total solar eclipse (animated path pictured) is visible in the contiguous United States for the first time since 1979.
Alternative blurb III: A solar eclipse (animated path pictured) is visible across much of the Americas, with a path of totality across the contiguous United States.
News source(s): NASA FAQs (eclipse happening 21 August; last total solar eclipse visible in CONUS was 1979), Phys.org (last total solar eclipse to cross CONUS was 1918)
Nominator: AHeneen (talk • give credit)
Updater: Sbmeirow (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Kencf0618 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Total solar eclipses are on the list of recurring ITN events, so the only notability is not a consideration, only article quality and content of the blurb. The total solar eclipse begins at 16:48UTC, but does not reach the US west coast until 17:15UTC. Here are blurbs from past solar eclipses:

Blurbs from past total eclipses

Looking at the last 500 edits, Sbmeirow & Kencf0618 seem to have edited the article most, but there may be others that deserve credit for updating the article. This early nomination allows 48 hours to discuss the blurb & article quality before the eclipse begins. AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Sure. pbp 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A very significant event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment: Why wait until it is happening? It's been all over the news the past few days (warning people not to stare at the sun). - Floydian τ ¢ 02:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#On_the_pending_solar_eclipse. Consensus seems to be to wait until the event begins. Modest Genius talk 14:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I think we can post as soon as it starts, without waiting for landfall. After all, all total solar eclipses are in scope for ITN/R, even those that never make landfall. -- King of ♠ 03:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support posting sooner rather than later; this is in the news now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support some form of blurb. ITNR. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – But can someone please send me a pair of eclipse-viewing glasses? All sold out around here. Sca (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I just dropped a pair in the mail for you. They should be there by Tuesday. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Bong. Do you by chance have Mr. Peabody's phone number? Sca (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is fine for posting, withexpectations of more free images of the various events to come after the fact. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - Consensus on the talk page is to put it up prior to the eclipse hitting the West coast of the United States. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove "Unite the Right" Rally from OngoingEdit

Article: Unite the Right rally (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Masem (talk)

Nominator's comments: When it was dropped off due to other noms, User:Spencer moved the Unite the Right rally stuff to ongoing. I disagree this is appropriate. While there is continued fallout to it, it is now entirely within political and jounralistic circles, which is going to have relatively long term effects once these discussions settle out. But there's no "event" that is really going on otherwise, making this very much inappropriate for an ongoing blurb; the initial car ramming attack was the news item. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove - last week's news. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Earlier today, there was a similar rally in Boston. While it was not as violent as Charlottesville, it echoed similar themes. The fallout from Charlottesville is very much still ongoing, though we may want to link to a different article than the Unite the Right rally. pbp 19:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The reason Charlottesville was not due to a rally but due to a serious apparent vehicle attack. There's a much long tail story on identity politics that is going around but that's not the type of coverage we have for ITN. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove local news now, at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed. Since it was not added with consensus, I feel the weak consensus here is sufficient to support removal. -- King of ♠ 22:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - this remains in the news. It's overshadowed now by the Barcelona attacks, but it's still there. We even see articles like "The history of white supremacy in America" going into the background of the rally. That's indicative of general interest. It's not like the article is no longer being updated either. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • But that's not the event. The attack and its immediate aftermath lasted a couple days. The debate and fallout about dealing with white supremacy is very much a separate issue that is not going to be resolved in a week or so. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • These articles are written because of the rally. They indicate ongoing interest. If nobody read these articles, it would show up on the page views, and no further articles would be written. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • In this age of Trump vs the media, nearly anything like this is going to generate articles that last for weeks (which arguably we should be holding off a bit per RECENTISM). The event that made this ITN is well and over with outside of the trial, so it fails the need to be in ongoing, and what's left is just basically the current national debate between hate speech and free speech, and Trump's political positions relative to this. Which is not news. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Masem sounds like Trump himself. No news, fake news, sad. Indeed. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
            • There's plenty of news, but ITN is not a news ticker and we're more curated to highlight news events of much wider interest than national debates. All the fallout politically from Charlottevilles is news, but not the type that meets ITN's principles. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
              • Didn't about the ITN principle that national debates cannot be posted. I couldn't find it, only " oppose an item because the event is 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." 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:94E6:39F4:B396:E22F (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Khatauli train derailmentEdit

Article: 2017 Khatauli train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 23 people die and over 120 are injured in a train accident in Khatauli, India.
News source(s): Indian Express Reuters Al Jazeera BBC CNN
Nominator: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article needs to be created as more updates come in. A significant no. of casualties. Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Closed until an article is written. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've created a stub. --LukeSurl t c 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Article is too short (just two sentences). AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - article has been bashed into shape. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on significance - of course any loss of life is tragic but as the article itself says, "in India train crashes are common." Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose seeing only the thinnest coverage for this at Bing, no mention at Google (unless you intentionally search). Fails my "in the news test". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Major disaster with high death toll. Article looks good. -217.5.181.190 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Arrest of Turkish-German writer Doğan Akhanlı in SpainEdit

Moot, released. Stephen 00:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Doğan Akhanlı (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German citizen Doğan Akhanlı of Turkish descent (a former politician prisoner of Turkey) was arrested today in Granada on request of Turkish authorities
News source(s): Die Zeit Tagesschau BBC
Nominator: Meister und Margarita (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article has been created, will be updated when further news come in --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on significance. After all, it's just one person who's not a national icon or anything. If it leads to a diplomatic crisis involving governments, then maybe. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. It already has become a crisis, German foreign minister Gabriel intervened. [30].--Meister und Margarita (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Has been set free. [31] Information came from his lawyer Ilias Uyar.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – He's been released.Sca (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just as a note, while he is not in custody anymore, he is still prohibited from leaving spain pending an extradition hearing for an alleged involvement in a 1989 murder/robbery of which he has previously been found not guilty of by a turkish court. Another chapter in the ever increasing vitriol and tension between turkey and germany. But as of now, i agree that it does not merrit posting but has some interesting angles to it that may make some consequences of it blurb worthy in the future. But that is of course crystal balling. 91.49.84.163 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Update. Yesterday German chancellor Angela Merkel sharply criticized the extradition warrant and "warned Turkey against misusing Interpol to go after its critics." This statement made headlines all over Europe.[32], [33], [34]. The writer himself accused Turkey that they want so silence him forever. [35].--Meister und Margarita (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Merkel actually taking a stand on something and not sending her lackeys forward is almost blurb worthy in itself :P 91.49.78.66 (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 18

[Posted RD] Bruce ForsythEdit

Article: Bruce Forsyth (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British entertainer Bruce Forsyth (pictured) dies at the age of 89.
News source(s): (BBC)

