Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 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

January 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 31

[Posted] RD: Tokitenkū YoshiakiEdit

Article: Tokitenkū Yoshiaki (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Japan Times, top sports story at Mainichi News, plenty of coverage in Japanese news
Nominator and updater: Athomeinkobe (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Tigerboy1966 (talk • give credit) and Pawnkingthree (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 top sumo wrestler. Died at age 37 after retiring just last year due to cancer. Some of the minor events in his career are unsourced, but overall I think the article is in good enough shape. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose referencing needs significant improvement. Stephen 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Every section has multiple references. Are there particular statements that concern you?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not sure if the article has changed since Stephen voted or not, but I can't find any contentious information that lacks citations, referencing is exemplary and better than the minimum standards we usually require. This looks good to go. --Jayron32 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As Jayron32 points out, the current state of the article seems appropriately sourced and acceptable, maybe the sourcing had been improved since Stephen's !vote. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Seems like it --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • When I looked at it the career section was pretty much unreferenced. There's a few more citations needed then it's good to post. Stephen
  • Comment There are currently two "citation needed" tags in the article. The first deals with the subject suffering a losing record at all six tournaments in a calendar year. The fact that he did so has now been referenced. I have not been able to find a reference to support the claim that he was the first person to do so in five years. Ideally it should be referenced, but I would say it is not a hugely contentious claim. The second tag is about his sudden movement up the rankings. To put it in layman's terms, he was ranked 25th in May, had a decent tournament with a 10-5 record, and got promoted all the way up to 10th at the next tournament in July. This is all sourced, except for the claim that he was the first person in 25 years to jump so far up the rankings. These two pieces of trivia have probably been copied from the Japanese wiki article. If they are the only thing stopping this article being posted, I would gladly delete them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted after hiding unreferenced claims. Stephen 02:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump picks Neil Gorsuch for Supreme CourtEdit

Consensus will not develop for this nomination. Stephen 02:15, 1 February 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: Neil Gorsuch (talk, history) and Donald Trump (talk, history)
Blurb: President of the United States Donald Trump chooses Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court of the United States created by Antonin Scalia's death.
News source(s): [1] [2] [3] Lead story on BBC News in the United States
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Highest court in the United States, one of the most important countries in the world. If others want, they can include that Gorsuch is currently a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitEverymorning (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not of the clear significance of the travel ban. One conservative judge is replaced by another conservative judge. We can revisit this when and if he nominates his horse. Blythwood (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not USApedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine appointment of a judge to fulfill a vacancy. I agree with Blythwood, this would only be ITN-worthy if he nominated his horse for the position. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this gets posted, we may as well change the "T" in "ITN" to "Trump". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is one of many nominations made by the new administration and posting every nomination/appointment is unnecessary as others point out. However, I do think it would be worthy for ITN when a new SCOTUS judge actually joins the court, ie. approved by Senate and sworn in (Talk:Elena Kagan (2010) & Talk:Sonia Sotomayor (2009) both have ITN templates for when they joined the court; but Talk:Samuel Alito (2005) and Talk:John Roberts (2005) don't). AHeneen (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Very contentious, drawn out vacancy that was stonewalled in the hopes of a GOP victory come the 2016 election (which has obviously happened). However, this is just a nomination. Suggest withdrawing this nomination and revisiting when a new member of the SCOTUS is sworn in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but post if confirmed. Mélencron (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is why we should have an ongoing section for the Trump Administration. A Supreme Court pick is hugely important and will have decades of impact, while we have an absurd 5 lines of text (and a picture of a signing !) about an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven nations identified by Barack Obama as state sponsors of terror. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 1 February 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] 49,000 UK men retroactively pardoned under the "Alan Turing law"Edit

Article: Alan Turing law (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Under UK's Alan Turing law some 49,000 men are retroactively pardoned after being cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.
Alternative blurb: ​Under the Alan Turing law some 49,000 men in England and Wales are retroactively pardoned after being cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.
Alternative blurb II: ​Thousands of men in England and Wales are pardoned for past homosexual acts
News source(s): BBC

 109.144.213.90 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Why is this in the news now? Also, the article says that the law is part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 which is a microstub which doesn't even mention the Turing law. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Because the law was enacted today, posthumously pardoning some 49,000 men. Stephen 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, right (there's a news link there now, there wasn't before). The article says "As of January 2017, some 49,000 men had been retroactively pardoned under the terms of the Policing and Crime Act 2017" which should probably read "On 31 January 2017...". A tentative Support in that case. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Article is an underreferenced stub. No comments on significance at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I clicked on the Policing and Crime Act 2017 link instead of the bolded link. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A noteworthy event. The article looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle - I too was confused why this is news "today" but if what Stephen says is true, the article should be updated to reflect that the law came on the books today, and thus this retroactive pardon only started today. Once that's cleared up, this is a significant event and appropriate ITN material, and outside this issue on the timing, the article is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless altblurb Referenced and nuanced thanks to the "reaction" subsection, but the law only applies to England and Wales apparently ("As the law – and the disregard process – only apply to England and Wales, groups in Northern Ireland and Scotland have campaigned for equivalent laws in their jurisdiction"); neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland are included (so it's not "the UK"). I also wonder if we could add a list of all the MPs who voted for and against it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think a list of MPs would be useful, as this was part of a much bigger piece of law, and thus MPs could, for example, have voted against the bill because of a completely separate part of the legislation that they did not agree with. Agree about the altblurb (done, see above). Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is not just internal to the UK, it's a natural continuation of previously-posted items such as this and this. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Arguably the previous ITN postings were specific to Alan Turing, but that's why this new piece of law is named after him. It is a continuation of a principle, but definitely not a continuation of the same story. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Well let's suppose that a new law is passed ("_____ is no longer a crime, retroactively applied to 2010"). You would expect then that "_____ people are pardoned" will happen. The first implies the second. The same applies to e.g. "Trump signs law banning travelers from ____ countries" and "____ travelers from ____ countries are unable to travel to the US". If we have posted the first, we do not need to post the second. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
        • But that's not the case here. 2009 (the 2nd link) we have a British PM apologizing for how they treated Turing under existing laws. The first link was when he was posthumously pardoned by the Queen - while this was important it was also recognized as more a ceremonial process since Turing has passed away to enjoy any benefit of it. Now, and what is important here, is that the UK Parliament, after a few years of debates, have created a law that mirror what the Queen did for one person (one rather famous and important person) to 49,000-some individuals retroactively, including some who are still alive. While not all these people are as important as Turing, the impact is much greater, and reflects that the UK gov't recognized these previous laws anti-gay laws were harmful. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see that we did post the passing of the law. We posted the pardoning of Turing, but that's only tangentally relevant (i.e. to the - unofficial - name of the law). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Let me try this again. If Obama had decided to pardon Julian Assange, would you also expect him to pardon Chelsea Manning? Similarly, if the UK government decides to pardon Alan Turing, would you also expect the many other homosexuals in the country whose names are too minor for the press to mention to also be pardoned? If you answer yes, then where is the notability of this nomination? Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
            • I'm not entirely sure of the thrust of your Assange/Manning argument, but I'd argue that the pardoning of 49,000 (plus many more to come) people is more notable than the pardoning of one high profile individual. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the pardoning of nearly 50,000 individuals is highly notable, much more so than the commutation of the sentence of one highly notable individual. Let's have some consistency here people. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, presumably quite a few of these men are still alive. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - as The Daily Telegraph makes clear, it's slightly different for the living, who have to personally apply for a pardon: "As well as the posthumous pardons, the new law will allow 15,000 living men who were found guilty of sexual acts that are no longer illegal to apply to the Home Office for a pardon." Note that those pardonned posthumously include Oscar Wilde. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, noble, but moot decision. Retroactive pardon means they already served their sentences and only then were pardoned. Also it's unclear what percentage is still alive. Brandmeistertalk 09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 49,000 are all posthumous, though living people can apply to be added to the list, and these will be considered on a case-by-case basis - it is not guaranteed that those applying will be pardoned. To my mind, that muddies the water enough that we shouldn't post this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not my understanding. Provided the crime is on the list, a pardon will be issued. It's just an administative process. Perhaps the article doesn't make this clear. The Daily Telegraph says: "A spokesman for Stonewall, the gay rights charity, called the new law: “Another important milestone of equality.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Martinevans123: I don't have a source to hand, but my understanding is that, in the cases of those living, each will be checked that the conviction would not be otherwise covered by a different crime today. For instance, there are cases where homosexual sexual assault was prosecuted as gross indecency and these would not be pardoned. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I now see that the article says this: "This means that the Home Office will investigate each case involving living people to ensure that the act that the petitioner was convicted of is no longer considered a criminal act, to avoid pardoning men convicted of underage sex or rape." There is a BBC source in support. But I don't see that this procedure affects the fundamental notability of the event. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Such large mass pardonings of people, alive or deceased, are rare and notable. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Alt3 made for conciseness. As for a vote, this strikes me as an incremental step in a process that no one really doubts any longer. On the other hand it apparently affects living people, so I'll just say neutral.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Based on the statement by the Stonewall spokesman, it seems to be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose, despite it being a worthy cause. This is an entirely symbolic gesture, and whilst it's clearly important for those directly affected it doesn't lead to the sort of societal change that e.g. gay marriage did. We already posted the pardon of Alan Turing himself, which led to this law, and I don't see any reason to feature the story twice on ITN. This is also only getting muted media coverage, reflecting a 'well that's nice, but doesn't really change much' response. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. There is consensus for this. Just because the law is informally named for someone who we have posted before is irrelevant. That the 49,000 are dead does not lessen the social impact of this legislation to their friends and families. Stephen 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull. 7 supports and 5 opposes isn't consensus. 2.102.185.203 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't count votes. Stephen 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Post-posting support. Large number of people pardoned in the context of a controversial former British law. Even if it is largely symbolic, symbols, matter. In this case, the law not only pardons the dead, but allows those living with convictions under the overturned laws to apply for pardons. Don't why this shouldn't be posted because we posted related stories 3 and 8 years ago. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Post-posting support per Patar knight – I understand that this is mostly symbolic, but as it stands, the pardoning of 49,000 people at one time is still significant enough for ITN in itself. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please make concise This blurb is 5 lines long and contains language that has currency only within UK legalese ("cautioned"), is redundant ("retroactively pardoned") and unneeded ("historical legislation...").128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Please take such concerns to ERRORS, per the notice at the top of this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John WettonEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 02:13, 6 February 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: John Wetton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Asia frontman, ex-King Crimson bassist John Wetton dies - NME". NME. 2017-01-31. Retrieved 2017-01-31.; "John Wetton dies aged 67". Prog. 2017-01-31. Retrieved 2017-01-31.
Nominator: Theburlybush (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 progressive rock musician known for his work with King Crimson, UK, Roxy Music, Asia including many others. Asia's 1982 self titled debut was the top selling album in the United States in 1982 and also noted for his appearances on King Crimson albums like Red and Larks' Tongues in Aspic. --Theburlybush (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Significantly undersourced article. Band membership history absolutely needs to be sourced at a bare minimum as well as the discography aspects. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Vastly unsourced.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time as above, though certainly support this progressive rock innovator deserves a RD pending sourcing updates. To lay it out plainly, in the Career section, everything from "In the late 1980s" onwards is essentially unsourced. The band timeline and discography sections are also wholly unsourced. Most of this info can surely be compiled from the reliable resources of his official website, his discogs.com discography, and his ProgArchives page. The myriad of newspaper articles that appeared today, which likely exclusively sourced these three, may provide additional info. I would do the updates, but my router blew and I'm running off my limited cell tethering data. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:48, 1 February 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] African Union decides to readmit MoroccoEdit

Articles: Member states of the African Union (talk, history) and African Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The African Union decides to readmit Morocco despite an ongoing dispute over Western Sahara.
Alternative blurb: ​The African Union readmits Morocco despite an ongoing dispute over Western Sahara.
News source(s): (France 24), (Al Jazeera English)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support and I cleaned up the blurb. Obviously encyclopedic subject with updated articles. The AU article is in good order despite the lede tag.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "decides to" or actually "does"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on the sources above Morocco seems to have actually rejoined(one has a quote to that effect) so I've posted an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The 28th Summit of African Heads of State and Government is made up of representatives from the AU, which voted "overwhelmingly" to readmit Morocco. The Moroccan government website notes this, as well as votes in their own parliament, but the AU website has not yet updated their member states list to include Morocco. Whether the AU and Morocco have "decided to" or "did" rejoin depends on whether or not the vote at the Summit is binding, and on that I don't know anything.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
By reading the AU's own Constitutive Act, it's clear that this Assembly is the body empowered to make decisions about membership, which must be reached by consensus or by 2/3 majority. So, "did" rejoin.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle - this is the equivalent of the EU for Africa, so any changes in member-state status should be reflected as ITN. It would help if the blurb had some clarity; it seems that this isn't so much "readmit" but "admit" for the first time into what we know as the Africa Union, as Moracco had withdrawn a few decades earlier from the AU's predecessor organization. I don't know if we can make a succinct blurb to explain why Moracco withdrew before. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Event has continent-wide implications and notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb, notability should not be in question. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb -- Yogwi21 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted alt-blurb. If anyone wants to discuss further the admits/readmits issue this can be done at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
SUGGESTION This may be an opportune moment to tag on the new AU chief. We do post EU? Lihaas
Which one? Chairperson of the African Union is a ceremonial post, roughly equivalent to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which we don't post. Chairperson of the African Union Commission might be postable, but it's not clear how much power this role has. Smurrayinchester 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

January 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 30

[Closed] Rohingya peopleEdit

IAR closing my own nomination, because a) it seems very unlikely to gain consensus, and b) I have nominated a closely related item above, without the attendent concerns over article scope and recency. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 4 February 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: Rohingya people (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bangladesh initiates a relocation of tens of thousands of Rohingya refugees to an island, amid concerns of flooding, accessibility, and forced relocation?
Alternative blurb: ​Bangladesh initiates a relocation of Rohingya refugees to an island, amid heavy criticism due to poor living conditions there?
News source(s): [1][2][3][4]
Nominator and updater: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A forced relocation of tens of thousands of refugees seems quite important. Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Banedon: updating that article is easy, because the content can simply be added there with attribution: but I disagree that that article is appropriate, because this news item refers to the Bangladesh government policy. I'm open to persuasion, though. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Is Bangladesh's policy not appropriate to the 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar article? If the Rohingya were displaced from Myanmar into Bangladesh, then Bangladesh's policy would be very much a continuation of the persecution. As it is I feel like the Rohingya people article itself is not the right place for this. In a vacuum, I'd expect to see something like "the Rohingya are a widely-persecuted people, and have been [yada yada blah blah]" in the Rohingya people article. I would not expect "on [this date], Bangladesh forcibly relocated Rohingya people", which is a great deal of detail, especially in a section that lists three "see also" articles. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
2015 Rohingya refugee crisis seems to fit better than 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. It should probably be renamed 2015-17 though. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
We could rework the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis article, but the fact remains that that article, just like 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, has a well-defined scope at the moment which does not include the news item being reported here. The "ROhingya people" article gives very prominent mention to their persecution and migration; it is also in decent shape, so honestly, I would still advocate for the original blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The two sources listed above seem to be using the same, single source for their reporting. I would like to see more and more diverse sourcing for something like this.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but the story has been repeated by a number of very reliable news sources: here are Reuters, and The Guardian, for good measure. Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Guardian article is from 2015! The Reuter's article is also using the same source as the original two in the nomination. I fail to see how copy-pasting field releases is good journalism, "reliable source" or not.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like this "initiation" started a year ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above, and since when do blurbs end in question marks? --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. This idea has been floated before, but the Bangladeshi government has just announced that it is going ahead and it seems a good enough time to post it. As reported, they are essentially proposing the relocation of over a quarter of a million people to a small island that is entirely submerged twice a day - ie. their mass murder. If Trump's travel ban is worth a post, surely this is (though of course I realise not everyone opposing above supported that posting). However there is a lot of work to do before this can be posted. I agree with Banedon that 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar is the right article to start with, as this move is largely a response to the influx of refugees to Bangladesh following the persecution in Myanmar. However, it needs substantial updates and probably moving to some title that covers the situation more generally. 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis is probably not appropriate because it is about Rohingya leaving Bangladesh for other countries. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added some material to 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar about refugees, and a couple of sources to this nomination. GoldenRing (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until relocation actually begins. Unless I'm mistaken, all the sources provided merely show that this is being seriously considered, not that it is finalized or that anyone has actually been relocated. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:41, 1 February 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] Miss UniverseEdit

No consensus, insufficient quality. Stephen 02:12, 6 February 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: Miss Universe 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Miss France, Iris Mittenaere, is announced as the winner of the Miss Universe beauty pagent.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, Washington Post
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Hariboneagle927 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Jjj1238 (talk • give credit) and PageantUpdater (talk • give credit)