Certainly RD-worthy, but the impact Brucie has had on British television over his 70-year career cannot be overstated, so I'm neutral on the question of blurb/RD. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support blurb - Ranks up there with Christopher Lee in terms of acting portfolio, if not higher. That said, I am aware he's not a Mandela or Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    What?! Forsyth didn't star in any major films - he was primarily a TV presenter. Jim Michael (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only UK national treasure, but did not generally perform in media with large international reach. --LukeSurl t c 15:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - highly rated entertainer with a very long career. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until all sections are fully referenced. Sad news though. Aiken D 15:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support of blurb though, if/when the article is ready, per Thryduulf. Other than Attenborough, I can't think of any other male UK television presenter with his significance. Aiken D 16:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb While undoubtedly a popular figure I am not convinced he actually did anything blurb-worthy, except possibly his long career (which I don't think in itself is enough for a blurb). He was old and has been ill for some time now, so his death was not unexpected. EternalNomad (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality per Aiken drum. very weak support blurb, top of his field (and that field, UK television presenters, is not a small one) for decades and world record holder for longest career but not transformative in any real way and no great impact outside his field. Not as significant as David Attenborough (who I will definitely support for a blurb when that sad time comes) but more significant than any other still-living UK TV presenter and so just over the bar, close call though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - too many unsourced sections to the article, which needs quite a bit of work. He is a national treasure in the UK and after Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall is actually one of the few from the "golden age" of 60s / 70s British television to survive into the 2010s in active service and with his reputation fully intact. That kind of counts for something. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - a legend, the kind of person whose death should be posted as blurb. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Not at all the kind of death-related news coverage that deserves a blurb. This ain't Mandela or Bowie. Speaking as an American, I've never heard of him. He has no global reach. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb once the article is tidied up. A well-known personality, but nowhere near the level required for a blurb. This is exactly what RD was implemented for. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb - His death wasn't entirely unexpected or unusual for someone of his age. As for his notability, he clearly passes the RD check by a good margin, and this in my mind would be sufficient. A blurb isn't supposed to be a "next level tribute" - at least I have been led to believe this is the case...--86.175.145.81 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • A blurb is warranted when the news coverage of the death exceeds a mere obituary or two. Sort of like the level of public mourning we experienced with Nelson Mandela, David Bowie, Carrie Fisher, etc. This doesn't have that level of coverage. This seems likely to be similar to the eventual death of Bob Barker. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      • You are very probably right, but it's only 2 and a half hours since the announcement? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC) ... although comparing Barker to Forsyth would be a bit like comparing Dairylea slices to real cheese.
  • Oppose Blurb opinions on "importance" are utterly irrelevant we killed that silly criteria. Quoting WP:ITN/DC "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link" -- that applies here. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on blurb vs RD but well done on the selective quoting there. "In general, if ... ." and "If the ... newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." -- KTC (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that wasn't intentional, and you're right, the directions do state the same. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb – I've spent the last couple of hours updating and sourcing the article. There are a few cites needed, especially in the Tributes and honours section, if anyone has a spare moment. – JuneGloom07 Talk 19:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support both A British National Treasure and hosted a number of international programmes too. AS for the issue of the blurb, his death is the main news story on the BBC at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb - Old guy died an uncontroversial death. Not a world transforming leader in any field whatsoever. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD on improvements, oppose blurb Article still needs improvements on sourcing. I recognize the name and realize he's a household name for UKians, but I think there's an overstatement of his acting career here. This is rather short article for something who some are saying is a significant career. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Him dying isn't a significant event. HampsteadLord (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment was planning to post this, but I find that the "theatre" section is still entirely unsourced, and some entries in the television career section as well. Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak blurb support but strong and favorably support RD I can't see unsourced info or CN tags now (I am kind of oblivious to the obvious) but from what I see the article is seems to be okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Does not seem IMO to meet the typical criteria for death blurbs; agree with HampsteadLord above. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question So to the users who are opposed to the blurb, do you support a RD tag? Just need clarification. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Support for RD on the merits is not required; once the article gets a quality update, it can be posted to RD. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Forsyth was a television celebrity known pretty much exclusively in the UK. We have readers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, the United States, Pakistan and many, many more. We are an international encylopedia. His death is not globally significant news suitable for the main page. AusLondonder (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    But I'm guessing it was widely reported, for example, in Australia? e.g. [36] etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@AusLondoner: (ec) While I oppose a blurb here, please note above; "Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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." Global significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. The issue is whether he was a world transforming figure in his field or his death is so newsworthy that it is an event itself, neither of which is the case here. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready, will let posting admin decide whether it is blurbworthy or not. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD A lot of work has gone into the referencing - looks ready now. Much as I love Brucie I don't think he's quite blurb-worthy.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted RD, no objection to another admin posting or not posting blurb. -- KTC (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Turku attackEdit

Article: 2017 Turku attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ten people are stabbed, at least two fatally, in a knife attack in Turku, Finland
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: Thryduulf (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is still breaking news, and the article is a long way from ready, but from what is already confirmed it's clear this is a very significant attack in a country that does not have a history of violent attacks (terrorist or otherwise, the motive is not yet known). Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait, but likely support I think we should wait for more details to come out, but if this was a terrorist attack, which indicators suggest, I would support. The casualty count is not impressive but terrorist attacks are extremely rare in Finland. EternalNomad (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as there is no confirmation yet that it is a terrorist attack. The article is also too short to post, and the sourcing is poor, with Fox News and The Sun being used as references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: "At 19:00 local time, the police held a press conference where they told they are not investigating the incident as a terrorist attack." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      • That's what several journalists in Twitter tweeted, but actually the interior ministry statement does not say that. Literal translation: "At the moment the police doesn't investigate this as terrorism. The investigation will be moved to the National Bureau of Investigation" [37] So it isn't known whether the bureau will investigate it as terrorism, they will probably accounce it tomorrow morning. Seems like a lot of journalists have reading comprehension issues. As for whether it should be posted, it's big in Finland because it's the first incident of this kind (apparently the perpetrator was a refugee denied asylum status), but with just 2 deaths and 8 injuries, it's might be part and parcel of living in Europe, as they say. --Pudeo (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Many thaks for clarifying. I can blame my own "reading comprehension issues" on the poor power of GoogleTranslate for Finnish. I'm not sure about professional international journalists. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment: "On 19 August the police announced that the arrested suspect was an 18-year-old Moroccan man, and that the case was being treated as terrorism." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for link to Wikinews, and expand the article there. The 'in the news' section does not mean we have to make newsarticles on Wikipedia. It's intended to highlight topics that are hot at the moment and associated with news facts. Major attacks like Barcelona may be on the front page, but where is the limit? --Livenws (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Latest in the ongoing series of terrorist attacks. Alternative might be to include with the Barcelona attacks. Boreas74 You'll catch more flies with honey 15:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis of being the first terror attack in Finland. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - has been in every BBC radio news bulletin I've heard today. And, as User:AmaryllisGardener points out above, very significant for Finland. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd say that the article, although small, is now much improved and is well written. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Now appears to be terror-related and article is much improved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it reflects rather poorly on Wikipedia when it includes a news event that only killed two people. Is the warrant for inclusion of any event, no matter how minor or inconsequential, simply that it must be related to terrorism? If these two fatalities had been caused by a pikachu cosplayer would it have warranted inclusion? If the media is going batshit crazy over terrorism doesn't mean we need to follow suit. 49.255.234.154 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It was not a minor and inconsequential event in Finland; it was the first terrorist attack in the country since WWII. That is what makes it significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that pikachu cosplay is likely to be have been far more prevalent in Finland than terrorism. So probably not. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 17

[Posted] RD: Mohamed Refaat El-SaeedEdit

Article: Mohamed Refaat El-Saeed (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [38], [39]
Nominator: Soman (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Soman (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support now I've updated the tense. The article isn't an example of the greatest writing on Wikipedia, but it covers the important periods of his life and is all sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stub Sherenk1 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sherenk1: What more information do you want? The article is short but not really what I'd call a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know how much the article has changed since Sherenk looked at it but it's not a stub. There's enough there to post this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Barcelona attackEdit

Article: 2017 Barcelona attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A van drove into pedestrians in Barcelona, Spain, killing 13 and injuring 50.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: El cid, el campeador (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Emijrp (talk • give credit) and Rossbawse (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Story developing. Article still at very early stage. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait until it is clear what has happened. This is going to be a significant event if the early reports are correct, but everything is still very confused and we did nobody any favours by posting this before there is some certainty ' we are writing an encyclopaedia not a news website. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There are inevitably things reported in the immediate aftermath of events such as this that turn out to be inaccurate. We must prioritise accuracy over speed, and this likely means waiting at least a few hours until a clearer picture of events appears in reliable sources. --LukeSurl t c 16:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Spain has been relatively free of terrorism in the 2010s and this was on the main avenue in its most visited city Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait A terror attack in Barcelona with deaths and multiple injuries, if that is what it turns out to be, will easily be significant enough for ITN, but it's way too early to post yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Local authorities are now calling it a terrorist attack and The Guardian is reporting 13 dead. Article is in no condition for the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Another tragic vehicular attack in Europe ... we shouldn't let how routine this has become, or Europes unwillingenss to implement vehicle control laws distract from the fact that this story is making international headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: the article is still terse but contains a number of relevant facts (which is good for us), and has even started the usual dance of the "international reactions" little flags (which is arguably less good but at least typical). It is fit for inclusion, and the subject itself also is without a doubt. LjL (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and proposed blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as the death toll is looking to be at 13 at least. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, with some adjustments to the blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support and appreciating the fact there was caution to wait until details firmed up before posting. Definitely ITN given the manner of the attack. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Obviously it would be great if we could find a Barcelona photo to replace the Charlottesville pic. Sca (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if we should update the blurb to include what seems to be a related incident where police killed five attackers with suicide belts, which the police say is related to the van incident. [40]
  • Comment Suggest adding seperate attack in Cambrils to blurb e.g.In two separate attacks 14 people are killed and over 100 are injured in Catalonia. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Suggestions for updating an existing blurb will get a better & faster response at WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius talk 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: pbp 19:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Hong Kong democracy activists jailedEdit

Article: 2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Hong Kong court sentences three prominent pro-democracy activists to jail.
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, Deutsche Welle, CNN, TIME, Washington Post, etc
Nominator and updater: Citobun (talk • give credit)

 Citobun (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Nominator's comment: This is a watershed event in Hong Kong that has received a lot of international coverage. Joshua Wong is one of the pro-democracy movement's most internationally-known figures. The three jailed activists have been cited by many human rights groups as Hong Kong's first political prisoners. After almost six hours of writing I need a break. Will expand further tomorrow, but I think the article is sufficiently comprehensive already. Citobun (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom: this has been treated as a significant story in international media, and the article is in good shape. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, important development in the Hong Kong democracy protests. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a very significant event in the history of Hong Kong, and the article is well written and well referenced. Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this well written article which I think will be of interest to our readers. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Couldn't we have at least named them? (ie. A Hong Kong court sentences Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow to jail.) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 22:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Brightgalrs: Blurbs are a limited length, and as they are not household names the context of their being democracy advocates/political prisoners is required. That said ITN is rather short at the moment so the length could be accommodated. Changes to published blurbs are best discussed at WP:ERRORS though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay so how about "A Hong Kong court sentences democracy activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow to jail." 76 vs 95 chars. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 16