 Fuebaey (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I think this is a silly and completely uninteresting event, but it is an international event making international news. I'd use active voice in the blurb regardless: "[so and so] wins the [pageant]". Banedon (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose about as far from encyclopedic news as one can imagine. Kardashian's jewel theft made international news but it doesn't make it something to feature on the main page of the fourth-most visited website in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given by TRM above. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm having to oppose it above for the reasons given by TRM, because our current guidelines (Please do not oppose an item because it is not on ITN/R) mean that I'm not allowed oppose it for what seem to me the most sensible reason for not posting it, namely that it's an annual event which the community has implicitly judged not to be worthy of ITN/R, which in turn tends to implicitly suggest that it shouldn't normally be posted unless there's some exceptional reason for doing so (which there doesn't seem to be in this case). But for some reason I'm not allowed give that as the main reason for my opposition, so I've had to give a secondary reason instead. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose does not seem to be encyclopedic news. Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support aesthetics contest with world-wide participation. Article is in much better shape than the below X Games article as well.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this subjective judgement. I'm surprised this was in the news at all. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality; however, I believe that this does meet the significance criteria. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Is this the largest pageant worldwide? If so, I do not see any reason to oppose the article. The quality of the article looks fine to me (the article doesn't look like an advertisement at all to me, and nearly all statements seem to be properly sourced), and assuming this is the biggest event of its kind, I definitely support its inclusion on the front page. ~Mable (chat) 17:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know that beauty pageants have become far less significant over the last decade due to the changing social climates (eg how they are considered degrading to women, etc.), but they still happen, they still make the news, and this seems to be the top-tier competition. It might be subjective but so are things like the BAFTAs and Oscars, so it seems silly to oppose on the fact this is a subjective result. The article seems to be well sourced for the event. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    It's about encyclopedic value. You would oppose a mass shooting in America but would support Miss Universe? What a curious barometer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Part of the problem is that aside from Miss Universe, there are also Miss World and Miss Earth. If there was only Miss World, which is also the oldest beauty pageant, then I think it could have been considered for ITNR. Brandmeistertalk 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Question: when did we post Mr Universe? Or is this just another example of Wikipedia's vast majority of pubescent bedroom-lurking teenagers wanting a non-encyclopedic but titivating "news" item on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    It's a planned annual event with a reasonable long history (65 years it looks like), so noting the winner of a given year is part of encyclopedic coverage, just as we'd do for any sporting event or the like. A mass shooting is in the realm of news, and because we are not a newspaper, not every breaking news story is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and thus there can be reason to oppose those. If we were a newspaper, I would totally agree that the shooting has much higher weight, but as an encyclopedia the importance is flipped. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Planned annual event with a reasonable long history? That doesn't make it encyclopedic. We don't just post "any sporting event or the like", we assess it for encyclopedic impact and quality. This is not encyclopedic. A bunch of pretty women being assessed against each other to determine who is more subjectively attractive, in a swim suit or evening wear? You think this is the sort of thing Wikipedia should be publishing on the main page? You've lost me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    I supported with the assumption that this is the most major pagaent of the year. Is this incorrect or subjective? If so, I may want to reconsider my stance (not that it seems to matter much with all these 'I don't like it' !votes). ~Mable (chat) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:The Rambling Man and others. --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Historic winner. Good sourcing. Plenty of worldwide attention, much more than usual. Plenty of IDONTLIKEIT above. That is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment just a quick one for the supporters, please read the article. It's junk mainly, and a lot of it unreferenced. Despite the fact it's an out-dated, irrelevant, misogynist cavalcade which creates childhood disorders and promotes unhealthy living, please remember this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    While I agree that beauty pagaents are a remnant of the past, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it "misogynist cavalcade" I would still agree they are unnecessarily sexist, but we are not here to right great wrongs. The topic is encyclopedic, this event has gained worldwide coverage, and while there are some CNs (added since I looked to new information that appeared to be added since), it is not too far off from being posted. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    This has no encyclopedic value. What longevity does Miss Universe demonstrate year in, year out? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    About the same as any given sporting event. People keep track of who won, how their favorite contestants performed, the usual. No different from any other kind of competition in those aspects. ~Mable (chat) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    Really? It's way off being posted - it isn't even an article, just a series of trivia factlets ("The pageant program was initially announced to start at 5 a.m., but it was later announced that the program was to run from 8 a.m. until 11:00") glued together. It reads like someone made notes for an article, but never actually wrote it. There are actually quite a few unsourced statements in it too, some of which may be contentious. More to the point, there's a whacking great (and correct) "multiple issues" tag on the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    The tags had been removed, were readded, and are currently under discussion on the talk page. You could hardly say the article is underreferenced at this point, and I really don't believe it reads like an advertisement. As I said below, the article has too many "short paragraphs", but together they do form a sort of narrative through the event. "It started at this time, it had these judges," etc. Basic stuff. ~Mable (chat) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from the notability, this article is incredibly poor and cannot be linked from the Main Page without a complete rewrite. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – a lot of people bring up an issue with the article's quality, saying that it needs a rewrite, but I don't see it at all and feel really confused about it. I don't like how short all of the paragraphs are, but otherwise it looks like a B-class article to me, far better than what we usually post on RD. Could someone explain what kind of issues The article is dealing with specifically? ~Mable (chat) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's plenty of beauty pageants, we can't list them all here. Better not set a precedent. --bender235 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once better sourced. The last time a Frenchwoman won was in 1953; perhaps an altburb could highlight this fact. Iris Mittenaere looks fine (if a bit short), but Miss Universe 2016 needs more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Does it matter that the last Frenchwoman won in 1953? How many nations take place? Why is that so notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Article gives 86 countries took part in the pageant. That's pretty big - bigger than e.g. Eurovision. Banedon (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    The point is that the winner being French is completely irrelevant. Who cares? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a rare occurrence! That makes it even more newsworthy I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
When there are 86 participating countries in an annual pageant, on average, each country's participant wins one time every 86 years. In that sense, France last winning in 1953 isn't to be unexpected. Banedon (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment according to the Miss Universe article, "Along with its rival contests, Miss World and Miss Earth, this pageant is one of the most important and publicized beauty pageants in the world. It is held in more than 190 countries worldwide and seen by more than half a billion people annually." I'm actually wondering whether or not to nominate this for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support such a nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Multiple orange tags, very little prose about the actual competition, and many unsourced claims. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 2 February 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: Masayaa NakamuraEdit

Article: Masaya Nakamura (Namco) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
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: Founder of Namco and who developed Pac-Man. Article is woefully short, and I'm going to ping the VG project to see if they can jump and help to expand. Also note: as Variety points out, he died on the 22nd, but only today was his death announced. MASEM (t) 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Myself and other editors have greatly expanded the article, so it should be ready to go (in terms of ITN/C review, not to post). --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support "Father of Pac-Man". Article is decently written and suitable for posting. 117.192.6.179 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

January 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 29

[Posted] Winter X Games XXIEdit

Article: Winter X Games XXI (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2017 Winter X Games conclude with the United States winning seven gold medals.
News source(s): New York Times, Bleacher Report, ESPN
Nominator and updater: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I updated the article with a day by day summary of the final events. I do not believe we have ever posted the X Games before on ITN but I thought it would be worth updating the article and nominating it here. Andise1 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - I'm seeing only regional coverage for this event. If this is posted regardless I would strongly oppose "... with the United States winning seven gold medals" in the blurb, since it is a multi-national event and highlighting only one country's medal tally is not fair. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is even being covered in countries with virtually no winter sports pedigree, e.g. the UK, and it's perfectly normal to include which country came top in the overall standings of such a multi-national multi-sport contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean no pedigree??!!? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the UK won two medals in this very event, so I do not agree that the UK has virtually no winter sports pedigree. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support sporting event with world-wide participation, and a First to boot (successful quad underflip).128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The article Elena Hight is in terrible shape. How can it be linked on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    So terrible it doesn't exist! You mean Elena Hight. But why pick that one? Quebec City is awful. Western Sahara is awful. If you're now reviewing non-target links, please seek a change to the ITN criteria to ensure all linked articles are up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Not to mention that Winter X Games XXI mostly consists of tables with insufficient prose and many of the references are just copied URLs. The discussion with two support votes (with one by an IP-address) against one oppose vote does also confirm that the posting was premature. I don't think we need changes of the ITN criteria when it's glaringly obvious that some nominations cannot be posted because of the insufficient article quality. I'd also like to see what Stephen was thinking when posting this.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    P.S. Quebec City and Western Sahara are in much better shape than Elena Hight, which has an orange tag, lack of references and extremely poor style (please note that much of it contains sentences without full stops).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    The references were added by me to appease yet another complainant, feel free to pad them out properly, I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to it if no-one else does. At least it makes the article referenced. As for orange maintenance tags, Quebec City, Western Sahara and Elene Hight's articles all contain orange maintenance tags. The article has four cited paragraphs, easily sufficient to meet the ITN rules. Of course, in all that time, you could have worked on making the article better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    I can re-work the article to make look better, but sometimes you have to complain. Posting 'crap' on the main page with the argument that you can spend time on improving it rather than complaining about it is useful in terms of efficient editing but not in raising awareness about content quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Can you point me to the rules which state that we have to review all the auxiliary links in a blurb to ensure they're up to (some unknown standard of) quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    We don't have established rules on checking all articles linked in a blurb, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't give a damn about the quality beyond the links visible on the main page. Compare this simply to the RD nominations and the strive for quality before posting. I don't think these two things drastically differ so that a different reasoning should be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then your point applies to the other two links (the only two I checked), and there are doubtless more across the main page. RD nominations are the whole target article so the comparison is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it should apply to all articles linked on the main page, but I can't go to each nomination and start up discussion about the same thing. My complain here generalises the case and doesn't defend the insufficient quality of articles that I haven't checked. After all, no-one can check all articles to draw conclusions with highest accuracy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, so no action needed until we change the various main page sections to include a guideline to check that all auxiliary links are up to a particular (defined?) quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think the distinction here is that the Quebec City or Western Sahara links are integral to the blurb itself. A link to a pictured gold medallist (1/7), is not really integral to the understanding of the Winter X games. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then replace it with an image of Turing which is two stories newer. You're an admin, this should be the stuff you can easily do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty confident that neither TFA or DYK have a similar check of auxiliarly linked article quality of the text posted to the main page. Both emphasize the quality of the bolded link article, and the text that is to be put to the main page, but not any other links from that text. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removal on quality/notability grounds, per my earlier comments at WP:ERRORS. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Every issue you raised has either been resolved or refuted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword blurb I would strongly suggest we reword it to "with the US team winning most gold medals" or similar. As it stands, it makes the blurb sound like it's simply pointing out the US team's results for no reason. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with above, but would prefer omitting the entire latter half of the sentence entirely ("The 2017 Winter X Games conclude" or "The 2017 Winter X Games in Aspen, Colorado conclude"). Banedon (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull. Besides the questionable ITN-notability grounds. The X games are not even the top multi-event Winter action sporting games, since it also hosts the Winter X Games Europe, which is of equal status (if maybe not viewership). This year's Winter X games had severe viewership drops [4] in almost all time slots [5], and never getting more than 1 mil. Compare this to other winter sporting events such as the US figure skating championships, which got 3.7 million viewers [6] not counting the widespread international figure skating audience, and the Winter X games wouldn't seem to make the cut. The update is also not very good – I count only a handful of facts that are not just merely X won Y – and combined with the lack of ITN-notability, I think it justifies pulling. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The story will be moved off the ticker soon so I do not think removal is necessary. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Quebec City mosque shootingEdit

Article: Quebec City mosque shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunmen kill six people and wound eight in a mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada.
Alternative blurb: ​At least five people are killed and eleven wounded in a mass shooting at a mosque in Sainte-Foy, Quebec.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jokullmusic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Happened in last hour. Give time for details to emerge. MASEM (t) 02:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Please note There is also presently a second article created just a minute afterward 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting on the same event. These should be history-merged to one article to cover it, but I don't know which one is the better name to do that with. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The articles have been merged; Blurb/target updated to reflect the target. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Anti-islamic attack on a religious service. And it was in Canada, so it won't be rejected here for being "just another U.S. shooting". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support'. Mass killings in Canada are extremely rare. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Provincial police just gave an interview confirming the number of deaths/wounded and that all subjects are in custody. Article should be stabilizing now and is well-sourced and probably good to post. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is more significant in terms of fatalities than both the Ottawa attack and the vehicle ramming attack in 2014, both of which I think made ITN. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Mass killings of this nature are exceedingly rare in Canada. Kurtis (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is in good shape and this is getting worldwide coverage (see, e.g., coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Latest count is 6 dead. Isa (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, due possible quality issue? Currently the Suspects section a) wikilinks to a disambiguation article for Quebecquois, and b) links to a written (and unconfirmed) news report that one of the suspects is of Quebec origin and the other of Arab origin, while the same item also has a spoken (and unconfirmed, and perhaps evolving) video news report that seemed a bit confused, but appeared to be saying that both arrested suspects may be of both Quebec and Arab origin. I don't know whether this is sufficiently serious to require us to wait or not. And I don't know whether including such unconfirmed reports is 'encyclopaedic', but it's not what I would expect to find in Encyclopaedia Britannica. And I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done to try to fix the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Put another way, the Suspects section may currently violate WP:NOTNEWS, along with its Disambiguation quality issue (see above). As I am not sure whether this should stop posting, I have temporarily removed the Ready tag from this item, to give others a little time to have a look at the matter, after which somebody else may want to restore the Ready tag. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The disambiguation issue now seems fixed, and there is now also a link to a tweet by La Presse, that they had learnt that a suspect was of Moroccan origin. Our text said 'attacker' (which I corrected to 'suspect'), possibly because the tweet says suspect in French, but is immediately followed by tweets from private individuals (not from La Presse) saying 'attacker' in English - most of our readers who bother to check this source will thus probably see the English mistranslation 'attacker' instead of the French 'suspect'. I leave it to others to decide whether this is now 'encyclopedic', and, if not, what to do about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The reporter in the TVA video clip basically says what's in the article text (i.e. one Arab, one Quebecois) in the first minute of the clip. Not seeing how NOTNEWS applies here. Unless you're suggesting that La Presse and TVA Nouvelles, and other sources reporting the same thing now (e.g. CBC) are unreliable, or that the identity of the perpetrators of one of Canada's worst mass shootings is unencyclopedic, I'm not sure how that would apply. There are potential BLP problems with content of this type, but here all the claims are sourced to reliable sources, are stated as being from those sources and not in Wikipedia's voice, and have their lack of official confirmation mentioned in the article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, just for the record, the TVA video clip (which hasn't changed) basically says in French 'two people of Quebecois origin, ... and two people of Arab origin, ...(more talk)... to confirm our story, two people of Quebecois and Arab origin' - in other words it appears confused, but may (or may not) be saying two people of both Quebec and Arab origin - such apparent confusion and ambiguity is hardly what one would normally describe as 'reliable' (as in 'reliable source'). The La Presse tweet may be consistent with either of the two different interpretions, since it only speaks of one of the suspects being of Moroccan origin (especially if we are correctly translating 'origine' as 'background', implying possibly multiple 'ancestry' rather than unique 'birthplace'). But, as already mentioned, this is just for the record, since I said I'd leave it to others to decide what to do about all this. And if CBC is actually reporting all this more reliably, it might be a good idea to add in that report in addition to, or in place of, one or both those reports. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Again just for the record, the tweet has now been removed by somebody else as an alleged violation of WP:RS (which seems correct, at least by my reading of the relevant sections of WP:RS). Meanwhile about 40 minutes ago the Washington Post was saying nothing about the suspects, while CBC News was saying:
A witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.
"It seemed to me that they had a Québécois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot they yelled, 'Allahu akbar!' The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head," said the witness.
Note that this does NOT confirm that the attackers are of Arab origin. They are masked and speaking with a Quebec accent. The fact that they shout 'Allahu Akbar' may mean that they are Quebecers who have converted to Islam, or that they are non-Muslims trying to blame their crime on Islamists, but it is NOT CBC confirmation that one of them is of Arab origin. So we are currently just left with one source for that, and it is a source which appears ambiguous, confused, and self-contradictory. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. - article is in good shape. Worldwide covered incident.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This was called a terrorist attack by Trudeau. Any reason we don't call it that? Or is it only terrorism when it's Muslims pulling the trigger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Incidents like this are often prematurely labeled as terrorist attacks, or may be treated like terrorist incidents as to engage special law enforcement provisions, but only until the motives of the shooters are figured out could we call it a terrorist attack. And that's not known at this stage. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 World Men's Handball ChampionshipEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:20, 2 February 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 World Men's Handball Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2017 World Men's Handball Championship concludes with France defeating Norway in the final.
Nominator: Kiril Simeonovski (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: We can post this after the final ends and summary is added in the article. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A summary of the final will not suffice, there needs to be prose on the whole of the tournament. ITN/R or not, the article needs to have sufficient quality. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per BK. We need some actual text. Otherwise it doesn't look bad. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not really even an article, just a collection of tables. No prose, hardly something we should ever consider posting to the main page I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I note that this wasn't posted last time it occurred in 2015, for the same reason. And that article actually had some prose; this one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 29 January 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] Australian OpenEdit

Unimproved. Stephen 23:31, 5 February 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 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the Australian Open concludes with Roger Federer winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles.
News source(s): ABC, ABC
Nominator: Samuel Wiki (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.
 Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the structure of the article seems odd compared to the previous years'; it's the same general layout but there's excess detail in places. It looks weird from that stance, and may need to be fixed to meet what other years have had. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably the main thing you're noticing is the day-by-day summaries section is not split into separate article like previous years. Additionally, the prose summaries of notable events is organized differently and bigger than previous years (not neccessarily a bad thing). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose the article hasn't been updated post-conclusion of the tournament. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Updated. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Still loads of sections without inline citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks pretty good to me. Obvious notability as one of tennis' four Majors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Notable enough, but don't think the article is up to main page quality. For example the short prose update is squeezed into a list of trivia under a misleading "notable events" heading. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - the real news here is that both winners have extended their overall records, and that Federer in particular has made sporting history here. I don't have the time (so no snarky comments to do the work needed on the article, please), but I really hope someone will be able to do the work needed here (several of the last few tennis Grand Slams have failed to get into ITN because the work is not being done on the articles). Whether or not Federer wins another Slam this year, I suspect he will retire at some point relatively soon, and that really will be the end of an era. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Non-notable event. Tennis has gotten so ridiculously stagnant with the same men & women's champions over the last 15-20 years that even the media is tired of covering it. In the US, Trump's immigration orders have gotten the bulk of the media attention this weekend; this was only a footnote. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Australian Open is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong link, this should be the place: [7]. This item is on ITNR, so opposing it on merit is pointless. Banedon (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose not a major event. 45.116.233.26 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Struck, it's at ITN/R, which means if it meets quality criteria it will get posted. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support significant news headlines around the world; Federer and Nadal are considered two of the best tennis players of all time, and to have a five-set rematch at their age is unusual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This has been updated with significant prose for the singles and sourced per The Guardian match reports.Dustblower (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Still out of date (e.g. lots of "Matches start at 11:00 am, Night matches do not start before 7:00 pm") and sections of stats without a single citation, e.g. the ranking points changes has no verifiable reliable sources at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    I fixed the problem with the phrasing and sourced the seeds, points, and rankings by Tennis Explorer.Dustblower (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    The tense issue remains (at the bottom of all the schedule tables). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    What about the following phrase. "The day match session commences at 11:00 am local time, whilst the night match session commences at 7:00 pm local time."Dustblower (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, they've all already happened. These should all be past tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    I've corrected the tense issue. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 08:24, 5 February 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.