August 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 15

August 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 14

[Posted] RD: Franklin CleckleyEdit

Article: Franklin Cleckley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): U.S. News & World Report
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and has been updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Well sourced, no real issues. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in pretty good shape, but the image caption is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Great. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Sierra Leone mudslidesEdit

Article: 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 300 people are killed by mudslides in Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 300 people are killed by mudslides in Western Area, Sierra Leone.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support article in sufficient shape and story of sufficient interest/importance for the main page. BencherliteTalk 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a disaster of sufficient magnitude that its notability is not in question, and the article is in an adequate state. I've added a slightly different alt-blurb, as the mudslides occurred in the Freetown area rather than all in Freetown proper. --LukeSurl t c 10:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Would only suggest addition of a map (in lieu of an infobox) to show where this happened, but at this point it captures the event and aftermath well. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficiently detailed and well referenced. --Jayron32 14:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lotfi Aliasker ZadehEdit

No reliable sources have confirmed his death. 31.221.87.71 (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lotfi A. Zadeh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Seems notable for ihis "alternative science" views. Lihaas (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We discussed this in a previous nomination for the same person. His death has not been confirmed and an obit has been retracted. We are assuming he's still alive. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2017 PGA ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2017 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Justin Thomas wins the PGA Championship.
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Compy90 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Major championship in golf Compy90 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support article has a bare minimum of text describing the final round, which is the absolute baseline for acceptability. Could use some serious expansion in prose all over, but I suppose this is barely enough to get it on the main page. --Jayron32 00:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R. Article is fine. Stormy clouds (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 09:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 13

2017 World Championships in AthleticsEdit

Article: 2017 World Championships in Athletics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, the IAAF World Championships concludes with the United States leading the medals table.
Alternative blurb: ​Sprinter Usain Bolt retires after the 2017 World Championships in Athletics.
News source(s): [41] [42]
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Article, and the many, many sub-articles, have a lot of tables but not much prose at present. Will need work. LukeSurl t c 15:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yup, everything in that article is either a table or could have been written before the event began. Needs prose on what actually happened. Modest Genius talk 15:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Why is the absence of prose a problem? It was a series of distinct events. I don't see any need for substantial prose. Anyway, click through the links and many of the events do have detailed descriptions. I think the article is in good shape. Adpete (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Because people come to Wikipedia to read encyclopaedia articles, not just tables of results or statistics (which they can find in many other places). The purpose of ITN is not to be a news ticker, but to highlight quality encyclopaedia articles relating to current events, and per a lot of precedent the consensus is that quality articles need prose about the event. Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb and highlight that Usain Bolt is retiring. After all, he's widely considered the greatest sprinter of all time (per his page). Banedon (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there is currently an unanswered question, at Talk:Usain Bolt, as to whether Bolt actually has retired or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Burkina Faso attackEdit

Article: 2017 Ouagadougou attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at a restaurant and hotel kills 17 and injures 8 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)
Updater: Rossbawse (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Burkina Faso has been spared much of the violence that have plagued other countries in the region, so this atack will almost certainly exacerbate the situation. The last attack with a higher deathtoll was in January 2016. EternalNomad (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • came here to nominate it. Certainly more notable than cville and it aint common in that part of africa either. Article needs a little more work but support in principle.
    Also remove "and hotel" from blurb. seems like just the Turkish restaurant and its also too wordy.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is very brief but covers the bases and is adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on the state of the article. The "Background" section talks about conflict in Libya spreading to northern Mali but makes no attempt to explain why this is relevant to Burkina Faso. There is no mention of any suspected motive, nor whether this was targetted or random (or whether that is not known). Is there any significance to the location? Is this a part of the city that's thronged with visitors or is it mainly locals? I support the signficance of the event but the article isn't yet good enough for me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Article has improved since I last commented, but it's not quite there yet I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose article is a bit too light on useful information, Thryduulf makes some good points above; the article in the current state scarcely contains more useful information than the blurb. Needs some expansion to be useful to readers beyond saying "Here's a thing that happened". --Jayron32 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. The victims included people from at least eight nationalities. 101.81.58.2 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality No question this is the type of attack we'd post here, but we need a bit more expansion to the article (eg it reads that there's still a situation going, with people trapped inside still, but the impression from news suggests the situation is long-since complete). --MASEM (t) 15:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The attack has an international scope to it, the article isn't stellar but is good enough I feel. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 12

[Posted] August 2017 Quetta suicide bombingEdit

Article: August 2017 Quetta suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing kills at least 15, injuring 40 others in Quetta, Pakistan.
Alternative blurb: ​A suicide bombing kills at least 15 including 8 Pakistan Army soldiers and injures 40 others in Quetta, Pakistan.
News source(s): NYT Reuters Washington Post Al Jazeera Indian Express DAWN
Nominator: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)
Updater: Amirk94391 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 8 soldiers of Pakistan Army were killed in the targeted attack. Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment, leaning oppose We posted the July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (happened 24 July, posted 31 July). That had a higher death toll (25) and was targetted at police and/or civilians rather than military personnel. Given the recency of this more significant attack I'm leaning oppose on this one, but could be convinced otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support, marginally better than the attack in the nomination above this one, has just barely enough information to lift it above the stub phase, but really, could use some expansion. --Jayron32 12:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support In Pakistan, 15 is not high death toll, but since this attack primarily targeted military it should be posted. But for that we'll have to mention that "Military was target of the attack" in the blurb.Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Amirk94391: Interesting. For me a military target makes it less significant than if it were a civilian target, but your comment implies your opinion is the opposite? Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I agree with Amirk. "Active-duty troops in the Pakistani Army have rarely come under attack in Quetta" - New York Times. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      • They are still military personnel in a volunteer army - potentially being attacked is something they agreed to when they signed up, which no civilian did. While I am not condoning the attack in the slightest, military targets are in my mind less unacceptable than civilian ones. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In what possible sense is this on WP:ITNR? Modest Genius talk 15:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    Who said that it was, and who said that it needed to be in order to be posted?!? --Jayron32 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    At the time I posted that, the template was showing this as an ITNR nomination. It has since been changed by TRM. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ah. Carry on then. --Jayron32 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It was recent and it was big (at least in my perspective)--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - attack against active duty soldiers in a country where such attacks are prevalent and often bigger in scale. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Stormy clouds and my previous comments. I've removed the ready label also. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - With 4 support !votes including the nominator and 2 oppose, marked ready. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm not seeing what makes this attack stand out from the many others in the region. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above, it is notable in terms of death and who they attacked as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - So far 5 support !votes including the nominator and 3 oppose. Needs attention before it gets stale. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose This is such a minor attack by Pakistani standards that I'm surprised it actually has its own article. FYI it looks like this is the third Pakistani terrorist attack posted on ITN in less than 50 days. Am I the only one here thinking that the bar is set too low for posting terrorist attacks on ITN? 107.191.204.189 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If the news finds it worthwhile to cover, there's no reason we shouldn't. The people who lost family members will, I am sure, be consoled that you find their deaths boring and trivial. --Jayron32 15:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jayron32: I'm not sure why you think the anonymous user believes this attack to be "trivial" and "boring" as you are the only person to use those words in this discussion. Personally, I don't think it is either but I still do not believe it rises to the level of ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
        • What is your evidence that it doesn't rise to the level of ITN. Can you show where news sources aren't covering it? Can you show where it is unlikely Wikipedia readers will have heard of it because it isn't being covered? Because I'm pretty sure I can find evidence that it is. --Jayron32 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't need to present evidence to justify what is explicitly my opinion, but in my opinion the significance of this event (targetting military personnel, the third and (iirc) least deadly attack in the country in as many months) falls below the significance bar for terrorist attacks. Compare today's attack on civilians in Barcelona. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 Nepal and India floodsEdit

Article: August 2017 Nepal and India floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Floods in Nepal and India kill over a hundred people.
News source(s): [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
Nominator: The ed17 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Floods are still going. Article needs more expansion. Anyone want to jump in? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Floods happen every year in that region with death tolls in the hundreds, and we usually do not post these due to their regular occurrence unless the death toll is much larger than expected. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem; not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. I was reading an article (I think on the BBC) a day or so ago that implied the floods were not as significant this year as they sometimes are and that the authorities are handling things competently. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although notable, it is lacking substance - Sherenk1 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lotfi A. ZadehEdit