January 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 28

[Closed] Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and SyriaEdit

No plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Stephen 21:47, 4 February 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: Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Trump signed a memorandum of plan to defeat ISIS at Oval office informing it as a high priority Adminstration agenda.
News source(s): CNNtime
Nominator: Junosoon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: High priority agenda as disclosed by Donald Trump administration Junosoon (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A politician calling some plan a high priority agenda does not make it anything at all. ITN is for events, not plans. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question How would this be posted since it's almost as old as the oldest blurb? Banedon (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A remarkable pivot in foreign policy from the previous administration. Admirable, frankly. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both going to be very stale as well as nothing enforcable, just stating an initiative to be planned out. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 4 February 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: Stuart TimmonsEdit

Article: Stuart Timmons (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Ocamb, Karen (January 28, 2017). "Gay author, historian Stuart Timmons dead at 60". Los Angeles Pride. Retrieved January 29, 2017.; Woo, Elaine (January 30, 2017). "Stuart Timmons, author of 'Gay L.A.' and noted LGBT historian, dies at 60". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 30, 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: Award-winning gay historian and activist Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose, whilst notable enough for an article, his death does not seem to have been reported in the mainstream news, Stephen 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    Per two RFC discussions, the existence of an article is a high enough threshold for RD. Please assess article quality only. --Jayron32 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    ITN's overall rules require that the nominated event be in the news. Abductive (reasoning) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    That was a question I had on this too. He's notable but his death has not really be noted (LA Pride being the only major source I could find, and that's far too narrow for "news"). It is an interesting issue, but I would be tempted that the intent of the RFC is that as long as the notable standalone article is there, and the death is in an RS even if not "news", that RD would fit the intent that we have from that RFC. If we had to use a forum post, for example, or a standard newspaper short obit, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I've added this obituary. I think we could WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case and then try to reach consensus to change ITN rules. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I am struck by the way our current rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press. A similar argument could be made about RDs from Zambia or Paraguay--unlikely to be on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, but as long as they have good articles, they should appear on the main page IMO. It seems amoral to reinforce the discriminatory and exclusionary biases of the Western press via ITN rules.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I find an obit in the LA Times, which is pretty mainstream. SusunW (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Stephen: Do you formally support this now please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support One of the films is not sourced, but I hope that should be trivial to fix, but otherwise the "lack of being in the news" discussed above is resolved with the LATimes obit. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A couple of references needed and this is good to go, now that it is 'In the News'. And please, this has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia, so it's extremely disappointing to see that card played. We had another recent example of Mark Fisher, who had an article but no-one reported his death until several days later. Stephen 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the media is inherently heteronormative/homophobic. That was my point. I didn't say ITN was.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You said "our current [ITN] rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press." Reinforcing rules is an active behaviour. Stephen 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not actively. Passively. But that's inevitable unless one lives in a gay bubble.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now for the same reason as Bland at this point. The two sources alluded to are local LA media. If this is in the news it should be covered more broadly than by those who knew the man. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times is a major newspaper though, isn't it? It has a daily circulation of 653,868.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is, the death has coverage in reliable sources so any opposition on that point is, well, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Since you're here--feel free to let us know formally if you support or oppose this...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support still one [cn] in there, I made a few tweaks to the article, but otherwise it's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 08:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Vatican forces the leader of the Sovereign Order of Malta to resign in condoms rowEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:32, 1 February 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: Sovereign Military Order of Malta (talk, history)
Blurb: ​*Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (coat of arms pictured), forcing its leader Prince and Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign.
Alternative blurb: Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, forcing its Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign in a dispute partly about contraceptives.
Alternative blurb II: Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, forcing its Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign in a dispute partly over a rift between liberals and conservatives.
News source(s): (The New York Times), (Vatican Radio)
Nominator: Bruzaholm (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Notable news as one sovereign entity (Vatican) takes de facto control of another (the Order). The Sovereign Military Order of Malta retains sovereignty under international law, including United Nations permanent observer status, issuing its own passports, currency and postage stamps with the Maltese cross insignia. There are even speculations that the takeover will end the history of the almost 1000-year-old Military Order. Bruzaholm (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now mainly on article quality. Referencing is very poor with whole sections lacking a citation. Beyond which I am concerned by the wording in the blurb. As a matter of private opinion, I entirely agree that one sovereign country has effectively overthrown the government of another. However neither side in this dispute is characterizing things in that language and the wording of the relevant section does not support it. All of which said this is beyond unusual, to the point of virtually unknown in modern political history. When was the last time a Pope deposed another head of state? This is definitely ITN material, but it needs work and unless the section is rewritten with solid sourcing, the blurb will need to be changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Interesting to history buffs (like me) but of little general significance. Sca (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, conditional on article quality. NOT just of interest to history buffs, but potentially of interest to over a billion Catholics (and quite a few non-Catholics) worldwide in terms of what it says about the unusual measures the present Pope is prepared to take in dealing with various kinds of internal problems in the Church. It is arguably ultimately also about the Church and contraception (and thus global population and the global environment and poverty and sex and health and Women's Rights, etc), since the Pope was opposing the dismissal of the Chancellor of the order by its Grand Master "for allowing the distribution of condoms in a medical project for the poor".Tlhslobus (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Could an altblurb give some indication of what the dispute is actually about? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I've now added an altblurb mentioning that it's partly about contraceptives. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's bigger than that. This is the latest battle in the Catholic Church's ongoing civil war between progressives aligned with Pope Francis and conservatives. Among the latter Cardinal Burk has been seen as a leader even before his de-facto banishment from the Vatican, where he was one of the most powerful figures in the Church, to the relatively obscure and ceremonial post of Chaplain to the KoM. There is a lot going on here that people who don't pay close attention to what's going on in the Catholic Church aren't seeing. It is one of the biggest power struggles in centuries with the future course of the RCC being the stakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Username give away your views much, Ad Orientem? Why do I suspect you are a partisan of Cardinal Sarah? (All in jest!) --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm not Catholic, but I do try to keep up on things. And yes, I'm sympathetic to Card. Sarah among others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As a sovereign entity, leadership changes are on par with leadership changes in sovereign states, which generally make ITN. --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support an encyclopedically interesting and notable event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi TRM. Are you endorsing the nomination with the article in its current condition? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm endorsing the newsworthy element of the story. I'm trying to rely on admins to gauge encyclopedic quality from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Tu es homo summa fide... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ita vero, but some of your fellow admins are fully focused on getting me blocked, thanks <orange>The ed17</orange>! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Methinks that should perhaps read either "Es homo summae fidei" or "Es homo fidelissimus", and I can't even remember whether "Ita vero" is correct or not. Sigh! It looks like I wasted 6 years of my life studying a dead language to no other purpose than to make me unable to resist the temptation to be absurdly pedantic over 40 years later :( Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The section about the Festing's resignation is now reasonable referenced (some 30 notes). As to the background is concerned, I think alt-blurb 2 gives a fair picture - this is basically a conflict between the "liberals" (Pope Francis and Boeselage) and the "conservatives" (Cardinal Burke and Festing). "Modernists" vs. "traditionalists" may be preferable concepts as the term "liberal" might be rather misleading as to the policy of Pope Francis. --Bruzaholm (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd not use the term "modernist" which is a pejorative among Catholics, given that modernism is a condemned heresy since at least the reign of Pius X. We don't want to be calling the Pope a heretic. Well, at least not in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think condoms (or contraceptives) may be both more meaningful and more interesting to the average reader (as well as avoiding any dispute over what the sides should be called) - 'liberals v conservatives' can probably be used to describe almost all disputes within the Church (eg child sex abuse, whom to canonize, women priests, attitudes to gays, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, etc) and is thus not very informative. Although the dispute inevitably grew to embrace other issues such as the extent of papal authority, etc, it was triggered by a row over condoms. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is not what's required and the story is fast fading from public consciousness outside of certain circles. It's already footnote material. And I don't think any of the blurbs catch the essence. Agree that "liberal" is a poor word choice. Francis defeats a challenge to his leadership from forces of the old guard. (I jest.) Better: Pope takes control of Order of Malta, defeating those who ignored his advice to avoid publicity and drama. Sad! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 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: Christopher BlandEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 22:18, 2 February 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: Christopher Bland (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Poorly sourced throughout. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • B-list connected upperclass sinecure holder with a long-standing interest in the cultivation of wine? I'd like to see that this is in the news outside the industry where he worked. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I see plenty of coverage of him when he was part of BT in other sources (like NYTimes), pre-death. There probably does need to be much more added about his business acumen here, but certainly that exists. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Covered in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, the London Evening Standard. It's more than enough, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
"Thanks"? Hehe, you so crazeh. Whenever a cameraman at a local news station dies, they have a 30-second segment on him at the end of the broadcast because he's part of the industry. That doesn't make his passing "in the news". Likewise, listing four London media outlets that cover Bland's death does not make the media man's death News. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Um, yes it does, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. contingent on improving the sources. The grounds for qualification is quality of article providing that the subject of the article is verifiable enough to justify an article. That qualification has been met. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind with the size of WP, we can have bio articles on non-notable people that can last even up to the point of RD, and for ITN purposes, questioning that notability like Medeis offered is completely fair game. So key is that the notability for the standalone article is clear, not just the existance of one. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As a former chairman of the BBC, he seems notable enough to me. He also was the chairman of London Weekend Television, British Telecommunications and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Referencing needs significant improvement. Stephen 00:50, 30 January 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: Many CloudsEdit

Article: Many Clouds (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, The Telegraph
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Tigerboy1966 (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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Early part of the racing career section is undersourced. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is in good shape and is ready to post, if others agree. BencherliteTalk 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support yep, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Ongoing: Trump's 1st days in office (previously called Trump's 1st 100 days)Edit

I am withdrawing this nomination, mostly due to the confusion caused by the '100 days' problem. I will have a think about whether or not to re-nominate changing to one of the two better target articles (Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump) suggested below by Gfcvoice. As I may well not bother, others should please feel free to re-nominate them if they wish to do so.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:15, 28 January 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: First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NY Times, Fox News
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The article is being continuously updated with many fairly important news stories (the sources given above are related to vetting for terrorism, but many others could have been added related to many other topics) , but there seems little prospect of consensus for posting these stories individually, judging by the fate of the TPP nom (where Jehochman suggested Ongoing might be useful, and I agreed, but said I'd wait - I've now waited). I leave it to others to suggest what quality improvements might be needed, if any. Trump's 1st 100 days was originally suggested as the shortest wording to add to Ongoing (due to what the article is actually called), but Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office now seems much better for the wording in Ongoing (we can remove it from Ongoing long before the artificial 100 days are up if it stops dominating the news). It seems unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly WP:POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (even though I supported that posting and worked quite hard on its articles) - by contrast this suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly WP:NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Goodness, we're only 8 days in. First 100 is a bit ambitious... --Jayron32 05:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • First 100 is just the name of the relevant article (and First 100 has conventionally been seen as important for every new president for a very long time). But we don't have to keep it in Ongoing for 100 days if we don't want to - if accepted, anybody can later nominate it for removal at any stage for whatever reasons seem sufficient to them. And I have no problem with the short name shown in Ongoing being changed to Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office if people prefer that. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely not. The emphasis on this first 100 days is still the lingering problem with the media reacting to Trump, and featuring it in ongoing is problematic. If there are any actions he takes that have a significant and immediate impact, that single story could be nominated. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The emphasis on this first 100 days is still the lingering problem with the media reacting to Trump ... - wait, is this template not named "in the news"? </snark> :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - whether or not you agree with them, Trump's actions are unarguably having a serious and worldwide impact. Furthermore, they're all over the news. This is what this template is supposed to be about. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There's "news" and then there's what the media is doing in covering Trump, which is over-sensationalist because the bulk of the media (which lean left) still are acting like sore losers from the election. There are some things Trump is doing that are making stirs in the international community (eg the Mexican president cancelling his visit after Trump signed the immigration-related executive orders), but the media's pulling at any thread they can here. And at WP and particularly at ITN, we have to avoid that rhetoric. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Journalists may "lean left", but media doesn't. Media leans corporate and click bait, not left. "Sore losers", huh. I rather think banning refugees and Muslims is unconstitutional. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1) He has not been president for 100 days yet. 2) "First 100 days" is not news in itself. 3) We've already posted two items relating to him becoming president. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Jayron, a bit ambitious. The "first 100 days" is a media creation to give its current reporting on Trump an integrity and gravitas that it would otherwise lack. But we all know that "first 100 days" is an assessment that should responsibly occur after the events of the "first 100 days," not during. At least, that's the perspective that a credible encyclopedia should operate from. The nominator's proposal was obviously made in good faith, but the target article's updates will become too unwieldy and unmanageable over time. Also, there will be continuous debate and controversy among Wikipedia editors over what items should and should not be listed in the first 100 days. Not to mention that Trump's own advisors and strategists (Kellyanne Conway et. al.) continue to provide the public with "alternative facts" that the mainstream media is not considering in its own reporting. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • On that basis we would never have any article in Ongoing, since we couldn't assess it properly until after it was no longer Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Although he's been making some "yuge" waves with policy changes and such, I don't see a need to highlight coverage of his administration. Yes, it's inherently newsworthy but nothing has happened as of yet that would be worth posting as a blurb by itself (the only one close would be withdrawal from TPP but even that is contentious ITN-wise). He's angered people, made several executive orders, and set up plans to make more changes as would be expected from a controversial new president. I wouldn't even say this is an article worth postponing posting. This would be a case of either we post it or we don't. The first 100 days is "ongoing", but the concept of it is meant to be covered after the fact by which point it will be likely be far too vast to effectively cover in a blurb (but now I'm going into crystal ball territory) .I'm rather tired at the moment and not sure if I'm being clear enough, but hopefully I am. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree with you that there will be no point in posting this in ITN after 100 days, and I have not suggested anything of the kind. Meanwhile what he is doing seems far more newsworthy (judging by coverage in reliable sources) than what we currently have in Ongoing (the battle for Mosul), so our readers may find it strange that we have no mention of it. They may also find it rather POV that, apart from his election, we have not seen fit to say anything about all the many Trump news stories except post the anti-trump Women's March story. Obviously we should not post the proposed article unless it currently meets our quality standards, and if and when the article deteriorates below our quality standards it can then be removed, but it seems to make little sense to fail to post it now because its quality might eventually drop - on that basis no article could ever be posted to Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it's amusing to see this trainwreck gathering pace, there's no such thing as "Trump's 1st 100 days" or similar. This is synthesis and contrived. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others above; if we're going to either add the first 100 days of the political leader of every nation to ongoing, or leave "Presidency of Donald Trump" up for the next four(eight) years, okay, but we're not. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this makes news around the world. Bias is overstated: "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold". It's sensible to feature something that will have major impact on the US's health. Banedon (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Every tweet Trump sends makes the news. Should we have a permanent "Presidency of Donald Trump" link on Ongoing for the next four years? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Routine coverage drops after a while. We can remove it then. Banedon (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support regardless if you like the man, or if you are from the US, he has proven to do quite a lot of things in a very short amount of time that no other person in recent memory has. The amount of impactful events is larger than say the Syrian civil war at its peak or the Olympics. This is the definition of ongoing, regardless of your political preferences. And this can be taken down once his executive orders slow down. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Liking Trump or not liking him is not the issue. Ongoing is not an American politics ticker.(I say that as an American) It is very standard for a new President to start implementing their agenda- since that's what they were sent there to do. Donald Trump has pledged to 'drain the swamp' so everything he does will get news coverage. '100 days' is an artificial and arbitrary measure(created by FDR if I'm not mistaken). Unless we are prepared to have a permanent link for Trump on Ongoing, we shouldn't put it now. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless, of course, we add Brexit to ongoing too! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Quiet there at the back. Stop causing trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Dude I've already said this should stay until his stuff slows down. If he manages to do this for 100 days keep it up, if not take it down. The stuff he is doing now is more relevant than the protests we posted. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:, actually I've already said in the TPP discussion that I think we should probably also have Brexit in Ongoing, but it currently seems much less important than the Trump issue (admittedly not helped by the unfortunate '100 days' bit). But that would properly be discussed in a separate Brexit nom (which I doubt if I will bother to attempt unless and until the current far more important nom (or a possible renom as Trump's 1st days in office, see my comment below) succeeds, which currently seems pretty unlikely). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as "first days". Here's how the NYT puts it, " If other new occupants of the White House wanted to be judged by their first 100 days in office, President Trump seems intent to be judged by his first 100 hours. No president in modern times, if ever, has started with such a flurry of initiatives on so many fronts in such short order." The BBC has Trump's first week: Well, that was intense, "The BBC website has published more than 200 stories and videos about or relating to President Trump since inauguration day. It's been a busy week." Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support coverage of ongoing disaster. Topic is constantly in the worldwide news for outrageous executive actions that defy legal and social norms. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This smells too much of soapboxing and righting great wrongs, especially given some of the supports above. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Jay and those voicing similar views. It's an artificial construct. Future DT acts may be notable individually. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment To answer the above, the opposes smell of whitewashing. Feh, this sort of argument is meaningless. There are two bases to evaluate: (1) Is it in the news? Answer: very, very much, all around the world. (2) Is the article good enough quality? Nobody has asserted that it isn't. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Just being "in the news" is not sufficient, as we do consider the type of news too. Worldwide media commonly post stories that gain a lot of coverage but that we do not consider for a number of reasons. Repeatedly we have to remind editors that ITN is not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's not the criteria for inclusion, as you very well know. GoldenRing (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose mostly per Tataral. There are significant news on individual stories relating Donald Trump's presidency but definitely not such thing like 'first 100 days' (albeit significant from a historical perspective to merit a Wikipedia article). Hence, we should judge the newsworthiness of individual stories on their own merits instead of an umbrella term compiling information that will have to come in from the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Would reflect the substantial (and probably unique) worldwide media coverage given to the early days of his presidency. There are obviously a large number of people seeking detailed information on the Trump presidency, but "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" is probably not an immediately intuitive article title or search term (unlike, e.g., Inauguration of Donald Trump). Having a link from the main page would allow our readers to directly navigate to that article, rather than having to stumble on a link to it elsewhere. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It is seriously not that hard to search "donald trump" and within one link get to his presidency and aspects to that. ITN should not be a page to help with shortcuts. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. For example, I could support a blurb regarding a separate article about Friday's "extreme vetting" order shutting down immigration by certain classes of refugees. Sca (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Navigational assistance is ITN's primary purpose: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Andrew D. (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Directing readers to featured content is not navigation assistance. If anything, Portal:Current Events is the closest thing to navigational assistance on the front page and even then that is still curated. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Because so much of the opposition has understandably focused on the problems with 100 days, I am now considering closing this nom and reopening it as Trump's 1st days in office, which could be shortened to Trump's 1st days for its short name in Ongoing. If nothing else, I still think we are doing quite a lot of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (as well as appearing thoroughly POV by having only included the anti-Trump Women's March in ITN). However, given that we would presumably still be stuck with '100 days' in the target article's title, such a renomination may prove to be a waste of time, so I think I would probably prefer to have one or two indications of support here for such a renomination before attempting it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first 100 days of any (not just Trump) political leader's term is an artificial construct. If there are individual developments of Trump's presidency that are notable - then they should be nominated. However, In the News is not an American news ticker, and it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that the '100 days' bit is an artificial construct with which we unfortunately seem stuck (at least in the target article's title, though it doesn't have to be mentioned in the short wording in Ongoing). But I don't agree that 'it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item" when those items are dominating most reliable news sources to the extent that they currently are. On the contrary, I think it rather 'silly' (or at least unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers) that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - by contrast the suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Also 3 to 5 unchanging words is Ongoing is NOT a "news ticker". And it would potentially save us plenty of unnecessary arguments over which individual items were or were not worth posting. Those 2 arguments are presumably partly why we have Ongoing in the first place.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Ongoing the first 100 days seems like a little too much for me, but there is newsworthy stuff happening. Maybe a blurb about the refugee/Muslim ban and/or Mexican Wall would pass muster. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Muboshgu. I've now withdrawn '100 days' from the suggested wording for Ongoing ('100 days' were only ever there because that's what the relevant article is called, a name with which we are probably unfortunately stuck). The trouble with Muslim ban/ Mexican Wall items is that they are potentially an endless source of POV disputes which Ongoing is presumably partly intended to prevent, and meanwhile we are unnecessarily damaging Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the Ongoing story which is currently dominating most quality news sources.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (and remaining with opposition to posting this item) I am confused about the name change of this nomination from "Trump's 1st 100 days" to "Trump's 1st days in office". I doubt anyone's opinion on the nomination would change given the minor change. Also, does this invalidate any comment from editors (both in support and in opposition) made before the name change of the nomination? For what it's worth, I still oppose the posting of this item. If the nominator wants to move away from the concept of "100 days", then why is this still the target article of the nomination? There are perfectly good alternative articles at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your very useful comment, Gfcvoice. I'd be absolutely delighted to change the target article to either of the two you suggest. Which would you prefer, and do you think this should be done in this nom, or as a new nom (if as a new nom, I'd be happy to let you make the nom yourself, and take the credit, but I think you may also be still opposed to these noms)? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A GF nom., but there will be so many DT-related events drawing coverage that a shotgun approach, time-limited or not, seems impractical. Individual articles, or perhaps multiple related articles, would be more workable as targets. Leave the big picture to wonkdom. Sca (talk) 18:39, 28 January 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.
  • Note I've opened a discussion on how to handle the Trump problem on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 27