RD entries require a reliably sourced confirmation of death, in this case is disputed whether the death is reliably sourced so it is not eligible for ITN. This nomination may be reopened if/when there is consensus that the subject has died and that this has been reported in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lotfi A. Zadeh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Press TV
Nominator: Anarcho-authoritarian (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent Iranian mathematician. Sourcing is decent but not perfect. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused. In Deaths in 2017 he is in fact listed as deceased whereas in his article he is listed as alive because there is no official statement regarding his death. So should we label his deceased or alive? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Whoa, talk about using fuzzy logic? How about neither dead, nor alive? Or maybe he's in a degree at variance along the life←→death continuum? Christian Roess (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • wait - well, the nominator's source is Press TV, but is that considered reliable? In this case it probably is, though some would disagree. It's my understanding that Press TV is affiliated with the Iranian government, and expressly provides a counterweight to the strong western bias that exists in media coverage (as they perceive it). But in this case he's either alive or dead, no "western bias" to counter there. And no political advantage to be gained on either side by misreporting his obituary. But let's wait until it gets sorted out by consensus in the article and the death date (August 12, Saturday according to Press TV) is clearly established. Christian Roess (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, obviously, because of the edit war over whether he is actually dead. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Closed until the dispute about whether the death has been reliably sourced is concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] The International 2017Edit

Article: The International 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Team Liquid defeats Newbee to take the top $10.8 million prize in The International 2017.
Alternative blurb: ​In eSports, Team Liquid defeats Newbee to win The International Dota 2 tournament.
News source(s): WaPost, ESPN
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Esports are going to have a tougher bar as I recognize there's a sizable portion of the general population and editors on en.wiki that do not consider it a legit sport, but the International is generally considered to have the highest prize pool available of any professional esport tourney (upwards of $23M this year). (Also, this week we learned that the 2024 Paris Olympics are suggesting the possibility of eSports as a medal-winning competition, so the legitimacy of eSports is not likely to go away any time soon). The main 2017 article is in good shape given what the tourney is. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't have to believe this is a sport in order to support its being posted, but I would note a few things; the article states that this tournament breaks the prize pool record every year so that doesn't seem significant to me. This tournament is sponsored by the makers of the game involved(the blurb might want to state which game they are playing) to I presume generate interest in the game(and profits for the company). If this made it to the Olympics(which the IOC would need to approve) I would see that differently. Many games have tournaments like this and I would want to know why this game and this tournament matter more than others. I'm undecided at the moment. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm still undecided on this(perhaps leaning against) but thinking about it I would probably be more supportive if this was an independent body organizing a tournament(with or without prize money) of one game or multiple games. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I have decided I'm neutral on the merits of posting a company promoting its game with a tournament because it does seem to get news attention but I am a weak oppose on quality per Black Kite below. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think who sponsors the tournament is of little importance, after all it's not like ATP doesn't sponsor tennis tournaments. This is significant on independent grounds because it's got huge prize pool (much of it is crowdfunded if I'm not mistaken, which implies there are a lot of people interested in it), and because Dota 2 is one of the most popular games in the world. To quote from the Dota 2 article, "Since its release, Dota 2 has been the most played game on Steam, with daily peaks of over a million concurrent players". Banedon (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • comment The blurb definitely needs to mention that this is e-sports and/or what game they are playing. Without that context it's meaningless. I'm undecided about the nobility for ITN for similar reasons to 331dot. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 07:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can drop the prize money number from the blurb, that's not done for any other sporting events. --LukeSurl t c 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding notabilty I lean support - I think eSports is about at the stage where 1 ITN item a year would be appropriate, and The International is the premier eSport event as far as I am aware.
However the article is not currently ready, as there is currently no prose summary of any of the actual games. For sporting tournaments we usually insist on a prose summary of the final match and this eSport case should be no different. --LukeSurl t c 21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It's actually relatively difficult to write prose description of games like Dota 2 as there are multiple, simultaneous things happening over one hr or so, so it is difficult to know where attention should be given (contrast to soccer or football - there's only one ball to follow, though players should always be fielding for position when not near the ball). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - How do we treat the World Poker Tour at ITN? I feel this is about the same level in terms of non-active sports. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I've had a search of the archives, as far as I've found the only Poker tournament that has been nominated for ITN was the 2006 World Series of Poker which wasn't posted, at least in part because the winner was on DYK at the time (ITNC was a very different place back then so it's not really useful for comparison purposes). I find it hard to believe that nothing else has even been nominated, so I'd like someone else to double check my findings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem's arguments. Prize total is eye-opening. I'm clearly in the wrong profession. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We posted this last year [48]. I'm still on the fence with it, personally, mainly because the article doesn't really explain anything about the game and how the tournament works, but is just a list of results with a bit of general supporting prose. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I have found that nearly all sports torunament articles are like that, which is fairly frustrating. ~Mable (chat) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, but most people know what "football" or "American football" or "cricket" actually is, and at least vaguely how the game is played, and how the winning team actually wins a game. This doesn't contain any of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
        • But why should this be treated different? While i agree that the tournament mode probably could get some explanation, i would assume it is little different from traditional sports but who knows. Explanation of rules of the game, the game itself etc, probably does not belong. You gave cricket as an example, while many people have heard of cricket of course, the actual rules of the game are still an absolute unknown to most people not actually familiar with the game. And in the end you cannot explain the rules of every sport in the article of an event. Just because one knows what fencing is, it does not mean one understands the rules, as another random example. In the end there is no real universal sport, not judging if this even fits the category of sport or not, except perhaps football and even with that there are some "hard to understand" rules, offside for example. There would just always be people unfamiliar with rules and tournament modes. And the game itself does have a standalone article as well for further reading if one is interested in doing so. 91.49.86.159 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I feel that fencing and cricket are excellent examples of this, as I personally have no idea how they are scored, or how tournaments of these sports work. I was more referring to how confusing these tables always are for general-purpose readers on every sports tournament article, though I suppose they are easier to read than what is currently ITN. ~Mable (chat) 14:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I'd also support making this ITNR. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – As always with The International (and many tournament-related articles), the article forgoes describing anything that happened during the tournament and instead presents us with a series of tables that are difficult to parse. However, what also seems to be a pattern with The International is how the prose we do have is of great quality. Looking at this, I regret not having had the time to nominate Evo 2017 for ITN earlier this year. But this is good: article looks good, properly sourced, and the competition is among the few most notable esports events. Solid support. ~Mable (chat) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prose is insufficient. There's some prose on the background and buildup of the tournament, but nothing on the action in the tournament itself. All we have are some tables and nothing else. Surely, there's some sources out there describing the action of the tournament, key events and matchups, descriptions of the championship game, that sort of thing, right? Why does our article not use those sources to describe the tournament itself? --Jayron32 12:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - My stance on E-sports has not changed. On a fundamental note, this does not rise to the general notability threshold that ITN sets.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on significance. I don't have a fundamental objection to e-sport, but I'm not seeing any attention in the general media (specialist gaming outlets and ESPN seem to be it) and this is fundamentally promotional marketing. The monetary prize is certainly eye-opening, though it strikes me as odd that last year's champions couldn't be bothered to defend their title. As mentioned above, poker seems a good comparator, but I'm not sure we've reached any sort of consensus there either. The article is indeed mostly table-cruft, and won't make much sense to anyone who isn't familiar with the game in question. Also, terrible name Valve. The international what? At least call it International Dota or something. I would be open to reassessing some of these non-sport sports in a holistic way, rather than having the same inconclusive discussion each time one is nominated. Modest Genius talk 13:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This may be a country thing, but the UK certainly had mainstream coverage of the event before it took place (from may-july) the BBC usually has its new media stories in the newsbeat section, papers like the metro and the express both had stories. Rolling Stone online had a piece - admittedly in its videogaming section, but that it *has* a videogame section should be an indication the wider media is dedicating coverage to gaming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm in the UK, and have seen none of that coverage whatsoever. The BBC's Newsbeat covers light-hearted and showbiz stories, so it's rather damning with faint praise if it didn't get onto the main BBC News bulletins. Modest Genius talk 10:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Across the board, sports articles are rarely interesting enough to meet the Purpose requirements outside of "quickly access content they are likely to be searching for." Unless the prose is exceptional, we need to see more page views before posting the results of a scheduled competition. GCG (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    SO all of those millions of people that follow sports as an interest, they don't exist? --Jayron32 15:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant sports event articles specifically, not sports articles in general, are unlikely to be objectively interesting to an otherwise uninterested party, which is one of the purposes of ITN. Another is to show people what they want. Views for this peaked at 4K yesterday. Last year, with the benefit of ITN, it only reached 16K. Compare that with 94K for Wimbledon, 63K for the Open Championship, or 155K for the Women's Cricket World Cup. The CFP Championship hit 186K without ITN. There is a groundswell to recognize eSports as a big deal, which they are. But if we are to weigh them against other sports, they're not ITN-worthy yet. GCG (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing is interesting to an uninterested party. That's the definition of the prefix "un-". Under that criteria, nothing would ever be posted, because people who are uninterested in something aren't interested in it. That's a rather tautological argument, and unlikely to be useful as a criteria for judging anything. --Jayron32 19:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not remotely tautological and you know better. Interesting=arousing or holding the attention. Uninterested=indifferent or unbiased. "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." In other words, the lion's share of what's on the MP everyday. Interesting to an uninterested party. No paradox. Now please go play your games somewhere else. GCG (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not playing games, I'm pointing out the inherent problems with concepts like "importance" or "interest" when assertions are made without evidence. If you assert something is 'unimportant' but provide no evidence of that assertion, then it's meaningless, all you're saying is "I think this shouldn't be important" or "I don't find this important to 'me'" Our role here should not be the arbiters of culture. Our role should be to assess quality. Any assertions of "lack of importance" are only based on our own personal interests, and serve nothing to improve the content of Wikipedia articles, and as such, should be left out of assessments here. Now, if you have 'evidence' that the article should not be posted for such reasons, such as a lack of reliable sources, or something like that, by all means present it. Wikipedia is not built on assertions. It is build on evidence. --Jayron32 14:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Our role should be to assess quality. Exactly what I'm saying; I'm just equating "quality" with "interesting." We post a lot of sports event articles with a fairly low bar for quality because of high demand. We could certainly post a lower demand article, but then the quality would need to better to compensate (it's not impossible to write good prose on event results; there's bound to be something over at Kotaku that you could ape). I see neither quality nor demand here; but hey that's just one opinion. GCG (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Not taking sides in this discussion, but "disinterested" and "uninterested" are two different words and mean two different things. If I was on trial, I would want a disinterested judge but not an uninterested one... BencherliteTalk 09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support So, a mere deal with a famous football player (Neymar) gets an entry, yet the biggest eSport tournament in the history of computer games goes unnoticed? What a joke.--Adûnâi (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Adûnâi: - several persons who have commented above (myself included) will support this being posted when there is a reasonable prose summary of the action of the final match in the article. I expect this will need to be written by someone familiar with Dota2. If you are able to write this, it will probably be enough to get this posted. --LukeSurl t c 14:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment To those seeking more prose on this, I have added a section that briefly summarizes how the game is played, a brief description of the format within the tables (to help make those clear), and a brief summary of the Grand Finals - as noted above, summarizing a DOTA2 game (much less a match) is difficult because its constant action at multiple locations over ~1hr, and not easy to break down key moments of what turned the tide or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. I think it's sufficiently expanded.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, this is now adequate to post. Good work. --LukeSurl t c 18:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Violent alt-right rallyEdit