[Posted] Trump's executive order on immigrationEdit

Posted and staying. Any amendments to the item should be made at Errors. Stephen 00:49, 30 January 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: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country.
Alternative blurb: ​President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
Alternative blurb II: ​President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, prompting protests and a legal challenge.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: HaEr48 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Executive order with severe repercussions to tens of thousands of people (if not more), and reactions from world leaders. The article has decent length and sourcing. HaEr48 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Controversial, but nothing significant yet. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Define "nothing significant yet". Lots of people are stranded abroad. The ACLU suing. There are protests at major U.S. airports]. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, in the first 24 hours there are already widespread reports of people being stranded or detained. Among other impact listed in the article, I'd say that's a significant material impact. HaEr48 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is why an ongoing section might make sense, since there will be lots of news like this. Not that I would come here for such news myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Extreme foreign policy implications.--WaltCip (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I do note that there is foreign commentary on this issue, but it is crystal-balling at this stage to state there are implications to post this. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Iran's already announced retaliatory measures. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • On day one, sources already reported hundreds of people being stranded and/or detained. It's certainly not "crystal-balling" to state that there are implications. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And now a Federal Court has blocked enforcement of it on the ACLU challenge, this becomes more a non-story outside of internal US politics until the case is resolved. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: Read Verge's updates to that story since you posted here—it's a very limited stay. Only people already in the US are covered by it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: Reading from the content (not just title) of that link, it seems the court decision only affect those currently detained, not exactly nullifying the executive order. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - international effects, with Iran's reciprocation and more. Media coverage is everywhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with updated blurb to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon. SounderBruce 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should just accept the inevitable and give this asshole his own fucking "ongoing" section for the next 4 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This has global effects, with citizens of these seven countries being unable to travel to the U.S. @Floquenbeam: Yeah, maybe we should give this guy his own section... epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: The article has been renamed to Executive Order 13769, but IMO the cited references are not satisfactory - websites like that might well have gotten the number from Wikipedia. Suggest renaming the article to its former, longer title before posting, unless someone added a better source for the number "13769". HaEr48 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Major international kerfuffle, will play out in the courts. The blurb might want to be updated to reflect that a judge stayed parts of the executive order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted alt2. I took out "of the United States" for conciseness (since the country is already mentioned elsewhere in the blurb), and I added a link to Darweesh v. Trump - the article seems to be in good shape. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per everyone above and especially per the incontrovertible rebuttals of Masem's arguments. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All 3 blurbs have missed a key detail. While they have the who, what, where, and when explained, they all missed including "why," which is next in importance to the "what." The protests and legal challenge, naturally expected, are least relevant, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Comment Taking this posting along with our earlier posting of the Anti-Trump Women's march (incidentally a posting which I supported, and an article and subsidiary article on which I did quite a bit of work), it currently rather looks like we're usually going to post Trump-related matters where there are anti-Trump protests, and ignore them when there aren't, which will end up making us seem thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, seemingly contrary at least to the spirit of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. But I had to withdraw my first attempt partly intended to prevent this by suggesting adding Trump's 1st Days in Office to Ongoing (partly because I made the mistake of targeting the article about his 1st 100 days), and I don't have the heart to try again with one of two better target articles (Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump). But I just thought I'd briefly mention it here, just in case somebody else might want to have a go, perhaps when the current story falls off ITN a few days from now. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. I agree that this topic should be included on our front page. Commentators have described this as a "Constitutional Crisis", and there is no doubt that this order (if enforced) has "global consequences." I know the blurb is already long, but I support saying more about the temporary restraining order. Perhaps we can say something like this: Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US; a federal judge blocks portions of the order, finding a "strong likelihood" of constitutional violations. A copy of the judge's order is posted in this article from Mother Jones. I'm sure there are more articulate blurbs than the one I suggested, but the very least, we should provide more information about the restraining order. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support He wasn't going to be on the main page until there were "protests" about his inauguration. At this rate I have a feeling Trump will be on the main page often considering how much uproar he will be causing.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support There is huge international interest in this - it is leading the global news and, with the chaos and protests, is likely to remain in the headlines. It is not POV to regard large protests as contributing to the notability of an event. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment well that was well and truly rushed through while Europe slept, wasn't it? And already out of date considering US judge temporarily halts deportations. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    1) Where in the ITN guidelines does point to a time minimum at ITNC? I've read the guidelines and haven't seen one? 2) See the replies to Masem above; it's not "out of date" at all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, minimum time limits have been discussed on numerous occasions to no avail. It's just ironic that it's that Trump obsession again. Despite the fact the blurb is too long and now incorrect, it's interesting that it was posted so quickly even though this is really one of those stories which could have used some outside (i.e. out of the US-universe) perspective. Never mind, the damage is done, we've started down a long and tedious path of posting anything controversial that Trump does, and that seems to be likely to last for, ooh, four years. We should rename the section "In Trump's News", it would still be able to use all the ITN redirects, so that's one positive thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. On the substantive point you've made, how is the current blurb inaccurate and how would you reword it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    How is the blurb now incorrect? As I understand it, the judge's order is a temporary restraining order prohibiting the US from deporting ~100 people who were caught in transit when the order was signed, until further proceedings can take place. Trump's prohibition on further travelers from those countries remains in place (thus far). Dragons flight (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    In so far as it doesn't tell the whole story, i.e. that a court has already suspended the ban on those stuck in airports. Trump's first legal defeat. Arguably as or more notable than the swath of pointy executive orders. Anyway, you may continue this debate at ERRORS where it's been reported for some time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    P.S. Isn't it time we turned the text orange for Trump's storylines? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Re: posting Trump related news every time he does something controversial or outrageous. It's not going to work for us over here at ITN. I agree with Floquenbeam and The Rambling Man, among others: When will it end? Because if we go down this road, it will never end. Trump is always going to make front page news around the world. Trump is, and always will be, "in the news"? So no news there. What is news to many in the US and around the world is the rapid and unstoppable decline of the United States. Can't hide that fact in plain sight anymore when you have someone like Trump, who is the ongoing and visible sign of a country in rapid decline. That's the real and "ongoing" story, here. That's the real headline, and it has been for some time. Only now is the mainstream media catching up to that fact. Like I said, it's kinda hard to ignore when you have someone like Trump, who is a daily and visible (often outrageous) reminder of a country and society in steep, even precipitous, decline. Christian Roess (talk)
  • @Christian Roess:, does this mean you would now be in favour of a Donald Trump article in Ongoing, and, if so, which one, and starting when (such as now, or when the current item falls out of ITN)? Also would you be prepared to nominate it? (I'm almost certain I won't be nominating again, but I'd almost certainly support, even though it may just prove a waste of time and effort). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The updated blurb is a bit misleading. The rulings only prevent people who were in transit from being deported. They don't, as far as I can tell, actually lift the restrictions on crossing the border. Smurrayinchester 12:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    Boston Globe says "Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against Trump’s executive order, clearing the way for lawful immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US... The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings based solely on Trump’s order. The judges also instructed Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights." which sounds like it's business as usual now for a week. So I'd say the wording is spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Complaints about this being posted too quickly or out of step with ITN guidelines seem off base. There were 9 supports and 1 oppose at the time of the posting. The "stay" is only for a small slice of folks who happened to be traveling at the time of the executive order, so the EO still significantly affects folks for the next 3-4 months. A move like this in the US is unprecedented in the modern era, so this is not a case of a Trump story "every time" making it to the front page. If one really looks at the history of Trump-related stories in the ITN box, it syncs with what large mainstream media outlets of all languages are publishing on their front pages. Also, the lament about the one line blurb not exhaustively detailing all the particulars of the story is odd. We don't demand that of other stories, so it should not be a criticism for this one. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    One way or another there's a real determination to get anything Trump into ITN, it's obvious that closing the previous nomination and then opening a new one as the US opens for business was going to result in a landslide "US US US" vote. This is the beginning of "In Trump's News" as we know it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • As I have said before several times and alluded to by TRM here, stories that have principally regional importance need vetting by editors from all parts of the English world for ITNC posting if they otherwise don't fall into RD or ITNR. This ITNC was started very late and was posted in the early morning local times before any European editors would reasonably have a chance to comment. So the consensus to post is likely from only considering NA editors. Second, the story was rapidly changing over time (with multiple block orders in place); we routinely wait on things like natural or man-made disasters to make sure the core details are set before posting blurbs, generally only having to update them to increase counts. This should have been done here so that, presuming consensus to post with more time given to discussions, we would not have to be changing the blurb as the story developed. Key to keep in mind is that ITN is not a news ticker, nor WP a newspaper - we are not required to be up to date, and we prefer being "late" for a better quality result than rush something of poor quality to the front page, even if it is just a blurb statement in question. We can cover current events but we should be writing them from an encyclopedic point of view: if in this case that the challenges shut down any attempt for Trump to carry out this immigration ban, this becomes a footnote and far less importance in the long run. A lot of what we have in our articles are better suited for Wikinews which was set up to allow editors to cover breaking news, whereas we have to take the longer view. That particularly applies to ITN, and hence why we avoid knee-jerk reaction stories like this.
    • But the large elephant in the room is that the media hates Trump, and Trump hates the media. We are going to have a systematic bias around any major presidential actions Trump takes in the next four years because the media, broadly, do not like that he won the election. Every action he does will be under a microscope, even compared to a usual President, and there is a lot of sensational reporting going on that does not make for good encyclopedic material. Add to that that there are editors on WP that are also not shy about their own contempt for Trump. Most do keep those opinions in check and maintain proper NPOV, but there still remains a good number of editors that also share the media's concerns for Trump and let that judge their writing style which does cause NPOV/NOR/BLP problems aplenty. There's also the same by those that support Trump, albeit in smaller numbers. In either case, we have to be aware that those views can also influence ITN and in this situation anything relating to Trump. ITN needs to ask "if any other President/World Leader did this action, would the press have covered if this much?" If the answer is no, then that's just the media is just focusing on the action because it's Trump, and we should be very cautious about posting it. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I didn't propose or vote on the other Trump blurbs, but for this one my reason for proposing is not Trump but the impact on people from those countries. A lot of people from those countries live in the United States with green card, student visa or whatnot, and the fact that the order closed the border on them is in my opinion a huge deal, regardless of who's president. The sources said that 100+ people were detained and hundreds were stopped from boarding just in one day, imagine what the impact would be for the full 90 days. Then we have international reactions, protests, and legal challenges (all covered by RS and the article). In fact I would say "Donald Trump" is the least interesting part of the blurb, and I don't think I'd mind if we could find a way to shorten the blurb to exclude him. Now there are court decisions which suspends parts of the order, and that is interesting, but we need to see how the situation develops and impact the blurb-worthyness of this event. HaEr48 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – Probably will be big news for quite some time pending judicial moves. Sca (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The two main points of opposition are (1) Trump keeps making the headlines, so (implicit) every time he makes the headlines is no longer "real" news, and (2) Trump stories are US-centric. To the first, a major point of foreign policy, instantly overturning previous policy decisions (rather than a grandfathered introduction, which is the usual way of introducing major policy changes, is not on the same vernier range as variations on the pussy-gate theme. To the second, Trump's actions affect a significant number of UK citizens, since dual citizenships are affected, and 12.7% of the UK population (2011 census) were born outside the UK, roughly 350,000 of them from the listed countries. For context, this means that approximately 0.5% of the total UK population are now unable to enter the U.S. on the specific basis of this executive order. (The UK has allowed dual citizenships since 1949, so it always exists de facto with new immigrants unless explicitly renounced or immigrating from a country where dual citizenship is not allowed.) Clearly the directive catches quite a few people travelling from other countries, but I focus on the UK, since we are on English-language Wikipedia, the main complaint involved Europe, and the UK is the only English-speaking union in Europe. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, there are plenty of Trump stories ready to take over "In Trump's News" section of Wikipedia. He'll keep on making these outlandish orders, and people will continue to protest about it. Does that mean ITN needs to become "In Trump's News"? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    We should judge them on case-by-case basis and how widespread the impact is. This one I think warrants ITN, regardless of whether it's related to Trump or not. HaEr48 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Consider that the obvious corollary of your statement, Rambling Man, is that because so many things Trump make the mass news, nothing Trump should ever make ITN ... no matter how extreme the effect. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 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: Arthur H. RosenfeldEdit

Article: Arthur H. Rosenfeld (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): UC BerkeleyNYTimes
Nominator: Dragons flight (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: A highly regarded physicist and public servant called the "Godfather of Energy Efficiency". Unfortunately, his article is barely more than a stub at the moment. I am going to try to find some time to work on it myself later today. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. So we've more than doubled the length of the page and it is looking a lot better. I need to take a break for a while, but will come back to add more later. I think we will have it in a good state for posting before too long. Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Length and sourcing are fine. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Article is in good shape. It's not every day that a highly-respected energy physicist did more than just talk about global warming, and saved us a $billion while doing it. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is at Arthur H. Rosenfeld so shouldn't that be the name we use in ITN? If we use Art then arguably we should be moving the article to the "common name" if that's actually the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm probably a little too close to the issue to judge fairly which name is more common, but I don't think either is a terrible choice. Probably just use Arthur unless the article gets renamed. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, it wasn't a criticism, just a note that we normally post the items by their article name (excluding dab caveats, of course). If there's good grounds for Arthur H. to become Art, I'm all for moving the article. Or at least, all for someone else moving the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Clicking on Art and ending up on an Arthur article comes across as an error. For the time being, unless the article name is changed, I (boldly) changed the article name for the RD to match. --Light show (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Buchi EmechetaEdit

Article: Buchi Emecheta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 04:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Support - until a few things get more attention so that article is at a minimum quality standard. Ie., the section "Early life" needs a citation(s), and the list of her books under the "Works" section needs a citation(s), or at least ISBN's. But I do have a question about the "References" section: why is it included here? I ask because none of the "references" listed is used or cited in the article itself. I'm guessing this section needs to be renamed "Secondary literature." But then the question remains: why are these works listed and not others? Why are these particular "secondary" sources considered authoritative, and not others? - Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - referencing issues have been resolved. —MBlaze Lightning T 12:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • nice work, and thank you. The article's quality looks decent now. I changed my vote above. Christian Roess (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I glanced at this before but hadn't commented but saw sourcing issues. But at this point the sourcing is now fixed and looks ready to go (Only oddity, not critical, is that in the list of articles he wrote, only one has an article title, the rest just give the publication. If the articles are untitled, that's okay, but those titles should be provided). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John HurtEdit

Article: John Hurt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter; New York Times; NBC; Daily Telegraph
Nominator: Nohomersryan (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.

 Nohomersryan (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable, but most importantly article is properly sources (but I will take care of sourcing for needed areas) and article is being updated to reflect his recent death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There are gaps in the filmography - fortunately most is sourced to TCM, but there's still a lot of appearances w/o sources and I did catch a few cn's in the body. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Masem: I already covered the cn's in the article. Let me cover the filmography. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Some bits of his personal life still give at least the appearance of being undersourced. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Article is in very good shape. It's a sad irony that the more an actor has done, the less likely they make it ITN. All the blue-linked films are good enough, and the few unlinked films or tv roles are unimportant and can be ignored. Had he only been in a few major films and tv shows, instead of 200-plus, the article would be near perfect, IMO, with its 64 cites. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the substantial filmography has been forked out to another article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per Light Show. Jusdafax 07:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note He died on the 25th - note added to the template. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 26

[Posted] 2017 North India cold waveEdit

Article: 2017 North India cold wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the continued cold weather in North India more than 20 Indian army soldiers died in avalanches and several soldiers went missing, as avalanches hit army camps in Kashmir bound sectors.
Alternative blurb: ​20 Indian army solders die and more are missing as a cold wave hits army camps in India.
News source(s): BBC, CBC, ABC
Nominator: Junosoon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: North India is suffering from intense cold and snowfall early month of Janaury which has resulted in avalanches in Kashmir Junosoon (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support we posted the European cold spell which killed scores, but this, in India, is somewhat different. The article needs a little bit of polishing, those sources are terribly formatted, some unreferenced claims, but the notability of the news item is without question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support international coverage is quite limited and the article is pretty bad too. But it's something, and judging from the list of references in the article, has dominated regional news. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, will not be there for long. Stephen 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lindy DelapenhaEdit

Article: Lindy Delapenha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Jamaica Gleaner, Jamaica Observer, Television Jamaica
Nominator: Fuebaey (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: Jamaican footballer. Fuebaey (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support not seeing any major issues with this at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Stephen 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Metallic hydrogen created in the labEdit