This has been posted. I'm closing this to keep discussion of changes to the blurb in one place: WP:ERRORS (which is the correct place to discuss changes to posted blurbs). Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outlets are reporting at least six injured in suspected intentional vehicle ramming incident. Will update article if there is support. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The blurb currently says "Virginia declares state of emergency as Charlottesville white supremacist rally turns violent." In which country are "Virginia" and "Charlottesville" located? Or is Virginia the name of a woman declaring the state of emergency? Gfcvoice (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
fixed. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Domestic, local issue (and I'm speaking as an American here). It's nothing yet like Ferguson. There have been many more violent protests in the last year+ that we aren't likely to cover. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose, no one died. Also, maybe you could update the article anyway, and contribute to the overall quality of Wikipedia, without the condition that this nomination gets support? The main page isn't the only thing that matters. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to write breaking news on a weekend if it isn't going on the main page. As a volunteer I maintain my right to hold off major edits if it isn't urgent. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@A lad insane: Somebody has died. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I have struck my original vote. Move to weak support as per status as major news, but still, one person is a rather low casualty count to be posting to ITN. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Now has been posted, so is a moot point, but that is true. Just a bit cynical at times... -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no minimum death toll for ITN. Nor should there be. Some events with major death tolls are insignificant, and some with small (or no) death tolls are hugely significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very weakly support. "Weakly" because this is a domestic local issue with far less significance than rallies and demonstrations we wouldn't dream of supporting (White supremacists can be violent nutcases? Hold the front page!), "support" because it's adequately sourced and for whatever reason this is the main story on news media around the world (even on the local UK version of the normally relatively sober BBC News it's bumped North Korea out of the headline slot, while it's currently the lead story on sources as varied as German supermarket tabloids and The Irish Times. ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Is it the city of Charlottesville or the entire state of Virginia which is under a state of emergency? Not clear from the blurb but not so clear either from the Washington Post.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until we have a definite casualty count, including any deaths. -LtNOWIS (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Washington Post is now reporting one dead. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Big story, very sad, and the car ramming has very scary echoes. It's also getting international coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The car ramming should be mentioned in the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Of extreme newsworthiness.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support due to this being worldwide news and the article seems adequate as I look at it now. I understand the reasons to oppose this, though. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support wow, what a clusterfuck, and at last a chance to stop the perpetual "about time Europe tightened their driving laws" nonsense. This is all-round a nasty story, but this instance of the use of a vehicle is just the beginning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Don't drink and edit. Thanks. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7D4B:37F4:4749:F322 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Don't edit, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As I write this there is a separate article on the car-ramming itself, 2017 Charlottesville attack, although it may well be merged into the main article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd expect to see a merger there, but perhaps the blurb should lead with the associated terrorist attack? --LukeSurl t c 21:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It fits what I consider terrorism to be (violence indented to cause as much harm as possible to non-specific persons for political reasons). But I'm not suggesting the blurb needs to use that word. --LukeSurl t c 22:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Who was driving the vehicle? A terrorist or a white American? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Judging by the situation, it is very likely the latter. The sources do not identify this as a terrorist attack. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hoping some of the comments directly above are sarcasm. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Support Normally, I would oppose this kind of story, largely because of a low fatality count (only one confirmed death) and also because this is only a domestic/local incident; however because the ITN hasn't been very active lately and because this is getting international attention, I'll make an exception, albeit 'very weakly'. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hold- not of global significance yet. Blythwood (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There are articles in the foreign press. See my comment above for links in the European media. Also Australia.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I acknowledge that we frown upon this logic here, but it is pertinent to this case in particular: I am supporting as both the Congressional Baseball attack an the attack at the Finsbury Park mosque were posted. Both incidenrs had low fatality and casualty counts, but were posted due to the motives of the assailant. The scenario here is the same - it is the motivation behind the attack and the manner in which it unfolded that makes this newsworthy, and it is these circumstances that explain why it is the top item in Ireland, the US, the UK et al. Ergo, I deem it worthy of an ITN-support. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, more Trump drama stupidity, not of international significance. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump has nothing to do with this... and the "international significance" argument is utter and complete rubbish considering there are international sources reporting on this as a top story.--WaltCip (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the "International significance" is not so much what international sources are reporting on this, but how much this effect will impact the international community (which is, practically zero). --MASEM (t) 01:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. There is also a plane crash with two state police killed. There is worldwide interest and this is because the United States is not the only country where these divisions exist. [49]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
State police helicopter crash, actually. I agree this moves things along toward ITN. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose hysterically violates NPOV as is. One driver ran over one protestor. This is a driver ramming a crowd, not a "violent alt-right rally". If we posted violent rallies, then we'd be posting antifa arson and damage at California universities. This is the act of one person. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • This is more important than that. What it really means is that white supremacists are no better than Muslim terrorists. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The violence goes back to last night too, when both sides were dispersed. There are more examples out there if you look. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
And Podestas email right? And Awan, and Seth Rich? Thing is, this actually happened, is making international headlines, and left a body count, so..... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This violent demonstration represents the huge backlash against those communities across the southern US who are pushing hard to remove Confederate iconography from public property, especially since the 2015 rampage killings of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, SC. So this violent incident in Virginia is visible evidence of what remains largely invisible: the rage and resentment seething below the surface as millions of Americans watch their Confederate history and their "southern" heritage being erased from public spaces. The removal of a Confederate statue (as one rally organizer told CNN) "itself is symbolic of a lot of larger issues. The primary three issues are preserving history against this censorship and revisionism — this political correctness." Anyhow, this is ITN-worthy because this kind of backlash was inevitable. And this is a particularly dramatic example, with international coverage, of the ongoing backlash that is taking place throughout the southern US. It could get worse: it seems that most of these folks are disappointed and enraged Trump supporters, and let's face it: they all have guns. Christian Roess (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole world doesn't revolve around around American culture wars. The current blurb would be true for a countless of rallies since Trump began campaigning. The car ramming is newsworthy, but not of ITN level with just 1 dead IMHO. Nothing is known about the helicopter crash and it isn't explained how this is "linked to the protest" other than that the helicopter was surveilling them. --Pudeo (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
oppose may be on international news (and good to get cville on the front page) but nothing in the larger scope of things)
Nothing can break our spirit, except the useless football team every season for eons now. #goohoosgoLihaas (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
there's a problem with using the term culture war here in this particular case. In this case, "culture war" is just a convenient euphemism, or rhetoric, used to "disguise the fact that American society truly is deeply divided...which is not an artificial creation of political parties seeking to drum up support." (Quote from the Wikipedia article). This incident exposes the festering open wound at the heart of American society. And it's not going to get fixed. Now, women marching on Washington wearing pussy hats and attending an Oprah rally in support of transgender bathroom rights is a "culture war". This "alt-right" rally turned violent in Charlottesville, VA is not an example of a "culture war". It is an example, quite frankly, of how and why the US (as a society) is unraveling, disintegrating, and becoming "unglued. " Christian Roess (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This was a KKK march where they took off their robes and showed their face, because a POTUS blaming "many sides" made them feel they don't have to hide their faces any more. Significant news with repercussions and massive coverage. This is ITN material. Many opposer comments, like User:Pudeo's "The whole world doesn't revolve around around American culture wars", is attempting to dismiss the item on geographic scope, which is against the rules of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 05:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Modified blurb. @Spencer: Your version felt a bit wordy, and there appears to be some consensus here that the emergency was less important than the casualties and the violence. Feel free to revert/modify without consulting me. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: The current blurb states 3 people died as a result of the violence. Nothing is known about the helicopter crash yet, it was likely just an accident, not related to violence (like someone pointing a laser blinding the pilot or something). --Pudeo (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I reworded the blurb to mirror what is written in the article (e.g. describing the rally as "far-right" and not just "white nationalist", 19 versus 30 injuries, etc.). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Black Falcon: I get that the lede of the article says "far right", but, with all due respect, I find the term "far right" to be too vague and potentially inaccurate, and thus problematic for the main page. Spencer calls himself a "socialist" for example. The term is contentious and I think it would have been preferable to ask for consensus before you changed the blurb. I believe you did this in good faith but I object to the change.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"Far right" is grossly inadequate. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That change was completely inappropriate. I've discussed the original change in WP:ERRORS, that if we go off a simple google news test, "white nationalist" beats out any other descriptors by almost a factor of 10. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's remember re: User:Zigzig20s saying Spencer identifies as a "socialist" that he is a "National socialist" (right wing), not a Marxist (left wing). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at WP:ERRORS to keep everything in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 11