Article: Metallic hydrogen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Solid hydrogen has been observed to turn into a metal at 5 million times the atmospheric pressure
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists at Harvard University report the first creation of metallic hydrogen in a laboratory.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists create the first metallic hydrogen in a laboratory, using a diamond anvil cell
News source(s): Science, The Independent, EurekAlert
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Metallic hydrogen is predicted to be metastable at atmospheric pressure (e.g. compare this to diamond; under normal pressure graphite is the stable form, but diamond at ordinary pressures takes an astronomically long time to change into graphite) It may also be a superconductor at room temperature. Count Iblis (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose They key is the metastable nature- right now the sample they made is sitting between two diamonds to keep the high pressure on it; if they release that pressure and the material remains solid, that's the breakthrough. It doesn't seem to have really been a question of making metallic hydrogen, but how stable they could make it to observe it long enough to validate that it is metallic hydrogen. I do note that the article could probably explain more about this paper's result since it doesn't catch this subtly (that's its not yet proven metastable). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - seems obvious to me. Quoting the The Independent article, "This is the holy grail of high-pressure physics". Banedon (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning support. Really tough one this. I can't find any fault in anything either Masem or Banedon say. For balance the very same article Banedon quotes goes on to state "But the prospect of this bright future could be at risk if the scientists’ next step – to establish whether the metal is stable at normal pressures and temperatures – fails to go as hoped.." But what leans me towards supporting is on the grounds that this is a long sought-after scientific feat in its own right, and that this would be true even if it's ultimately found that the material's practical potential is non-existent or not as hoped-for. Scientists had been looking to demonstrate metallic hydrogen for a good 80 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support NYT quotes an awful lot of skeptical solid-state physicists - but then again, this is in the news and if someone does confirm the result, the second discovery won't be in the news. I've added a slightly more non-committal altblurb. Smurrayinchester 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and metallic form has only been theorized. This is highly relevant for example to the core of Jupiter and other gas giants, and may be relevant to star cores also. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb on the merits as a notable discovery in chemistry/physics; Masem is correct that the article could do a better job of explaining this. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Strictly speaking, the experiment with deuterium last year actually did this first (as it is an isotope of hydrogen), but the common parlance of these things and the trouble in conveying this distinction in a blurb, and the impact of this finding on normal hydrogen, as opposed to rarely-occurring deuterium, makes me want to overlook that very slight inaccuracy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a good science story and I see a strong support here. I will wait until the cn tags are fixed, then ready to post. --Tone 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a conflict of interest here, so won't !vote, but I will say that it's very odd to name the authors' institution in the blurb. That's not really information that a general Wikipedia reader needs to know, and the space could be better used to highlight other good articles. I've added an alt2 blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • To not name the institution is sweeping the contributions of the real researchers/scientists under the rug. We have tons of acknowledgements for success for sports, politics, entertainment, etc. but this aversion to including the institution, at minimum, for a major scientific breakthrough is counter to all that. There can be issues of space problems if there are multiple institutions involved in a discovery, at which point we do need brevity, but here, work done from one specific school, there's no reason to not give some acknowledgement, given how infrequent scientific breakthroughs are posted here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree, but given my conflict of interest I won't argue further. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Naming the institution is disgusting. Who gets the Nobel Prizes? People! Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Sure, there's usually one or two professors that are the centerpoint of knowledge for these discoveries and whom in the scientific literature, get credit for it, but within the way these stories are reported, the media and even works like Science and Nature nearly always start with the research institution. My impression is that it is not just one or two people that are involved but the students/grad/post-docs/assistants that work with those professors, the supporting functions (like analysis laboratories, machine shops, etc.) that help with the experiments, and the admin side to make sure things are funded or distribute funding. Further, the institution's name (like Harvard here) carries weight that the work done is of good quality, hence why it is featured over the actual researcher. This is a situation tied with the whole issue of notability of academics, in that few actual researchers are ever notable. Since we can't really change that, it still makes sense to follow how discoveries are credited in the reporting media. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Seems like the experiment has resulted in an important scientific discovery, which itself is of high encyclopedic relevance and a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting alt. --Tone 13:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I know this has been posted, but I see that there is significant doubt to the validity of this expirement (and Nature is not one to necessary throw out random speculation from other scientists). This leans further to something that we should not be posting since the method of determining is not apparently strong enough to support their claims. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The article has been in review for like 3 months and was published in the highest tier journal in the world. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"peer review" even in a top-ranked journal like Science does not equal "truth". (and that only means 3 people reviewed it, not the scientific community as a whole) From the Nature article, it is not that they disagree with the methods, but that they are judging the formation of metallic hydrogen by an appearance factor rather than a chemical factor, meaning that other things with similar appearance could have been made instead (eg like aluminum used to make the anvil apparatus). --MASEM (t) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing equates "truth". I can't even prove you exist. However, for the purposes of scientific journalism, this passes the highest tests for reliability. There have never been, are not, and will never be any proof of anything ever. However, in terms of reliable science, this is pretty damned good. --Jayron32 15:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Peer-review, even at Science or Nature, is only as good as the peer-review process, which is not infallible, and the fact that there is some vocal questions to the validity of the claim by other scientists at the same peer level is important. The updated blurb (to include "claim") at least addresses this point. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My point is that absolute perfection and certainty in anything is an unsustainable standard in anything, and science is no exception "but it isn't perfect and immutably true" is a completely ridiculous standard. All we can do is maintain what the best journals do. That even the best is not absolute perfection is not a reasonable objection, as your apparent standards here would make, quite literally, absolutely nothing knowable. That's just silly. If the best journals report it, that's the best we've got. That the literal best is not perfect is unreasonable, because if the best isn't perfect, nothing will ever be perfect, and thus perfection is not attainable. It's quite good enough. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I just posted at ERRORS before checking here. Needless to say, I agree with Masem above. I am not familiar with ITN but I think an acceptable compromise would be to keep it in the news but with a "Scientists claim" rather than "Scientists have" - for instance, the alt blurb #1 is good. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    Per my comment above, I agree that the blurb should start "Scientists at Harvard claim...". Have changed. Smurrayinchester 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Tone 15:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Claim is typically used to imply skepticism. How about a more neutral "say they have," etc.? Sca (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sca: the current wording has been changed to alt #1, "report". That seems neutral enough. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Sca (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Considering how long I have been waiting for experimental confirmation of this theoretical extrapolation, it is distinctly embarrassing to have missed it when it finally came out. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    Lost in the "Sea of Trump"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, lost in the sea of work, so that I only first saw it on ITN. How do some of you people have so much free time? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tam DalyellEdit

Article: Tam Dalyell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC The Guardian The Independent The Scotsman The Herald
Nominator: Drchriswilliams (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: long-serving politician who was known for his formulation of what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", relating to political devolution and for his questioning of Margaret Thatcher over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War.

  • Weak oppose still several unreferenced sentences and the odd para. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Fair point- I haven't posted at ITN before. I have gone through the article and added several relevant sources and removed a few that were a bit questionable. I think I've now addressed the concerns you raised. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - now adequately referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Well referenced and (though not a requirement) is notable and has made a name for himself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Quality now seems fine, which is basically all we now need for RD. So Marking as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Doomsday Clock 2.5 minutesEdit

Consensus against. --Tone 16:21, 27 January 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: Doomsday Clock (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announces the advancement of the Doomsday Clock by 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight.
Alternative blurb: ​The Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight, the second closest approach to midnight ever.
Alternative blurb II: ​For the first time in two years, the Doomsday Clock moves, advancing by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight.
Alternative blurb III: ​Citing the rise of nationalism, climate change, and the increase of nuclear tension, the Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight.
News source(s): Official website listing, Official statement, Washington Post, NYT, & NPR
Nominator: Elisfkc (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Other blurb nominations welcome. While this is currently listed in Portal:Current events/2017 January 26, I believe it belongs inside of Wikipedia:In the newsElisfkc (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb III Important, and although I suspected this would happen, still notable enough to be posted. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The NYTimes frames this well by quoting "...the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is marking the 70th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock on Thursday by moving it 30 seconds closer to midnight." My opinion is that this action is simply an attempt to attract publicity on its anniversary, and does not have impact or significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mamyles: That was the first link I found from them. I just realized that apparently that is an editorial. Here is a non-opinion article. Elisfkc (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously the Clock is an important issue, but given the reasoning for why they moved it "We’re so concerned about the rhetoric, and the lack of respect for expertise, that we moved it 30 seconds ... Rather than create panic, we’re hoping that this drives action." (from the linked NYTimes non-op-ed), it feels less like a scientifically-backed decision and one specifically targeting President Trump's policies. I know it has nearly always been a subjective matter when the clock is moved, but this feels more politically driven than scientifically. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You're telling me we're "closer to midnight" than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the days of the "Evil Empire" attitude of the Reagan administration? This is politically driven, pure and simple.--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Doomsday Clock#Symbolic timepiece changes says: "The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, though they could have retroactively set the clock for posterity.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It now factors in climate change and other issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support funnily enough I was having a conversation about this at work just yesterday, with Trump so keen on nuclear proliferation, torture, building walls, ignoring climate change, I'm not surprised by this. Having said that, of course what Walt says is probably true too, this is a device used to beat the world up. Could be right though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Like Masem I'm torn. My main concern is noteworthiness. They change it relatively often and the news coverage I've seen has been relatively minimal. I'm not concerned about motive (it's always political because it's in response to politics). If I see coverage gain or lose more steam, I may lean toward one side. Until then... neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support because I do see a lot of news coverage of it, and I don't see many mentions of its 70th anniversary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose reflects no reality other than a policy statement by a political body. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Since it was inspired by Trump's recent comments, as their spokespersons stated, it seems a bit early and too reactionary. Agree with Masem, it implies a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Forget about whether or not this is politically motivated, and forget about whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes. The move is only worthy of consideration because of how close to midnight it takes us.

    However it is as close as it is because the boffins behind it considered the 2007–2012 period to pose a more immediate risk to the future of civilisation than most of the Cold War and the immediate aftermath of 9/11, greatly diminishing the clock's significance and credibility. Come back when the radio stations are introducing this story with Iron Maiden, and I might consider supporting despite my reservations due to the long-standing and high-profile nature of the clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

    • As I said above, during the Cold War they didn't factor in climate change or other issues that they now do. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That weakens both the historical significance argument, and the implication that it is a scientifically-based predictor of the relative likelihood of rapid global catastrophe. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes are all potential mass casualty, devastating events, and a rising sea level will reduce the ability of a steadily rising population to live off the planet. All serious stuff, all worthy of the scientific, media, business and politicial circles to put it as a very high priority. But none of it rises to the level of an immediate threat to the survival of humanity as a race, in the same way as nuclear war (indeed, the very outbreak of open, conventional war between nuclear powers), a global pandemic, or an object the size of Majorca hitting the planet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb III. The report also said "new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways" and "Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation" - not sure if that should also be reflected in the blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A highly political statement by a highly political group. We don't play politics with the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if there were any reason to believe the clock had some predictive value, maybe. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL in a non-WP forum. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose political nonsense that deserves no representation on the Main Page. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm no fan of Trump but this sounds like Orwellian 'War is Peace' (or in this case 'Peace is War') - the Inauguration of a US president who is accused of being too friendly to Russia is being used to say the world has just got more dangerous. One might have expected these scientists to at least have the common sense to try to protect their credibility by waiting until there was some evidence of a breakdown in the Trump-Putin love-in. Maybe somebody should tell them the story of the boy who cried 'Wolf'. Even the usually fiercely anti-Trump New York Times seems to regard it as a 70th anniversary publicity stunt, so it seems implausible to claim that most quality sources are treating this 'news' seriously. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
(Actually I personally am a bit worried about Trump's possible effect in the Baltics, as I mentioned at the time of his election in the Talk page of International Reactions to Trump's election, but the Baltics are seemingly not mentioned by the scientists, so I couldn't support the nomination on the basis of nothing except what is seemingly just my 'WP:OR') Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a judgement call by a group(and for the same reason I opposed the last time; as I said then, maybe- and I stress maybe- if it goes to below two minutes (the closest it has been) it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Though many might empathize, it's obviously a subjective statement. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 16:01, 27 January 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] Around the world sailingEdit

Stale, no consensus to post a potential record. Stephen 02:34, 2 February 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: Around the world sailing record (talk, history) and Jules Verne Trophy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-men team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat by more than four days the crewed around the world sailing record in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy
Alternative blurb: ​A team led by Francis Joyon sets a new around the world sailing record of 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt to win the Jules Verne Trophy
Alternative blurb II: ​A team led by Francis Joyon sets a new around the world sailing record in an attempt to win the Jules Verne Trophy.
News source(s): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sailing-joyon-idUSKBN15A0WA http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/francis-joyon-smashes-jules-verne-trophy-record-46891
Nominator: Marc Lacoste (talk • give credit)
 Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until this team is awarded the trophy they are seeking or the record is otherwise certified. I've also suggested a less awkward blurb(no offense intended to the nominator). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait per 331dot. Never heard of this trophy but definitely seems a top achievement in sailing. It would be best to wait for the Trophy to be actually awarded and certifying the time. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. The trophy is secured, I'm not sure waiting for a ceremony would add any value to the information, the achievement is today. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The suggested blurb said they made an "attempt" to win the trophy but didn't say that it had been determined that they had met the criteria for the trophy- which it seems that they have now. I wasn't suggesting we should wait until they take possession of the trophy, only for the determination that they won it. However, the article on the trophy needs much improvement before this is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the JV trophy page is a complete mess, mostly unreferenced, some written in abbreviated French... And out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think we can discard mention of the Jules Verne Trophy altogether. The story here is breaking the around the world sailing record, which I support posting in principle. However it's unclear to me whether this still requires validation by the relevant body or not. There also needs to be a proper update somewhere, though I'm not sure what the best place is. Joyon's article is a bit of a mess and has an orange-level tag. Modest Genius talk 17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • PS. I assume this happened in 2017, not 2016! Modest Genius talk 17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm pretty sure the main blurb is grammatically incorrect. It should probably read either "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat, by more than four days, the crewed around the world sailing record in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." or "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat the crewed around the world sailing record by more than four days, finishing in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds, in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't need to list the time, at least not to the second. Stephen 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - although the word is worded pretty strangely (an "attempt" to win the trophy would imply the record's not been broken yet). Why not just say they broke the record? Banedon (talk) 22:36, 27 January 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] Mental performance enhancing drugsEdit

As this doesn't pass WP:MEDRS, it won't be posted. BencherliteTalk 09:56, 26 January 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: Methylphenidate (talk, history) and Modafinil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists find that intake of Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Caffeine improve cognitive performance in chess
News source(s): [8] [9]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: An unusual nomination for sure, but I think it's very interesting. After all, this is a double-blind randomized control trial, the best kind of experiment for establishing causality. The distinguishing aspect here is that the drugs are acting on people who are not fatigued or sleep-deprived, but rather people operating at their peak. Chess acts here as a proxy for higher mental functions. If these drugs improve higher mental functions, then there might come a time when everyone is taking these drugs because, why not? Caffeine is already the world's most widely-used stimulant. Having said that, there are caveats to the research (see the latter part of the Chessbase article) and there is a surprising (?) lack of media coverage. Banedon (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose much better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's just a single study and so doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. And a lack of media coverage means that it's not actually "in the news". The result is not very surprising either. It's no coincidence that people like Benjamin Franklin were playing chess in coffee houses like Old Slaughter's centuries ago. And it's now time for my first cup of tea of the day. Ah, the pause that truly refreshes... Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 26 January 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] Dow Jones Industrial AverageEdit

I think this is at the WP:SNOW point, although if anyone still thinks this is worth posting feel free to revert. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 26 January 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: Dow Jones Industrial Average (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Dow Jones Industrial Average closes above 20,000 for the first time
News source(s): [10]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 5.160.238.39 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: DirectAttrition (talk • give credit) and H McCringleberry (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the most widely tracked index in the world. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, an arbitrary number. Stephen 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination. This is far too trivial. Records are made and broken all the time, especially on financial indices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Honest question: do you understand what a financial index is? Banedon (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I do. On a side note the Dow is probably the least important of the various US indices and the least accurate as an overall measure of the financial markets. The S&P 500 is probably the better one to pay attention to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Everyone knows the DJIA has fundamental problems, but it's still the most widely tracked index in the world [11]. Go figure. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was bound to pass 20,000 at some point, and it will be bound to pass 25k, 30k, etc. As noted, these are arbitrary metrics. If anything we focus more on rapid declines and demands (crashes or near-crashes) which have much more of an impact on immediate situations than the gradual rise past specific marks. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Just a comment on that, long-term investors actually don't care about rapid declines and demands, as long as the overall uptrend is preserved. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • But CEOs, stock market analysts, politicians, and the like do worry about hose, and those are the newsmakers. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose purely arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 26 January 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.

January 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 25

[Posted] RD: Mary Tyler MooreEdit

Article: Mary Tyler Moore (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)
Updater: AHeneen (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: American Emmy-winning actress. P.S. Let's not get a "long career" mistaken for a "stellar career" here, i.e. no blurb required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Came here to nominate this. Support inclusion in RD. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Referencing, particularly near the bottom, needs work. And there are orange tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing a clear issuer per TRM and Ad Orientem. Fortunately, most of it appears to be filmography-related listings which should be relatively easy to source, but that still needs to be done to post this. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support big news in the entertainment world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, she was an American icon. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The quality issues have been addressed and there are no longer any orange-level cleanup tags or citation needed tags. AHeneen (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, there are still unreferenced claims in there, plus IMDB is used to source the appearances, and as we know, IMDB is not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The remaining unreferenced claims have been addressed and the filmography and awards tables have been moved to a separate article, as is common for actors/actresses with long careers. AHeneen (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
As I think during the discussion of Carrie Fisher, while you are right that long filmographies are often a separate article, moving that out of an ITN RD to avoid having to deal with a sourcing issue (in this case, excessive weight on user-wiki IMDB) is not really appropriate as that is just sweeping the problem under the carpet. I am not suggesting pulling this RD at this point, but I need to stress that this is not a good way of handling poorly sourced filmographies, because someone in time still needs to remove all those IMDB refs with more reliable ones. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready no tags, every paragraph and standalone sentence is referenced if not multiply. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Butch TrucksEdit

Stale. Stephen 22:57, 28 January 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: Butch Trucks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times
Nominator: Thechased (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: Music pioneer of southern rock and blues fusion. Thechased (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment First three para in body are unsourced, but it looks like the type of info that the obits will be able to fill in. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 25 January 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.

January 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 24

[Posted] New yokozuna promotionEdit

Article: Kisenosato Yutaka (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In sumo, Kisenosato Yutaka (pictured) is promoted as the 72nd yokozuna, becoming the first Japanese wrestler to earn the title in 19 years.
News source(s): The Japan News, Nikkei Asian Review, Wall Street Journal
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.

 219.108.134.12 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Sumo is a highly underrepresented sport on ITN, and we have posted yokozuna promotions before. That the 72nd yokozuna is Japanese is exceptionally notable as well, and I'd be in favor of having that mentioned in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Severally undersourced article and one section is a wall of text of one paragraph. This is ITNR so no question on importance, but the sourcing needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The sourcing is definitely improved and the few lingering bits tagged to be fixed, so that's less an issue, I'm still just seeing a huge paragraph that is trying to summarize stats here, and I feel that needs trimming or splitting or rewording. However, I'd consider that less a barrier to posting compared to the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article (a BLP) is sourced adequately. As it's ITNR, no need for debate over notability. Blurb should include that he's Japanese too, as that's what's making the headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice that it was ITNR. In that case, I agree with your rationale that the article needs to be updated.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. First Japanese yokozuna to be promoted in nearly two decades. I will work on adding sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable. I have just rated the article 'B' quality. It seems complete, free of maintenance tags, and thoroughly updated. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, if it helps, I've tagged the claims which are currently unreferenced, just nine of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. Presumably we will hold the nomination until those are fixed. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have added references to all the tagged claims.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Sam Walton (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 18:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Miller case (Brexit/Article 50)Edit

Posted and will remain so. Stephen 22:10, 26 January 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: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rules in R (Miller) v SS for Exiting the EU that the British Government cannot trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union without an Act of Parliament.
Alternative blurb: ​The UK Supreme Court rules that an Act of Parliament is needed before the government can trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union.
Alternative blurb II: ​The UK Supreme Court announces its judgment that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union without an Act of Parliament.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: A defeat for the government, and one which complicates the plans for leaving the EU. (Note that although some newspapers had announced that the governments plans to have a vote on the Brexit deal made this moot, this is not the case - the vote that the Government wanted would come after Article 50 notification). Smurrayinchester 09:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. There will be editors who, preferring to post train derailments, will come to this discussion to say that this is but a mere step or hurdle in the Brexit process which ITN should not highlight. They will be wrong. It is a significant step in an ongoing international event. We may well end up posting again if/when Parliament passes the legislation and again if/when the exit is formalised. I have no problems with such multiple postings in a case like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support As Mkativerata says, this is significant in the brexit process. However, hasn't parliament already voted on this, while the case was ongoing? Or does it need to be primary legislation and not just a motion? Since the motion passed 448-75, is there much doubt that legislation will also pass? GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be legislation, not a resolution. It will almost certainly pass in one form or another, but this opens the law up to amendments and conditions, allowing parliament to set exit terms rather than the government. Smurrayinchester 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Switch to Oppose. This is a non-story. If there was any chance that this would actually change the outcome, I might support it. As it is, it's a waste of time GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this just means the government will get approval from parliament. I don't see this as anything other than a speed bump. If parliament withholds approval, then we can post. Banedon (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Largely expected, what is also guranteed is this at best adds a few weeks to the roadmap. (The Tories have a majority that can push through any bill in the Commons and thats before the Labour brexiters, including the leader, are counted). The Lords might throw up a speed-bump, but it would be political suicide for them to do so. Save this for when May actually triggers 50. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, oppose on quality This is a major constitutional/political decision. If it wasn't important, the Government wouldn't have spent all this effort arguing for using prerogative powers, nor would the Supreme Court have sat with every available justice (unprecedented, and not something that its predecessor the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ever did). But the article needs a major rewrite - lots of it is out of date, and trimming some of the sections to the key details wouldn't go amiss. Shorter alt blurb added - we don't need the name of the case, for instance. BencherliteTalk 11:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement. Aside from the complication of the Brexit issue, this seems to be a notable legal decision. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per previous two. May mean Brexit won't happen quickly? Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with a couple points: The "Facts" section is unreferenced (but likely an easy fix), and from an NFC standpoint, the montage of the four paper headlines is not appropriate. One image to show how they reacted to the judges (probably the Daily Mail one here, as it makes the judges look like criminals, tying with the theme of the section) is sufficient here, but not all four. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sourced that section. You're right that the Mail page is the most appropriate - "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" was by far the most quoted headline. If no-one else uploads the pic, I'll do it tonight. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Images swapped. Unless it's reverted, I'll nominate the old one for deletion shortly. Smurrayinchester 19:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, thanks. That single image still captures the spirit of detest that the media seemed to have. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support newsworthy, good article, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 - The blurb is long and I don't think the case name is necessary; Act of Parliament has an orange cleanup tag, so I changed the link to a piped link to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. I added ALT2 as a combination of ALT1, which contains side-by-side links that (even though "rules" is bold) doesn't look good, and the proposed blurb. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note if posting ALT2, it's a British court judgment not judgement. -- KTC (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The single bolded word in this posted blurb seems to be lost among the other sea of blue in the blurb. Is there anything we can do about that? --MASEM (t) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've changed it to rules that, as I find the alternative wordings to be clumsy and convoluted. User:David Levy is a better wordsmith than I and may have a better suggestion? Stephen 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Possibilities:
    The UK Supreme Court issues a ruling that an Act of Parliament is needed before the government can trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union.
    The UK Supreme Court concludes that an Act of Parliament is needed before the government can trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union.
    David Levy 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The current blurb is a little imprecise, as the ruling applies to the executive part of the UK Government. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, the term is perfectly precise in a British context. In British English, the word "government" means roughly what "administration" means in the American context. Also, the contexts of "separation of powers" and co-equal "branches of government" as typically expressed based on the American system does not make contextual sense in Britain. To make it short, the current wording is accurate and unambiguous for a British context. --Jayron32 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull Is there going to be a post when Parliament (inevitably, as the press is portraying it) passes the necessary bill, when it is filed with the EU, and for every single step along the way? This is quite a bit of overkill, and I'd hate to see every court decision and legislative and executive manoeuvre dealing with Obamacare posted here. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    No one has proposed every such court decision posted. Someone nominated THIS ONE decision because THIS ONE decision was in the news and, based on the evidence of reliable source coverage of THIS ONE decision, THIS ONE decision was posted. When another court decision gets nominated, we'll consider THAT decision based on the merits of THAT nomination without reference to this unrelated decision. --Jayron32 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    WHICH pill are you on Jayron, because I want to ask my doctor for THAT deictive-reuptake inhibitor and not THIS ONE. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support: Probably the most important royal prerogative ruling in a century, since DeKeyser. If there was a SCOTUS case on, say, Trump's executive orders re: the Muslim ban or the the border wall, we would expect to see that on ITN too. Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 26 January 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.

January 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 23

[Posted] RD: Leslie KooEdit

Article: Leslie Koo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Forbes, SCMP
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Vycl1994 (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: Taiwanese billionaire, involved in corruption scandal of former President Chen Shui-bian, accidental death. Zanhe (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Short article, but well sourced. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support it is a brief article but I can't see any major issues beyond that brevity. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Bernie EcclestoneEdit

Regardless of consensus, article is not in a fit condition to post despite requests for improvement made at WP level. It's no big deal that I don't add to my total of ITNs. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 26 January 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: Bernie Ecclestone (talk, history)
Blurb: Bernie Ecclestone (pictured) steps down as chief executive of the Formula One Group.
Alternative blurb: Bernie Ecclestone (pictured) is replaced as chief executive of the Formula One Group after its acquisition by Liberty Media.
News source(s): Sky News
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: 95.145.235.85 (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major change in Formula One, Ecclestone has been in charge for almost 40 years. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We rarely post resignations on ITN and I don't see this as one of the rare cases where we would. Andise1 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nowhere near the level of significance required for ITN. --Tataral (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support easily on a par with Alex Ferguson but a longer time in charge of a truly global organisation. F1 wouldn't exist as it does without his legacy. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The news is reporting this as ousted and replaced as part of the Liberty Media takeover. Stephen 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not news. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    F1 is one of the most widely followed sports in the world, worth several billions. That's larger than most other sports. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom. Weakly because I want to see some kind of new policy his successor will implement, but I acknowledge it'll be hard to post those new policies. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lack of notability for ITN concerning its a long-time-coming resignation, of all events; On a side-note, the comparison with Sir Alex Ferguson is, frankly, laughable. What has Bernie Ecclestone achieved on a personal level compared to AF - not much I would argue, outside of business and large-scale management in a huge corporation. Skycycle (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ironically, I find the comparison with Alex Ferguson laughable in the other direction. Alex Ferguson was one of many managers, and there are many of them. Even within the EPL itself there are twenty of them. F1 brings in more revenue than Manchester United's market capitalization every year. Comparing someone who built a company that does that to someone who doesn't even manage the smaller company (only its team) is, if I may say so, ridiculous. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The comparison to Alex Ferguson is not a good one. Ferguson was only in charge of a team in a country's leage. Ecclestone was in charge globally. So we need to be looking to compare him against people that were in charge of global organizations for a period of four decades. There are very few that would fit that bill, which is why I think this is a significant story which should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Political resignations sure, but business/sports ones, not so much. SpencerT♦C 09:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support we posted death of two minor Hollywood actresses, but we aren't posting the end of the era of the guy who made F1 one of the largest sports in the worl? Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Death and retirements are treated drastically differently by this section, so comparing them is like apples to oranges. SpencerT♦C 11:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And we shouldn't have posted the deaths of minor Hollywood actors either. Sports administration, like Hollywood, matters little at the end of the day, especially when it concerns no more than a matter of personnel. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This doesn't fit into any of the categories that we would normally post, but I think this is exceptional. There are not many major organisations in the world that have had the same head for 40 years. F1 is unusually large and global as a sport - I would guess only football exceeds its global appeal. Unusually, this item fits two normally-contradictory points of the purpose of ITN: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news (for the motorheads) and To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (for everyone else). GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support If this was just a resignation I would probably oppose. He has (he claims) been forced out of control due to the buyout which edges it over. Its also undeniable that (for good or ill, by whatever method) he turned F1 into a massively popular world-wide sport. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as said above, comparing this with e.g. Alex Ferguson misses the point. Ecclestone dominated the entire F1 industry for decades, which is a sport with worldwide interest. However, oppose on quality. The article is inadequately referenced in places, and inadequately updated (I see one sentence in the lead). BencherliteTalk 11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Alright, alright, the point on Ferguson was to show a precedent of a prominent sports "administrator" coming to the end of his "career in the sport". I'm now officially fed up of being told that it "misses the point", "frankly, laughable", etc. Of course, if said things like this, I'd be up in front of the beak for yet another block. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    I wasn't having a go at you, my apologies if it came across that way. I should have said comparing this adversely with AF misses the point. BencherliteTalk 11:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Mea culpa - I assumed that because it was in the lead, it was in the body too. I've added that info and asked at WT:F1 for assistance with the reference issues. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, much as Only in death does; this is more than a simple resignation. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We had Jochen Rindt as FA yesterday so why wouldn't we have his manager, Ecclestone, at ITN when he is actually in the news? ITN scrolls too slowly compared to other parts of the main page, which usually change daily, and so it often seems neglected. "Nothing is so stale as yesterday's newspaper..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral on merits, oppose on quality. I don't have a strong opinion either way on whether his departure is worthy of a blurb. However, if his significance is strongly linked to his role as F1 executive, then I find it rather bothersome that the seven paragraph section on his time as an executive contains all of two citations. The preceding section on his career at Brabham is also in need of references. Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recognizing we are talking about a 40 year career here, I would be looking to see how much of an influence he was to it (beyond just being the top person in charge) to concider posting something about his retirement, and that seems lacking here to make this ITN. His career seems to be a mix of positive and negative (note the number of controversies here), but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of lasting influence to the sport because of him. Thus, posting his retirement (one that is not under the influence of any ongoing controversy or lawsuit or whatever) seems weak. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Influence? Here's a two-second Google result, a BBC report from today covering the "remarkable four decades (in which) Ecclestone revolutionised the sport" and where what he leaves behind in F1 is described as "An incredible legacy"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Reading that BBC article and the five points that follow the quote you pulled, it doesn't read as a necessarily positive portrayal of him (esp. point #5 of the BBC article). It's snarky praise at times. Even with that, our article does not show how F1 was revolutionized by him. If it can be expanded to show that, great, but I don't see much about that presently. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    What the BBC refers to obliquely (and I above) is that while he built the F1 up, he didnt necessarily always do it in the most positive manner. Even his 'negative' actions contributed to its success. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    Which, at least to me, is something more to highlight were this a RD blurb. His retirement, however, doesn't appear to be causing a massive change in the sport, and simply makes this, at this point, passing of the guard. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have to say that's a very strange way of looking at the last 40 years of a single person running the largest sporting contest on the globe outside the Olympics and the World Cup. But I can see this is fruitless so no point in continuing this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support contingent on more sourcing in Formula One Group. A CEO stepping down is not significant enough for ITN by itself, but with the purchase of a large sports organization I believe this meets the significance criteria of ITN. I recommend Alt Blurb 1 with the primary, bolded article as Formula One Group. Mamyles (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there are great swathes of Ecclestone's BLP that are unreferenced. It's not fit for posting even as a secondary link. Stephen 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: A more relevant comparison than Alex Ferguson might be Sepp Blatter's June 2015 "resignation" which we posted (see discussion here), only to find he later unresigned. We didn't post his suspension in October 2015, as being just another stage in his demise. Of course the comparisons are imperfect - Ecclestone is not involved in a current corruption scandal, and F1 is smaller than soccer, but Ecclestone has been in charge twice as long as Blatter. I'm vaguely inclined to support posting in principle. But I guess article quality will probably doom this, and I certainly can't support posting in its present state (and I won't be trying any fixing myself, having already done more work on Women's March than my semi-retirement should normally allow).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:20, 25 January 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] United States withdraws from Trans-Pacific PartnershipEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:08, 26 January 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: Trans-Pacific Partnership (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States of America withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Mkativerata (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Decision of "huge", "tremendous" trade ramifications, given the scope of the TPP and the fact that this kills it. It is a story of genuine international significance. Note that this isn't just one nation pulling out; the pull-out kills the agreement for all the countries it was intended to cover. It could only be revived by renegotiation. Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this hypothetical treaty never came to fruition. The negotiations are over, but it's not like a treaty has been repealed.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It had come to fruition: it was a treaty signed by each and every one of its member states. It is only the stage of ratification that had not been complete. A deal not being fully concluded is just as significant news as a concluded deal being reversed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the added info. I still disagree though. It was a project that was never implemented--that's what I meant by "came to fruition". Nothing happened, so there's no news to speak of.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The article is in decent shape and this is definitely major news. However, at the moment there are only two sentences in the target article dealing with the subject of the blurb. This needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An international trade agreement entering into force would be ITN-worthy, but the withdrawal of a country from an agreement that never entered into force is not, in my opinion. Also, that he would withdraw from the planned trade agreement was announced back in november, so this isn't exactly breaking news. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thing about that is, if it had been nominated in November, it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet". Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait This may be something that has financial implications, but that will be clear when the Asian markets open tomorrow. It doesn't seem to have that much yet by NA markets, but its still early in the news cycle. If the markets don't blink, I don't think this should be posted, per Tataral. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - even though everyone else had signed the agreement, U.S. congress rejected it a long time ago, which I would argue was the real news item. Today was just a formality, it was widely known that ANY republican president would have done the same. I think there are more notable events to include as of right now. Skycycle (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The agreement was never ratified, and Trump pulling the US out was one of his primary campaign issues, so this was expected. 331dot (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    As Banedon said above 'if it had been nominated in November [when Trump became President-elect], it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet"'. You are excluding a whole class of extremely significant news from ITN. Thue (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Thune: I usually support posting the announcement of a business deal at the time of the announcement; this is different because the treaty was not in force and the Senate had not even scheduled a vote; it was one of Donald Trump's primary campaign issues, and Hillary Clinton announced opposition to it as well. This action is just a formality resulting in the status quo. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Huge trade deal which has been a point of contention and widely covered. That Trump's cancellation was promised does not make its cancellation any less significant. Expected important news is still important news. Thue (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is notable enough to include, but the TPP article is a behemoth with an orange tag (since July). Would support on fixing that section up (and maybe a bit of trimming of others as well). AIRcorn (talk)
  • Oppose. The strongest argument against is that the treaty had not entered into force before being withdrawn. "Things will be, as they were" is not news to anyone. It was not given that the treaty would be ratified, as it had strong opposition from labor groups, the far right and the far left, as well as a congress that is at odds with the treaty's principle patron. People who assume that the treaty would ever come into force are engaging in WP:CRYSTAL and support votes based on that even moreso.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance but the article needs attention, per Aircorn and Ad Orientem. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, an event with huge economic implications for the world trade. Btw, page views for the target article jumped to over 457,000 on Jan 23, from the usual 2-3K per day for this article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant enough, and not surprising at all. It's what's been advertised all along. Maybe we need an ongoing item for antics of the Trump Administration.Jehochman Talk 15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - We posted the signing of it, it's weird not to post its collapse. The orange tag seemed inappropriate - the section draws from a variety of sources - and I have removed it. Smurrayinchester 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb The news is not that the US is withdrawing, it's that the TPP is now dead. I would support something like "The TPP becomes unratifiable because the United States withdraws from it". Isa (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know more about what will happen. There are chances that the Trans Pacific PArtnership will continue possibly with China replacing the United States. If that were to happen, it would be an historic moment, a big win for China and a big loss for the US. [12] Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason as the Article 50 reasoning above. We simply can't post every reversal of course resulting from the recent US elections, and this was a foregone conclusion; even Hillary Clinton was against TPP after she was for it. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
weak support 1. in line with brexit above, 2. its highly notable, especially when turnbull said theyd invite china.Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Jehochman that we probably need an Ongoing item about what he calls "antics of the Trump Administration", though a less POV way of saying this would be to have Ongoing link to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (perhaps shortened to something like "Trump's 1st 100 days"). I may eventually try to nominate that myself, though not just yet (I'd probably prefer if somebody else nominated it, and the credit should probably go to Jehochman if he wants it). But meanwhile the possibilty needs to be mentioned here because it seems relevant to whether or not we should post this item. Incidentally we may also need an Ongoing item for Brexit. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:03, 26 January 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: Gorden KayeEdit

Article: Gorden Kaye (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph
Nominator: Fuebaey (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: British television actor. In dire need of referencing. Fuebaey (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Any more sources required? Please tag if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Still see a handful of sourcing gaps, but probably not too difficult to source. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the show was very popular in large parts of Europe throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and remains on reruns in many countries. Skycycle (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose still some unreferenced statements in this WP:BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted after fixing a couple of refs. Stephen 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 22

[Posted] RD: Pete Overend WattsEdit

Article: Pete Overend Watts (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Evening Standard
Nominator and updater: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 10:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose too many gaps in sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on further sourcing Compared to when TRM !voted, sourcing has improved but I still see a couple unsourced statements. I do think the article begs for expansion in some areas but it's sufficiently long at this point for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - sourcing has been improved. -Zanhe (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready   Referencing has been improved. —MBlaze Lightning T 06:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Naqsh LyallpuriEdit

Article: Naqsh Lyallpuri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hindustan Times Financial Express
Nominator and updater: Vivvt (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Dharmadhyaksha (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: an Indian ghazal and Bollywood song writer - Vivvt (Talk) 12:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Except for two blue-linked films, this is appropriately sourced. As key song writer for those works, it should be relatively trivial to source those two films. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Southeastern United States tornadoesEdit