[New] RD: Abdulhussain AbdulredhaEdit

Article: Abdulhussain Abdulredha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Kuwaiti actor Sherenk1 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Most sections are the article are completely unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alexandria train collisionEdit

Article: Alexandria train collision (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two trains collide near Alexandria, Egypt, killing 41 and injuring 179.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera NBC AP ABC
Nominator: The ed17 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Needs significant expansion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment based on our articles this is the joint deadliest railway accident this year (same number of fatalities as Kuneru train derailment in January) and the deadliest railway accident in Egypt since 2009. The article is barely a stub at the moment so I'm not going to offer an opinion just yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle based on the news sources, but the article is still a stub. Modest Genius talk 13:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is just nearly stale - the hospital blurb (below) is the last on the last, and the next to go is the Aug 12 Charlottesville stuff, and as this still remains a stub I don't see this having any chance of being posted. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Gorakhpur hospital deathsEdit

Article: Gorakhpur hospital deaths (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 70 children from Baba Raghav Das Medical College in Gorakhpur, India, have died, allegedly due to lack of oxygen supply.
News source(s): The New York Times NBC News
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)
Updater: Malayy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: For all our talk about fighting systemic bias, this is a story that really should've been nominated by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. I've read about this where I live- this is a significant story. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. big news and a very unusual tragedy. 62.168.40.118 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but I'm finding that the article is writing on presuming the hospital is negligent when the NYTimes has statements from the hospital officials that deny that it was a lack of oxygen supply that should be included at this stage. (The blurb is fine though). --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Weak support. It's clearly significant enough, but ideally I'd prefer a bit more in the article than is currently there. Also we should definitely mention somewhere in the blurb that this is India, possibly also Uttar Pradesh. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I added the location to the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • You've added Uttar Pradesh but not India. I think "India" is required and "Uttar Pradesh" optional - c.f. the complaint on the protest nomination that not everybody will know Virginia is in the USA, and speaking as a Brit the US states are far better known than the Indian ones. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I tend to take to the idea that we should list "CITY, STATE" regardless of the country, and people can find out what country it is if they're so inclined, but I've changed the blurb to explicitly say it's India. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose only because the article is really thin, and it links to Baba Raghav Das Medical College which isn't any better. Not a ton of info here to present to readers. Still whats there is fine and it's in the news so I guess I don't care. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Segun BucknorEdit

Article: Segun Bucknor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Net, ChannelsTV, The Nation
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and has been updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC) (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&action=edit&section=6#

  • Support. Article is slightly thinner than ideal - although I recognise that online sources in English are not going to be the easiest to find given when and where he was active, but what's there is good and well sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The lede says he was a journalist, but I don't see that in the "career" section. That seems problematic. If he was indeed a journalist, we would need to know which newspapers he wrote for. If it's too minor, it should be removed from the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zigzig20s:: Done I removed journalist from the article. In his obits and bio it stated he was a journalist but never mentioned background on it. - TDKR Chicago 101
      • Support. Everything is referenced. I don't see a problem now.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article seems woefully incomplete - as Zigzag says, it mentions a career of journalism, but there's nothing about this in the article - and the most recent event in his career is 47 years old. Is there an article on the man in another language? If so, it may be a good idea to have it translated, but not by something like Google Translate, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing ready, per concerns above. I agree: a huge gap in coverage, even if the band was less popular, is inadequate quality for RD. SpencerT♦C 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: I've expanded the article with sourcing with the expansion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • TDKR, it is rather poor form to mark your own nominations "ready." As nominator, you bring the article here for scrutiny, and make any improvements if you feel so inclined; evaluating it should be left to uninvolved folks. Vanamonde (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • [50] Apparently after 1975 he became a journalist, but the book preview ends after listing that. I still believe the article is incomplete without any description of that, especially since that seems to fill the gap of coverage 1975 to present. SpencerT♦C 20:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: I've added information about his journalism career but from what I see it was brief and I also added information about why he retired from music and the controversy he saw due to his political views. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the updates, looks good and marking [ready]. SpencerT♦C 14:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good. Posted. --Jayron32 00:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] The Obelisk Gate wins Hugo Award for Best NovelEdit

Article: The Obelisk Gate (talk, history)
Blurb: The Obelisk Gate wins the Hugo Award for Best Novel.
Nominator: The ed17 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Obviously the article needs a lot of work before hitting the main page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose the article is a single-sentence stub (even though cheekily it's not even tagged as one), so no chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's tagged as a stub now. Does that resolve the problem? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your insightful comment that was in no way already acknowledged in the nomination statement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Interesting that you chose only to badger me and not Masem for noting it's a stub. Standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Did you read beyond his first sentence? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes and as you're supposed to be an admin, I'm surprised you'd suggest otherwise. Why someone would nominate a ITNR which is a sub-stub is beyond me, but I guess you have your own reasons, only to berate one specific user for pointing out it's sub-stub? You, admin, should know that already. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Why don't you do something constructive, TRM, like, well, improving the article? But I guess a snarky oppose is easier. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7D4B:37F4:4749:F322 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know, perhaps I should just hide behind an "anonymous" IP address and criticise from the sideline instead? I have zero interest in this nomination other than its ridiculously premature nomination and other than the nominator getting all haughty about the inevitable opposition from me. IP, point to me where you (before you abandoned your account) improved an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'll nominate any article if I think it's worthy... there's no rule that says an article needs to be ready to run on the main page when nominated. And there's a chance that someone will pitch in and help finish the article if I post it here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We need more than a stub for the book article. I can't remember which prize it was but we had a similar situation for a book a few months ago that started as literally no article and got to sufficient quality in a few days. For helping here. NPR, The Verge (in 2016), Atlantic, Wired, more Wired, as well as the fact that the book also was nominated for Nebula and Dragon awards [51]. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider me "supporting" once the article has a plot summary and an info box. An image of the cover under a fair use argument can go in the article which would be a good addition. I think the Hugo is a sufficiently notable award. --LukeSurl t c 07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @LUkeSurl: the award is on ITN/R so its notability is not in question. All that we're waiting for is an adequate article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yup, plot summary, however brief, is absolutely necessary. Inquiring readers don't much care that someone "couldn't put it down," they want to know what it's about. Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Masem, LukeSurl, Thryduulf, and Sca: I've added more info and a bit of a plot summary. I haven't read the book, so I'd more than welcome any edits you all may have. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems adequate for posting. --LukeSurl t c 23:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • support. I agree that this is now in sufficiently good shape to post. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely a start now. Good job!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been substantially improved, and is now C class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being involved as it's been ready for the best part of 24 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yisrael KristalEdit

Article: Yisrael Kristal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Jenda H. (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Quantum Key DistributionEdit

No consensus. Stephen 04:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Quantum Experiments at Space Scale (talk, history) and Quantum key distribution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese scientists at the Quantum Experiments at Space Scale project successfully realize space-to-ground quantum key distribution for the first time
News source(s): [52]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: QKD is the "easiest" quantum technology to realize. As of time of writing, neither article is updated. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here comes another train wreck nomination by User:Banedon. No update, and the "technically correct is the best kind of correct" crowd will defend the right of users to abuse the system by not updating before nominating. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no requirement for nominators to have updated the articles for ITN they nominate. Also please assume good faith. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
      • This Banedon user has only faith; faith that others will understand the difficult science and do all the hard work of updating the article and saving his worthless nomination. In spite of your Wikilawyering, the truth remains; the nominator does not have to update the article only because somebody else might have done it first. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
        • If you have a problem with what I'm doing, lodge a formal complaint at ANI. Until you do that, I'll simply ignore what you're writing as not worth my attention. Banedon (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question what does this actually mean in practice? In simple layman's terms, what is the immediate effect of this "realisation"? Is it now something that can be implemented easily? Is it one step on the road to practical implementations but requires further research? Does it enable something else? Right now my initial reaction is "that's nice, I guess, but what does it mean?". Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I feel like the source explains the significance pretty well. Quantum effects "decohere" - as they interact with the environment, they disappear. So this (they successfully sent a quantum key from ground to the satellite, and back again) is a significant result. Your questions are not easy to answer however; the following represents my understanding. Is it easy to implement, no, hence it hasn't been done until now. Telecommunications is not going to change overnight as well. Is it one step on the road to practical implementation, yes (in fact it's a major one). Further work could be aimed at teleporting quantum logic gates for quantum computing purposes, and building up a quantum internet. User:Modest Genius or User:Dragons Flight might know more. Banedon (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a minor extension to a breakthrough result that was announced two months ago: Science. It's the obvious thing to do once you can distribute entangled photons. That earlier breakthrough was announced in a peer-reviewed scientific paper; as far as I am aware we didn't post it. This extension is fairly minor and I've not seen any peer-reviewed publication. It would make very little sense for us to ignore the major breakthrough and then post a minor update two months later. (Weirdly, the launch of the spacecraft in 2016 was posted, before any of the technology had been shown to actually work.) Modest Genius talk 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Was published in Nature [53] [54]. Banedon (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Interesting; I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned in either the nomination or the news reports. In which case I would support if you can update the article to cover both steps (the entangled distribution in June, and the quantum key distribution in August). Modest Genius talk 12:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose News at its core requires the audience to have a baseline understanding of the subject at hand (you wouldn't preface Premier League scores by explaining the rules of football). Science stories tend to try to provide that baseline, but any breakthrough worthy of report is typically too complex, and News is not a practical forum to teach scientific concepts. An RS often resorts to reframing the issue (note the lede here talks about unhackable data transmission) in an effort to make a story relatable. Whatever your personal understanding is of "what belongs at ITN," I doubt this fits the bill. How many people will see this and understand it, even if they click through and read the article? GCG (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • To continue your analogy: plenty of readers don't understand the rules of baseball or cricket, or the electoral system of the Netherlands, yet we post those stories. Besides, the whole point in quantum cryptography is to develop 'un-hackable' communications, and this is a big step in doing so. Modest Genius talk 13:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No updated text to assess the quality of. --Jayron32 15:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GCG. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 10

[Closed] National emergency for opioid epidemicEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Opioid epidemic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Trump to declare a national emergency to fight the nation's opioid epidemic.
News source(s): Washington Post,ABC, NBC, NPR, CNN, WSJ
Nominator and updater: Light show (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: More deaths last year than Vietam war and Iraq war combined. Trump: "There’s never been anything like what’s happened to this country over the last four or five years." Light show (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support While this strictly is a national issue, the situation here would have worldwide ramifications, and thus declaring it a national emergency (and thus allowing states to take additional measures to combat it) is a key point that posting makes sense. And the article is in decent shape for that, outside the bit of proseline in the timeline section. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Trump merely said he was going to declare an emergency. If the actual policy has some significance, this can be revisited. Abductive (reasoning) 06:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually it does. Per CNN's "President Donald Trump declared the opioid crisis a national emergency Thursday, a designation that would offer states and federal agencies more resources and power to combat the epidemic." emphasis mine. It's similar to when they call disaster-struck areas a "national emergency". The response isn't going to be as fast as it would be for a disaster (eg deployment of FEMA/other first responder agencies) but they have new legal tools and resources to use. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Big national story, but it also has international ramifications in Mexico and other places.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    You do realise Trump has said he's going to do an awful lot of things yet seems to have actually achieved very little? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. Nothing tangible has been done yet. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive et al. If something other than announcements happen that is worth considering, but its very rare that we announce someone saying they are going to do something rather than someone actually doing something - particularly when the person in question does a lot of announcing and not a lot of doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive's claim. SamaranEmerald (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We are not a Trump ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, it's not really a Trump story - he's just following the opioid commission's recommendation.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Given his propensity for unrequited bluster and hyperbole, any story that begins with "Trump says" IMO is a Trump story unless there are any actual policy implications.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trump says a lot of things. That doesn't mean that they're going to happen, or that they're significant. Modest Genius talk 13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
To be fair on this one, Trump is hardly the only person calling the opioid epidemic a serious problem, or for that matter was the only person involved in this declaration. This is on a greater level of importance than, say, a rando Trump tweet. pbp 13:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The blurb here, and for any future noms about US policy, should be of the form "The United States declares…". This may seem like a trivial distinction, but we should be posting actual policy implementation (or at least, concrete plans to implement) by government rather than announcements that may or may not result in significant action.
Oppose for now, without prejudice to a new nomination if/when action is actually taken. --LukeSurl t c 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that this is just a statement of concern, rather than an actual invocation of this National Emergencies Act? --LukeSurl t c 14:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are right; I don't believe an order has yet been signed. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. We should have a fresh nom if/when this occurs. US states of emergency aren't actually that uncommon (technically there are 30 currently active) but it would be a reasonable nomination if associated with a substantive update. --LukeSurl t c 15:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, though probably with Luke's suggested blurb change. pbp 14:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, A "national" emergency in which country? Fiji? Of which country is President Trump the president? Gfcvoice (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A president in his own lunchtime...--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"National emergency": soon playing in a theater near you. --Light show (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Ruth PfauEdit

Article: Ruth Pfau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: German-Pakistani nun Ruth Pfau, known for fighting leprosy, dies aged 87.
News source(s): NYT BBC Deutsche Welle Al Jazeera The Hindu DAWN
Nominator: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Dubbed as the Pakistan's Mother Teresa, her sad demise is making news internationally thus deserving of a blurb. Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb. Old person dies of natural causes is exactly why we have RD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose RD until the [citation needed] tags are resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Support RD. The article is in good shape now, so I'll mark this ready. It's always nice to see an awards section fully referenced before it arrives at RD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Not a world transforming figure nor is the manner of death a story itself; should be RD. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb If this person meets WP:GNG, then finding additional sources shouldn't be too hard. We can always make changes if that fails.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
None of which is relevant to a blurb, as I state above.331dot (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Tag but Oppose blurb The article does meet the requirements for an RD tag but I dont think the person meets the requirements for a blurb. I recommend changing this nomination for an RD tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for RD She was quite notable as a nun in South Asia, where her career spanned 50 years. Mar4d (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

August 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 9

Size of giant sauropod publishedEdit

Article: Patagotitan (talk, history)
Blurb: Patagotitan mayorum, a candidate for the largest dinosaur yet discovered, is scientifically described.
News source(s): The Atlantic BBC
Nominator: Connor Behan (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Piece of trivia that likely has a special place in the hearts of many readers. Connor Behan (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nominator ("piece of trivia"). Suggest DYK. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't agree with Thryduulf's oppose rationale, which seems more a critique of the way the nomination was made instead of the nomination itself. This is in the news, it's likely to be interesting for more readers, and the article quality is fine. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not certain this is sufficiently in the news; I'd like to see more evidence of that. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Put in "dinosaur" into Google then filter for news. Banedon (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm aware that I can do that given time but it isn't my job to justify other people's nominations. All I know is that I don't see this on the news sites that I frequent. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
        • That's dangerous since it encourages sampling bias. After all, the news sites that you read is likely not to be representative. I'd also say it's unfair to the nominator if the information is easily available but you're not willing to search for it. Adding a BBC source anyway. Banedon (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm aware that the news sites that I visit is not representative of all news. You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish but I believe nominators should stand behind their nominations and do the work needed to convince others of their merits. Otherwise we wouldn't ask for sources at all since everything is easily available on the internet. Heck we wouldn't need Wikipedia at all for that reason. Whenever I make a nomination, I always try to provide adequate evidence of its newsworthiness. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this trivia is more suitable for DYK. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall that this story came out in a piecemeal fashion, never giving a moment for it to be posted on ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 17:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Paris car ramming attackEdit