Article: January 21–22, 2017, tornado outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms (storm complex pictured) kill at least 21 people across the Southeastern United States.
News source(s): ABC News, BBC, Washington Post
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)
Updater: MarioProtIV (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Undescribed (talk • give credit) and United States Man (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article could use some expansion, but it's the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since April 2014. Event is still unfolding with numerous violent storms over Georgia and Florida and tornadoes on the ground at the time of nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The description of the storms/damage in the tables should be sourced (though I suspect this is reuse of a source), and there likely should be some type of reaction/response in terms of first responders, estimated damage cost, etc. I do think that while torandos in the SE is nothing unusually, normally, this time of year is different and this is likely a notable system. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: This part of the Southeast doesn't usually see major tornado outbreaks even in the spring. The National Weather Service called it the most significant for the region in nearly 24 years–since the 1993 Storm of the Century. Either way, I've added more references and started up an aftermath section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • True, thinking it was a bit more north (having lived in torando alley myself). The article seems in good shape now, and I still contend that the January nature of this event, much less location, is the unusual part that I Support this for posting. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Adding to my support as this same storm appears responsible for the massive nor'eastern in the mid-atlantic states, which, while not as lethal, is causing a mess. [13] I don't think the blurb needs to be updated, but this is not a small scale system. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad weather happens around the world all the time. This doesn't seem to rise to the ITN level. (The article is also fairly short and with no interwikis, which also indicate that this isn't a very widely reported/significant event). --Tataral (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • So do terrorist attacks and changes of government, yet they're posted   The outbreak being the deadliest in the US in nearly 3 years indicates it's not a frequent occurrence. It's short due to how recent the event is, and information is limited as a lot of communities are in search and rescue mode rather than recovery. Not sure how lack of interwiki articles is relevant here. It's also one of the top stories on BBC, New York Times, Reuters, Sky News, etc. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • ITN isn't about the United States. 20 weather-related casualties over a large area simply isn't very unusual or noteworthy. Far more people die around the world for weather-related reasons every day. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
        • @Tataral: For the region it occurred in this is unusual, and the last solely US-weather related article to be posted on ITN—to my knowledge—was the June 2016 West Virginia flood with 23 fatalities. If you can make an article covering events that claim the number of lives you're purporting they do, by all means please do and nominate it for it. Additionally, please refer to WP:ITN/C#Please do not... regarding coverage of a topic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
          • The event isn't sufficiently noteworthy to be included on ITN and there is nothing particularly unsual about it. Also, please avoid making references to material that is not not relevant for the discussion; I have not done any of those things listed in the section you refer to. I'm not opposing this because it relates to one country, but because it is not significant and not noteworthy. I would have supported it if it was significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Ah, but a localized avalanche in Italy that struck a single building is notable enough? Double standards against United States-based events are rampant here, and a statement like ITN isn't about the United States, leads one to assume that reason for opposition is because it's only related to the United States. The reference to the West Virginia flood is to give you an understanding of how infrequently US-only weather events are brought to ITN/C. We're also talking about a region that largely avoids getting hit by violent tornadoes (the region in question has only seen a handful of E/F4 tornadoes since 1950), and has not seen a thunderstorm event of this magnitude since 1993. I'd say that qualifies as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Did I support the avalanche event being posted? No. US-centrism has traditionally been rampant on ITN and more so in ITN discussions, but this is slowly improving due to more editors being conscious that ITN must be balanced, that ITN isn't solely about the United States, and due to the efforts by many editors to apply the same criteria to all countries. As it happens, we currently (as we frequently do) have a US item on the top of ITN, which I – for the record – supported. I'm more than happy to support US items when they are sufficiently significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - sure it's the deadliest outbreak in the US in nearly three years, but that's problematic because there are hundreds of countries in the world and so hundreds of deadliest outbreaks in nearly three years. I need to see some kind of objective measure of why this is worth posting even when one is comparing against the world to support the nomination, and right now, I am not seeing it. Banedon (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Banedon: The United States sees, on average, more than 1,000 tornadoes per year, by far the largest of any country. The next closest is Canada with an average of less than 100 tornadoes per year. The only time you'll see other countries having such deadly tornado events are generally from isolated violent events that happen infrequently. Remember that this doesn't have to match up to other countries anyways per WP:ITN/C#Please do not... (failing to relate to other countries). The last tornado event that was posted was back in June: 2016 Jiangsu tornado, an isolated violent event with mass casualties. Regardless of "deadliest since" statements, it is an unusually destructive and deadly event for the region and it is making headlines in international media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not convinced I'm afraid - possibly it is just me but the fact that the US and Canada sees the most tornadoes a year is something I would regard as rather tangential. What is causing the deaths here are presumably strong winds, heavy rains and floods. These things clearly occur elsewhere in the world. The underlying cause may be different, but from the perspective of ITN, does it matter if the cause of the deaths were due to tornadoes or hurricanes, or La Nina, or even seasonal monsoon rains? A quick search through Wikipedia reveal events such as 2017 Southern Thailand floods, which "are the biggest floods in over 30 years" in the country and also killed twice as many people. Against that kind of comparison I still do not see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but for what it's worth the deaths from this event are all from the tornadoes as far as I can tell, not floods or straight-line winds. Regarding differentiation of the type of natural disaster, the last time I remember multiple major weather disasters occurring at the same time it turned into a mess of trying to figure out how to combine everything into one blurb. Long story short, differentiation or lack thereof depends on the commenter. I would jump on saying the floods should be whipped into shape and nominated, but it sadly seems to be slightly too old to be posted (oldest entry is January 18 and flooding was primarily in the first week or so of the month). Unless resumed flooding worsens the situation, that is. I'll try and keep tabs on it and work on improving it tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know about this one! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This seems (just) sufficiently deadly to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I will note, however, that the confirmed death toll needs to be cleared up. The article and blurb say at least 20, but we have sources saying less (for instance, the AP article says 19). Neljack (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Neljack: delay in sources adding the 4th death from the Albany, Georgia, tornado. Total does indeed add up to 20 (16 in Georgia, 4 in Mississippi). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is significant news due to the death count. -- Tavix (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on par with other disasters we've posted on ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Cyclonebiskit's explanation of the rarity plus the fact it's (as per the norm for these kind of articles) in very good shape. Would like the issue over the article title to be resolved before our readers have to wade through two "tags" (the "current" one is fine), otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 20-odd people dying in a weather event is not a significant story on a global scale. It might well be on par with other disasters posted on ITN. That is the problem. ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    You are, of course, always welcome and in fact encouraged to propose new candidates at ITN. If you wish for it to really change, that's the only way to do it because complaining about it makes no difference whatsoever; I'm afraid that eventually your !votes will be ignored and you'll just be wasting your own time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    I can't figure out how to propose new candidates. The template is too difficult. Besides, I'm one of three opposing this nomination: hardly a peripheral operator whose !vote is going to be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    If you'd like some help with the template, let me know. You don't have to fill in 75% of it for most cases, all you need is a target article, a blurb, a source and your signature. And I didn't suggest your vote was the only oppose vote, just that your continual opposition based on "ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items" will become like "crying wolf" if you fail to do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's a kind offer, TRM. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that nominating more 'real news' will fix Mkativerata's problem, and it may actually just end up disillusioning him/her with Wikipedia. Because if it were simply a matter of nominating more 'real news' then others would probably already be doing it.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    Don't worry, that is about number 245394857 on the list of things about wikipedia that disillusion me. Accepting TRM's point I will try to keep an eye out for things I think are nomination-worthy and give the template a go. (My template fails are not due to inexperience -- like TRM I'm a former admin -- but are rather due to my general lack of technological literacy.) --Mkativerata (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well next time you do see something you think ought to get an outing, let me know and I'll do the template work for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't support posting an article where the content does not correspond with the sources. It was the dramatic language used to describe the tornado that peaked my suspicions on the one near Albany. On further investigation, I'd say that a mobile home park on the outskirts of Adel is some way away from the claim that "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled." Even the comment from a woman living in said area in one of the sources does not correspond with a statement this strong. The overall article looks decent though, and without wishing to predict whether the event is ongoing or not, I don't think the full scale of what has happened has emerged yet. User talk:StillWaitingForConnection 06:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The Adel and Albany tornadoes are two separate events (they're about 60 miles apart), nothing is being mixed up here as far as I can tell. A mobile home park was largely destroyed near Adel, and Albany suffered a direct hit from a large tornado. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure. So how does that become "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled". Claiming that entire neighbourhoods were flattened in a place like Albany were flattened is a very strong claim to make. If it's true then please find a source that spells it out and source it inline, as it's by a long distance the strongest claim in the entire article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
        • @StillWaitingForConnection: Looks like I removed the source I initially got the information from by accident when updating the death toll. It was from WALB: "[Dougherty County EMA Director Ron] Rowe said they are in the preliminary stages of getting damage information. However, he did say that there is widespread destruction and the East Side has neighborhoods that are completely destroyed." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support large and impactful meteorological event. More deaths than fingers and toes put together, official states of emergencies declared in multiple states and FEMA deployed across the Southeast. Article is nice, with contextualization and links out to other fine articles.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While a tragic event, I don't feel the circumstances merit posting. This sort of thing is not uncommon. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Since 2014"... If that had been 2004 that might be more noteworthy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I think any natural disaster with a deathcount of 20 and an article of reasonable quality deserves to be posted. ~Mable (chat) 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not exceptionally record-breaking, per Only in death's justification. Although, this does serve as a reminder that man-made global warming is real and having an impact on the planet even now.--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Only in death and WaltCip: there's a hefty wall for "deadliest since" in 2011 that I hope we'll never surpass. Anomalously violent and incessant tornado outbreaks in April and May of that year claimed over 500 lives in the United States (most notably the 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Joplin tornado). This outbreak took place farther southeast than is typically expected for these deadly events, but I don't see a need for something to be "exceptionally record breaking" for it to warrant posting on ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, pending refs for two unreferenced tornadoes in table - This is a notably strong tornado outbreak. Article is in good shape. AHeneen (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This single outbreak killed more people than the entire 2016 season, and it is one of the strongest such events on record in January, certainly the deadliest in decades in the U.S. Skycycle (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The article consists of lots of tables and weather information, which is nice. The deaths are mentioned in the tables and the lead, but if this is the newsworthy aspect of the tornados I would expect a bit more of a summary or even a section of prose. It was hard for me to find and collate this information in the body. Otherwise I would support. AIRcorn (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think some of the opposes here are verging on anti-US bias. The article seems in decent enough shape - the aftermath is described in prose and all the tornadoes at least claim to be referenced now. I posting a deadly tornado outbreak in the US every few years really so undue? GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment while not overwhelming, there is consensus to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Andy MarteEdit

Article: Andy Marte (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Muboshgu (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: Seriously, two different Dominican baseball players died last night in separate car crashes where they're both suspected to be under the influence – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Serious sourcing issues here. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: Should be sufficient now. Let me know if I missed something. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Support Appears all ready to go now. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportAria1561 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just one fact to reference and this is good to go. Stephen 04:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support only because (to my reading) that [citation needed] is quite an important one. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found and added citations and amended the dates to reflect them and removed the related CN. However somebody might want to check whether those sources are sufficiently reliable before posting.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, after removing the claim sourced to a blog. Stephen 08:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yordano VenturaEdit

Article: Yordano Ventura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sports Illustrated
Nominator: Muboshgu (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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Not seeing any major failings in the article quality here. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportAria1561 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - article is updated & there are sources. Is there any reason why this has not been posted in the 6 hours since the nomination was made? Elisfkc (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Consensus for posting takes more than a couple !votes. Not enough !votes yet to post. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Appears well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 21

[Posted] Kuneru train derailmentEdit

Article: Kuneru train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train derailment in Andhra Pradesh, India kills 41 people and injures 68 others.
News source(s): Time, BBC, Reuters
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Skycycle (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Pechristener (talk • give credit) and C628 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article is short but sourced, and this is not a trivial public transportation accident. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - that was a major accident, even if is somehow routine in India. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not unless there's some kind of long-term impact arising from this. As I see it right now it's just a simple accident with no lasting consequences. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Major disasters with high death tolls are significant in themselves and routinely posted (the Rigopiano avalanche and the Plasco Building collapse are currently on ITN). -Zanhe (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of no demonstrated consequence beyond the casualties. The proof of that point lies in the fact that the article is only 10 sentences long. If that's all there is that can be said about the incident, it clearly has no place on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above reasons. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Updated] Yahya Jammeh leavesEdit

Article: 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent President Yahya Jammeh leaves The Gambia in exile, following the armed intervention of the ECOWAS alliance, ending the 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis.
Alternative blurb: ​Following intervention from the armed forces from countries of the ECOWAS alliance, incumbent President Yahya Jammeh leaves The Gambia in exile, ending the 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis.
Alternative blurb II: Yahya Jammeh steps down as President of The Gambia and leaves in exile, following the armed intervention of the ECOWAS alliance, ending the 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis.
News source(s): NYT, BBC, WSJ
Nominator: Elisfkc (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Other blurb nominations are welcome Elisfkc (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support updated blurb Successful resolution of a major story. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support updating blurb Although Yahya Jammeh is not the "Incumbent President". Should probably be "Former President". - Samuel Wiki (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I couldn't think of what exactly to call him when I started this nomination. Elisfkc (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As long as he was in power, he was president. Everyking (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support the change to my original nomination. Elisfkc (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated. It's only been a few hours but I think it's OK as it's not about posting a new blurb, but updating an existing one. I took alt2 and moved the ECOWAS bit to the front to make the sentence flow a bit smoother. -- King of ♠ 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In a curious co-incidence, it seems the Gambian treasury is missing quite a lot of money. Time for another update? GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    Did anyone honestly not expect him to have exiled some treasury funds as well? Stephen 10:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Protests against Donald TrumpEdit

Posted with consensus, tweaks can be suggested at Errors. Stephen 02:19, 23 January 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: Inauguration of Donald Trump (talk, history) and Women's March on Washington (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protests occur across the United States and other countries after the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Alternative blurb: ​At least x00,000 march on Washington D.C. and other major cities as part of the Women's March on Washington to defend the rights of women, immigrants, and LGBTQ following the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least x00,000 march on Washington D.C. and other major cities as part of the Women's March on Washington following the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Alternative blurb III: ​Millions of people march worldwide as part of Women's March on Washington in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington in response to the Donald Trump presidential inauguration.
Alternative blurb V: Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Alternative blurb VI: Millions of people worldwide, including 500,000 in the Women's March on Washington, march in protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration.
Alternative blurb VII: Millions of people worldwide, including 500,000 in the Women's March on Washington, march in protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration.
News source(s): CNN BBC CBS The Independent
Nominator: LuK3 (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: I saw the previous item and see a lot of voters were against posting solely based on the inauguration itself. As stated by Thryduulf, if protests become more than peaceful then it should be re-introduced. I've seen many examples on the news regarding arrests and riots, both within the United States and around the world. In addition, the Women's March on Washington is occurring tomorrow with more than 500,000 attending. I truly believe this needs to addressed again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see the relevance of protests in other countries. Neutral on whether to post overall, as I'm torn between the fact that what has happened was broadly in line with expectations, and that those expectations were the exception to the norm in and of themselves. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Is the relevance to other countries really relevant? Quoting the following from the big blue box at the top of this very page: "... 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." Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "other countries"? Wikipedia is an international project and not written for just one country. It is irrelevant where protests take place, the only relevant factor to be considered here on ITN (in addition to the quality of the article) is the noteworthiness of the protests, as demonstrated by their coverage in reliable sources; in fact if there are protests in many countries, this means the protests in question are almost certainly of greater noteworthiness, and hence more relevant for ITN. --Tataral (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not unusual for a world leader to upset the people of other countries. It's extremely unusual for a new leader of a country to attract beyond a certain level of protest from their own people (in a democracy because people tend to respect its rules, in a dictatorship or military coup out of fear). In that context our project's international nature is irrelevant to this story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • It is unusual for a leader's inauguration to attract significant protests in many other countries around the world, however. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration. Also, this. WMoW can be discussed when it happens. Blythwood (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about whether to post, but the claim that "nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration" seems entirely contrary to my recollection of previous inaugurations. I suppose it's always possible that this is simply due to media bias (as implied by the above-cited Washingtonian opinion piece about the burning garbage can) and/or to faulty recollection on my part, but if we are to take the claim seriously it might be useful to see some evidence of similar 'reliable source' reports for previous inaugurations.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (updated clarification: I support altblurb VI or a similar wording). Seeing how this has become a global event, with significant protests in many countries on most continents, and apparently escalating protests in the US across the country, I'm inclined to support this, particularly if the protests continue on saturday (which appears to be the case with several large protests planned). Protests taking place in large parts of the world are relatively rare, and thus much more significant/noteworthy. This is clearly not just a routine, fairly small-scale, local protest in Washington. For example, when did we last see protests by the thousands against the inauguration of a President of France in Washington, London, Sydney, Berlin, lots of other places, and all across France? (I don't think there were international or even comparable domestic protests of this kind against George W. Bush's inaguruation, despite the divisive nature of his election and views) --Tataral (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll oppose this right now, depending on the scale of unrest this weekend. — foxj 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Similar to the post-election reaction. --Light show (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I take that as an oblique allusion to Global Whining. Sca (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not just "tree huggers" who don't like him, he got 3 million fewer votes than the Electoral College-losing candidate. Polling also indicates he is one of the least popular presidents at the time he began his term. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting description of EEng you got there, Lugnuts - do you know something we don't? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until later today to decide if the protests were notable enough. The women's march today may draw a larger crowd than the inauguration itself. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all very nice for those involved but ultimately completely meaningless, particularly for those marching outside the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"completely meaningless"? Surely it means that hundreds of thousands think, like Obama, that Trump is "unfit to be President"; or like Springsteen, this he's "a moron"; or like thousands of women across the world, that he's a misogynist? But I thought we were concerned here just with newsworthiness not "meaning"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Some of us soon may be marching out of the U.S. Sca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait Lots of people hating Trump is not exactly scoop of the century. If the protests spread and are sustained, we'll revisit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose These events are run of the mill for inaugurations and are unlikely to rate even a footnote in the history books. The violence was fairly small scale and the inaugural protests were far below expectations. None of these events individually, nor all of them collectively rate their own article (Protests of Donald Trump inauguration). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as notably unusual in recent times, as reflected in the coverage. Also support Lugnuts being being dipped in free-range honey, immersed in muesli and rolled in a barrel alongside the 5,000,000 women :D O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Free-range honey? That's the final straw. Did you know that honey is made between the joints of the legs of the insect? You could say it's the bees knees. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Or you could say, 'Jeez, I can't find my knees.'Sca (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Still no idea whether item should be posted, but object to proposed waste of good honey and muesli being discussed here rather than under its own nom (suggested blurb: 'Empress of the World plans insufficiently cruel and unusual punishment for snowflake-hating Wikipedian'). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait To me, the big story would be if the Women's March draws the 500k it is expected to, and that to me seems like the bigger story here. If it does draw that many, a blurb could be "The Women's March on Washington draws over 500,000 to promote women's right among other protests against President Trump following his inauguration". The protests that are happened, again, are a continuation of protests since November, but this would highlight a more interesting story while grouping several less-ITN-worthy stories. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support the altblurbs that focus on the international scale of the Women's March (x Millions). This is clearly unprecedent in worldwide scope (the last closest thing I can remember being the Charlie Hebro reactions and that was nowhere near this scale). --MASEM (t) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait – While I don't agree that these protests are typical of an inauguration, so far they seem of middling significance. They don't appear to pack the political punch of the 1963 March on Washington, or the anti-Vietnam War march six years later. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The big news is the inauguration, which was snow-closed yesterday. The protests are irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In fairness, we snow closed the inauguration because that was considered routine. I have no objection at all to this being debated as it was the element of the story which made Trump's accession out of the ordinary. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Protests are "relevant". Whether or not they're ITN/C is another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with MASEM's comment above. The only article that is possibly worthy of a mention as being "In The News" is the Women's March on Washington. In which case this nomination about Trump should be closed, and there should be a separate discussion about that one specific event. I also note that Inauguration of Donald Trump protests is subject of an Article for Deletion proposal. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The Women's March article is extremely POV. Don't Melania, Ivanka, Betsy, Kellyanne, etc., count at all? It's also extremely offensive to the LGBTQ community since he is the first POTUS to support gay marriage--what on earth are these people on about? Again, very POV; definitely too POV for the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL. That would be Obama, who was the first POTUS to support gay marriage. And the Trump women bit is funny, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No, as I recall, Obama ran as an opponent of gay marriage, didn't he?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The point is you wrote that Trump "is the first POTUS to support gay marriage". For Obama's changes of position, see Social_policy_of_Barack_Obama#Same-sex_marriage: "On May 9, 2012, Obama told an interviewer that he supported same-sex marriage. He was the first sitting U.S. President to do so." ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant as a candidate. Trump is the first POTUS to run as a supporter of gay marriage. Obama ran as an anti-gay marriage candidate.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of the Women's March is that it is not only focused on the fears that Trump would weaken women's rights, but also those of immigrants and LGBTQ, so there are more marching as part of this common cause - and the march is not only limited to Wash DC but in several major cities having equivalent events for the same purpose. Just because it's titled as such doesn't mean it is restricted to that. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This understanding is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm adding an altblurb that can only be validated after about another.. 5-6 hrs? to get a estimate head count, in light of this and would be a blurb that I could support. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
In the altblurb, LGBTQ acts as an adjective, so would need to be followed by a noun such as people. And the alblurb is a bit longish. Sca (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Very offensive for those protesters to claim they are speaking on behalf of the LGBTQ community. Trump included the LGBTQ community in his GOP convention speech, where Peter Thiel (a member of the LGBTQ community) also spoke...I would feel less uncomfortable if we left the LGBTQ community out of this political game they are playing. We are not tokens.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but close because no one gets it and this will only result in more unnecessary political and US-centric arguing. Thechased (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The crowd for the march in DC was expected to be five times bigger than for Trump's inauguration. The estimate is now 500,000. And that doesn't count the sister marches. The one in Chicago has 150,000; they had to cancel the march part because there's too many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom comment - I think the WMoW is gaining more media attention than the general protests (although it is part of the overarching protests of the inauguration). I think that the march(es) need to be the main subject if it is included on ITN. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Me too. Today's actions are more newsworthy than yesterday's protests. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb focused on Women's March on Washington, which has global sister marches. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've heard about reports all over the place now, from London (including the mayor turning up!), Australia, India and Nigeria. Even accounting for the reporting on Washington that hasn't happened yet, this is now major worldwide news. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support After considering, I think we should post a joint Inauguration/March blurb. Trump was inaugurated, and that and the marches are making major international news with sister marches across the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless something extraordinary happens (e.g. civil disobedience with high damage and casualties, changes in the voting mechanism, other major political changes etc.) and even then the news would be the resulting event but not the protests themselves (compare this to the Euromaidan as a relatively recent example). Soros-backed protests similar to these have taken place in many other countries in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "Soros-backed protests"? Why does the right wing always bring out George Soros as a boogeyman? Even if he's at the DC march, there's another 499,999 there too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Because the only chance for this to result in something extraordinary to merit inclusion would be thanks to George Soros. The rest may count even 4,999,999 or 49,999,999, but it'd be just a number without this 'tiny nuance'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I see no evidence of George Soros' involvement. And that includes the Breitbart "article" claiming this is all Soros because Soros supports Planned Parenthood, which is a ridiculous leap. They're saying 670 marches and 2.5 million attendees. That ain't Soros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't claim his involvement and deliberately used 'Soros-backed similar to these' instead of 'such Soros-backed protests'. It's just a sarcastic metaphor for how these protests can result into something that would merit inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Soros everywhere. Watch less RT, use your brain instead. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
              • I don't know what does RT stand for and I use my brain perfectly well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the first sentence of Kiril Simeonovski's oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting note: I now support this. Posting it was the right thing to do. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Sister (pun not intentional) marches are happening across at least 60 countries, and on all 7 continents. [14] The total participating estimated so far is in the millions. Thus I think the focus on the marches are the key news item here. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. Unless people get shot or somebody resigns this is not worth an ITN spot. Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Nergaal: This was an event attended by what seems to be millions of people on a global scale, and is 'in the news' by every definition of the term. Why does someone need to be killed or lose their job to be posted on the front page? Sam Walton (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do not ordinarily post inaugurations, and by definition if we were to post this it would be because the protests were so exceptional as to override POV concerns about posting. They're significant, and I gave this a lot of thought, but I don't think they rise to that level. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9: In the context of the decision to post Obama's inauguration, we are now really faced with two broad choices. One, consider that the default position for incoming presidents (rejected multiple times below and therefore not an option). Or two, only post when the circumstances are evidently exceptional enough. Furthermore, in the context of having posted Obama due to the positive connotations, to then go on and post Trump due to the negative connotations, it really would have to be exceptional enough to justify impartially without being open to reasonable accusations of POV pushing. I do not think the level of protest has risen to that level, and therefore POV is the primary concern. No issues whatsoever with the encyclopaedic merit of covering the protests against Trump, nor, overall, with the way in which they handle the topic (though I'm dubious about whether a stand-alone article for inauguration is needed, given that there were many significant protests in 2016 both before and after his victory). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9: Object to proposed blurbs on POV grounds, leaning support on posting something. The more I think about this, the bigger the march and associated rallies strike me as being. I still stand by my initial concern, which is the justifiable – whether accurate or not – accusation of liberal bias. Think about it: we made an exception for Obama's inauguration and yet we're only posting Trump's in order to play up the level of protest about him. This made all the more unfortunate given that (there not having been a justifiable focal point for it), we've posted nothing about the reason for Trump's success being directly attributable to disillusion in the establishment.