No consensus to post at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Levallois-Perret attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​6 French soldiers are injured in a car ramming attack in Paris.
Nominator: 172.58.107.15 (talk • give credit)

 172.58.107.15 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fortunately no one died. Also not in the top news anymore. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Am already waiting for CosmicAdventures pointy comment about "meaningful vehicle control laws in europe" to... whatever the point is really. On another note, the police chase with police firing at the perpetrators vehicle on a highway, to me, almost seems more noteworthy as something like that is highly unusual for europe i would assume. But overall this does not seem to be that big a story. 91.49.94.182 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just as we don't most minor shootings in the USA we should not post all of these types of attacks (and attempted attacks) in Europe (and I say that as a European), and this is definitely a minor event that is unlikely to have any lasting significance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would wonder if this even merits an article. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The article says "This was the seventh attack on French security forces in 2017." so were this AfD I'd be inclined to say merge to some bigger article rather than delete, but I'm not convinced it merits a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I think I agree with that assessment. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Same. This is sourceable, news, and merits mention someplace. pbp 16:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: We need some new stuff on the ITN page. We still have the British Open up there and that was weeks ago. pbp 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Historically we do not use the lack of recent newsworthy stories as a rationale to post a non-notable story.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Then, @WaltCip:, we at least need to remove the entries that aren't news anymore. The British Open was weeks ago. The Cricket cup was weeks ago. Neither of them is rightfully classified as "news" pbp 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Purplebackpack89: if you want to see new items on ITN, there are two elections below (Rwanda and Kenya) which are just waiting for sufficient text updates in the articles. Working on those would be a much better solution than lowering our standards. Modest Genius talk 18:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No reported deaths, and while it may be considered terrorist related, a lone-wolf operation that targetted police doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the degree of past vehicle-related terrorist incidents in Europe over the last few years. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Mirza Olang Village MassacreEdit

An existing article is an absolute requirement for ITN, so there is no point to a nomination without one. If an article is written or another article expanded to include this event, then it can be renominated or reopened, but adding a proposed blurb at the same time is strongly recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mirza Olang Village Massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [55]

Nominator's comments: One of the deadliest attacks against Shi'ite civilians in Afghanistan lately by the Taliban. 60 people are dead, including women and children. --203.220.72.109 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Kenyan general election, 2017Edit

Article: Kenyan general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Uhuru Kenyatta (pictured) is re-elected as President of Kenya.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: 80% of results in, Kenyatta has 55% of the vote against 44% for his rival, Raila Odinga ,so results should be out soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support When results are in and announced, we should certainly post. If there is controversy surrounding the vote (something likely), we should add that info into the blurb. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose incomplete article, premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until the results are known and the article is updated. There is no need to be so hasty with nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we reopen this. Results are out. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article has not been updated - the infobox still says the president elect is TBD for example. Fix that and give us some prose to evaluate - the "Results" section consists entirely of one table and two empty section headers. We absolutely will not post without an updated article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine to re-open, but the article still needs a prose update. There's no text whatsoever on the results, reactions or aftermath, just a table of numbers. See WP:ITN#Criteria. Modest Genius talk 10:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support something related to the Kenyan election: When I heard about this last night on PBS, it indicated that the opposition candidate was contesting the claim that Kenyetta won by ~8-10%. Therefore, it makes at least a little sense that a "TBD" is there in the who won column. There's news here, easily-sourceable news here; maybe not as currently worded, but there's news. pbp 16:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Purplebackpack89: This is certainly news, but the problem is that there is still no prose in the article. Since I last looked 9 hours ago there has been some quotes and flagcruft added as reactions but the prose hasn't changed since the first premature nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed. This should certainly go up once the article is in shape, but no-one has written anything. Modest Genius talk 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf:@Modest Genius: Please look again. I and others have beefed up the prose. It may still not be enough, but it's certainly better than it was before. pbp 18:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Purplebackpack89: one short sentence of prose about the results is better than nothing I suppose, but it's still nowhere near sufficient (we typically look for something around 5 sentences at least), and there is still nothing about the senate or national assembly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggested blurb: Uhuru Kenyatta is reported as the winner of the 2017 Kenyan presidential election, but the results are disputed by opposition candidate Raila Odinga." pbp 16:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • We have a standard phrasing for elections, which avoids the POV issues inherent in mentioned whether they're seen as legitimate or not. Modest Genius talk 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I believe there is enough prose to post this. It should definitely be a neutral blurb as independent election observers have urged all sides to accept the result. It will not be made official until Friday but it is clear Kenyatta has won. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I think there's now enough in the article for it to be good enough for posting. It's not brilliant, but it will do. Modest Genius talk 11:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Certainly should be posted, but the text of the article makes no mention of results: 54.2 percent for Kenyatta's party, 44.9 percent for Odinga's. True, these are preliminary results contested by Odinga supporters, but an election story without results (except in boxed data) is ridiculous. Sca (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the article is finally looking good. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article looking good! Well updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. Sca (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to posting admin I've added the image above, but it isn't protected yet. Check before posting it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What's the holdup? This has been ready for more than seven hours. Sca (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] North Korea and weapons of mass destructionEdit

Almost unanimous consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Defense Intelligence Agency states that North Korea has sufficiently miniaturized a nuclear warhead to fit inside one of its long-range missiles.
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Purplebackpack89 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ancheta Wis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 pbp 03:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is something likely to be posted involving NK soon, but a claim by a US intelligence agency is not sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose post when they drop it on Guam. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Can we please not have this sort of comment? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a US intelligence report; a test, announcement, or use of such a weapon would merit posting. The US does not believe NK has actually mounted a warhead onto a missile yet. I've wondered if an Ongoing listing would be warranted for NK but I am unsure about an appropriate article(if it even exists right now). 331dot (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the article I originally nominated would serve. It's a detailed account of the sturm und drang vis-a-vis North Korea's nuclear aspirations. pbp 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose likely another exaggeration by the North Korean regime. Source is reliable and justified, but keep in mind that North Korea has made this claim numerous times in the past, but has not successfully proved this claim, even the photo from the unknown source a year ago has driven skepticism as it did not match the structure or shape of a miniaturized nuclear weapon. SamaranEmerald (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - will consider supporting once they actually succeed on an intercontinental nuclear strike.--WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as other users have noted, this would be more appropriate when they actually conduct a strike on the U.S. or South Korea. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Truly these are really scary times when the only way North Korea's nuclear program will become notable or newsworthy for ITN purposes is if it nukes a city off the face of the earth. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:98 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, for me it'd have to be all of Guam, not just a minor city. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I actually think Trump's "fire and fury" comment is the bigger story. But inflammatory rhetoric is not going to be posted either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Pawnkingthree about the relative prominence of the stories, and about the ITN-worthiness of both. My personal threshold for posting a story about nuclear weapons is lower than TRM's though - I'd likely support the successful firing of a missing with an armed warhead regardless of outcome (I'm undecided about an unsuccessful firing). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Until one of DPRK's missiles hits something other than water. Sca (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like this is going to escalate very soon: Trump’s evangelical advisor says that God has authorized a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea "Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to “take out” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
    “When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”" Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    Then we'll post it when the evangalists sign off the destruction of the universe. Just in time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    Would a pre-emptive nuclear strike get a look in? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Noting a tin-pot dictator threatening to nuke the U.S. is minor stuff compared to current ITN blurbs: Neymar getting €222 million to play football, Jordan Spieth winning the Open, and certainly minor compared to England's Cricket club beating India. Had Neymar only gotten €100 million, however, or had India won, TEOTWAWKI might be worth mentioning. --Light show (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is in the news, article is pretty good, opposes are usual "Wait until something happens" - something has happened: The leaders of the DPRK and the USA have ratcheted up their rhetoric, the USA is claiming the DPRK has miniaturized nukes, global media has been covering it for days. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I am shocked and awed by your blasé attitude. Sca (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy to wait until someone's actually won. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you'll be the only one left at that point? Sca (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems CosmicAdventure is a bit misunderstood by the article, sure it's been in the news, but only a handful of experts made the claim, not the U.S. itself, and that it has not gone on for days, just A day so far. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well Dumps anti-NK rhetoric has been in the news since Monday, the miniaturization story is a little more recent. I take my queues from the media: the current headlines are about NK WMD, we have a decent article, put it up there. My two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 August 8