    It would be better if we could use the blurb to loosen the relationship between the two and let the reader judge for themselves. Perhaps replacing "in response to" in alt 3 with "a day after"? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. As I said when we discussed the inauguration, which was routine by itself, I would support posting something if something extraordinary happened, such as millions of people protesting. This has now happened with protests in the millions across the US and across the globe. We should disregard comments above from editors who just express their political views/support of Trump instead of discussing the noteworthiness of the protests based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy and ITN criteria. --Tataral (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Millions of people worldwide Hundred of thousands of Americans feeling angry, fearful and aggrieved. And prepared to take to the streets to shout about it. Don't see how this can be ignored or treated with "we don't normally" comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Martinevans123: This nomination is about protests in the United States and not about the feelings of millions people worldwide. If you think someone's fear and grief merits inclusion as news, you're encouraged to propose it as a separate item with impartial sources or, at least, propose an alternative blurb to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite happy to see an alternative blurb that reflects the true global scale of these protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, probably as many people protested in the UK as will vote for nobodies in The Voice tonight. Big news! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. Thanks for raising the level of debate there. But that is an interesting political comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And all those (3) thousands in Sydney, almost as many folks went to the Wham Stadium (BAM!) today to see Accrington Stanley, who are they? draw with the mighty Carlisle. Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want "politics", see the French who had around 78,000 on the streets last September protesting (per the norm, like protesting against Trump) and that included loads of violence. These kind of protests are in no way unusual and they have no impact beyond creating a lot of litter and costing a lot in policing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Amazing what "meaningless" things these women folk get up to isn't it? Perhaps we should hope for more violence next time? Let's just count numbers from now on? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops. The reports clearly state these feeble worldwide "protests" were by men and women together. And yes, there has to be some reliance on the scale of a protest in order to determine and contextualise its encyclopedic value. That's why we don't have a French protest at ITN every two weeks. Protests of this nature are de rigeur these days, unexceptional and worth perhaps a passing note in some Trump article somewhere, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops indeed. Did you want the violence from the men or from the women? So your rationale for not posting is partly that not enough people know who Accrington Stanley are? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Definitely, plus not enough milk was consumed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Still searching for that attendance figure. Perhaps you could oblige? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no problem - 2,634. HTH! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope the stadium was full, of meaning. After such a persuasive argument, perhaps I'll have to change my !vote? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major protest that dominates headlines worldwide. It is beyond bizarre that WP has no mention of Trump, yet there is space for a building collapse... Renata (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that nothing has actually happened—in terms of either violence or some kind of desired result being achieved. That lots of people are unhappy with Donald Trump has been perpetually true for 18 months now. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's it, in a nutshell. I think there's some kind of developing (or developed) obsession to get something or anything about Trump onto the main page at the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Julian, I understand your point, however millions throughout the world (see the Washington Post article) seems like it is a big deal and should be included, regardless of what the subject, what they are protesting, or politics in general. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb focused on the worldwide nature of these protests. I would agree that US citizens protesting in the US is a typical reaction to a new president, despite some protests being larger than usual(including 250,000 in Chicago), but an estimated 3 million around the world marched, including 100,000 in London, other protests in Bangkok, Berlin, Paris, Nairobi, and Tokyo.[15] The sheer number of protests about this subject worldwide means they are getting attention worldwide and people will be interested to read about them. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't believe protests of this scale against a new president upon his inauguration is a typical reaction, even in the US. The protests, both in the US and around the world, are a reflection of the fact that he is not a normal politician and that he holds explicitly racist and extremist views. Many people didn't like Bush and strongly disagreed with his views, but nevertheless it was quite different when he became president and there wasn't this perception among the majority of RS that he was extreme and unfit for the office, and that he held outrageous views. --Tataral (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The numbers that have turned up in Washington are considerably larger than expected and, together with the national and international scale of the protests, make this significant and unusual enough to warrant featuring. Neljack (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Both the inauguration and the protests are huge international news. And that's a fact, like it or not. Clearly blurb-worthy. Jusdafax 21:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb III: This is grabbing headlines everywhere. One of the largest one-day worldwide protests ever. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Presuming this will be posted, found a good image already at Commons. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - unprecedent in US history. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The closer should take into account that the first comments regarding this proposal (including my own somewhat conditional support) were made yesterday when the protests were much smaller in scale, and that the newsworthiness of this event has changed substantially over the last day; as others noted, this is now huge international news and headlines around the world, and one of the largest one-day worldwide protests ever. --Tataral (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I am forced to concede that this march is trending worldwide. It's receiving wall to wall coverage on multiple reliable sources. --WaltCip (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support By any definition of the phrase this is very much "in the news" AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no chance of consensus here and the more notable aspect is Trump's inauguration which wasn't deemed worthy of a mention consistent with policy. Protest marches happen all the time and usually have little ongoing effect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In fact, when taking policy-based comments into account (i.e. comments that address the newsworthiness of the event based on its coverage in reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy generally and ITN criteria specifically), and disregarding comments that merely express a personal (political) opinion, or comments that are outdated due to the developments over the last day, there is now consensus to post this. The inauguration wasn't deemed ITN-worthy by itself because an inauguration in itself is routine and because we don't post inaugurations when we already posted the same story (election result) earlier; however the millions of protesters around the world is a highly significant event, as seen from its coverage in reliable sources. In the discussion over whether to post the inauguration, there was agreement that we could post something if something extraordinary happened, and I specifically mentioned the example "Two million people protest..." Now far more than two million people are protesting across the globe. When we post this, we will of course mention both the protests and the inauguration. --Tataral (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how Capitalistroadster arrived at that assessment, there is clearly a good chance, whether it actually happens or not. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Protest marches in Washington hundreds of thousands strong do not, in fact, happen all the time. This is as notable as the Vietnam War protests. --WaltCip (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • There is clearly strong opposition from a number of people to posting this on what we perceive as noteworthiness of the events. The inauguration of Donald Trump has received widespread coverage. If this is posted the blurb should be used with the inauguration first and the protests second or otherwise it will not be NPOV. As for numbers protesting, the |March for Life will occur next week in Washington with hundreds of thousands protesting but it will probably receive a blurb As for comparisons with the Vietnam War protests, the jury is still very much out on that. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I changed my oppose above to wait, but the time for waiting is just about over, as is the Women's March. The RS closest to the event, The Washington Post, wasn't reporting any extraordinary happenings as of 5 p.m. local time (22:00 UTC). Per Kiril, I'm inclined once again to oppose, although if we had a really comprehensive piece including all the international stuff ... ?? Sca (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sca: Have you seen the article? There's plenty of coverage of the international events. Sam Walton (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Hmmmm, although almost a list, it seems fairly comprehensive, so I'll switch once again to support alt2 or alt3.   Sca (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: We should be cautious about estimates of total worldwide participation, though. Sca (talk)
  • Support - worldwide protests with millions of protesters are relevant. And ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - er, have you seen the headline news all around the world, people? Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The only thing I would like to see is if we know the total number that participated is estimated at. "Millions" right now is a bit vague, I'd like to give a better sense of scale; last best number I saw was 3 million but could be more. Basically, I would like to make sure we can different between "just above a million", in the 3-7 million range or 10 million or greater. And this should clearly be labeled an estimate. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Demographics question: Off-topic, but because of the nature of the event, which is U.S.-centric, but expanded outside the U.S., it would be interesting to get some estimates of the ratio of us voting editors that are American vs. non-American? Any volunteers willing to give their estimate? --Light show (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest Support - this was an international event. To claim it is not notable is utterly ridiculous. According to NPR, PRI, The Guardian, and CNN, rallies we held in Sydney, NYC, New Delhi, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Wellington, Melborne, Auckland, Berlin, Paris, Cape Town, Christchurch, Nairobi, Time, Frankfurt, Munich, Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester, Belfast, Leeds, Vianna, Amsterdam, Geneva, Marseille, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Edinburgh, Ghana, Malawi, Dunedi, Barcelona, Brussels, Greece, Kosovo, the Czech Republic, Georgia, and even Antarctica. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest support global event with huge turnout, well beyond organizer's expectations. Ought to be covered. Sadads (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Does 'strongest support' count as three supports? Sca (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I once – admittedly under the influence – came very close to using AWB to replace instances of "strong support" and "strong oppose" with "(feel free to ignore me)". The inevitable block, follow-up drama and Arbcom case almost seemed worth it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have, at times, thought of responding to a "Strong Oppose" with which I disagreed with an "Extra Super-Strong Mega-Support with bells and whistles, flashing lights, and a cherry on top"... but I was concerned that the closing admin would be so awed by my magnificence and infallible insight that s/he would forget to look to policy and consensus and instead acclaim me as omnipotent and declare all future disputes would be resolved by me alone. I don't have that kind of spare time... though designating Bishzilla as my proxy has appeal! EdChem (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Blackkite and others - it is not usual. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That's been said before. Sca (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we didn't post this in the immediate aftermath of the inauguration, why post now? As for this item making headlines, that's not the case: the inauguration itself made more headlines. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doing so would be placing the secondary event (leftist protests) over the primary event (the Inauguration of the new President) in terms of importance. --Tocino 02:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I see your point, but the difference between both events is the fact that one happens on a regular, 4-year basis whereas the other (because of the sheer magnitude and its timing literally one day after a presidential inauguration) is unprecedented. TomasBat 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • HEY! – We're up to 5,200 words of blather. Time to fish or cut bait. Sca (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree, and have added [Needs attention] to the heading. Jusdafax 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support posting, this is a major story. I have proposed alt blurb IV as a shorter and more direct version of III. If we wanted to note the protest aspect, another option would be "Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration." EdChem (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "In response to" is a bit loaded for me (long-winded version above). Can live with "following". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a big deal. Everyking (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Attendance to this worldwide protest event exceeded expectations (which were initially high), by far - and by far I mean really far (see Women's March on Washington#Participation). A protest against the incoming President drawing crowds clearly larger than those at a U.S. presidential inauguration literally the day after the inauguration is not usual. The Wikipedia article for the march reads (and I quote): "The march drew hundreds of thousands to D.C. alone and approximately 2.9 million in cities throughout the U.S., thus becoming the largest single day protest in American history." This alone should qualify it - people don't need to get shot for something to appear in "In the news". TomasBat 03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now with preference for blurb 3/4, after having opposed before. I think some kind of explicit message that the protests are about defending and promoting the status of women in the blurb is preferable to "we're cross because our candidate lost" Blythwood (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support due to the worldwide significance of the protests; this is really unprecedented among presidential inaugurations of any country in the world. As for the blurb I support the following which is very similar to IV and I'll call Alt blurb V: Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump. "Millions of people worldwide" is a good concise way of framing the scope of the event, while I prefer bolding both articles. I think this is like the Carrie Fisher case, where a single event (i.e. just the inauguration) may not be sufficient for posting, but the combined blurb is worth posting and both events should be bolded. -- King of ♠ 03:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    I added an ALT5 with two bold links. EdChem (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    The problem is that the template only supports going up to 4. -- King of ♠ 04:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    I managed to force it in after I discovered the limitation, thanks. :) EdChem (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. -- King of ♠ 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with an estimated turnout of 2.9 million people, this was the largest single-day political manifestation in the history of the United States. I think this fact should go in the summary too.--DarTar (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Worldwide protests involving millions, and being reported as one of the leading stories by most 'quality' news sources. However some of the proposed blurb wording seems problematic: "Millions worldwide join Women's March on Washington..." (altblurb4 and altblurb5) or "Millions of people march worldwide as part of Women's March on Washington..." (altblurb3). I agree with these altblurbs focussing on the worldwide nature of the protests, but if you're marching in Paris or Nairobi or Sydney then it sounds a bit silly to say you're part of a March on Washington. Also the blurbs need to mention these are "protests" (much current wording might mean marches supporting Trump). So I'm adding an altblurb6 to try to avoid these problems: "Millions of people worldwide, including 500,000 in the Women's March on Washington, march in protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration." Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm now creating a proper Redirect for "worldwide", as in Donald Trump Inauguration Protest March Locations.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, + added to altblurbs 1 to 6.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Err, it makes zero sense to link twice to the same article in a single blurb. I would expect that just on reading the context that the March article will include the locations. (And from a quality standpoint, listed out every city and country is bad form, at some point that needs to be reduced to prose). --MASEM (t) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I have removed the links from all the blurbs. -- King of ♠ 05:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I put in the link (which is to a different part of the article) was because we are announcing a worldwide phenomenon (or US-wide in some of the altblurbs), yet are only giving a link to what is ostensibly an event in Washington DC. So I fail to see how it makes "zero sense" to supply our readers with a link to the wider phenomenon that our blurbs announce (on the contrary, I fail to see the sense in depriving them of such a link). So I would like to restore the link, but I don't risk an edit war, so I may (or may not) eventually just create an altblurb 7 (a copy of altblurb 6) with it. Meanwhile I'd like to know whether the current alleged quality issue is deemed sufficiently serious to prevent the item from being posted. And also whether the article needs to be renamed to something like Worldwide marches against Trump Inauguration, or whether a new such article needs to be created, and whether failure to do this is also a quality issue sufficiently grave to prevent the item from being posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note that the article describes the other marches as "sister marches" - in other words they are NOT part of the Women's March on Washington, contrary to what many of the altblurbs say.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @King of Hearts:. It mostly addresses my concerns. "2017 Women's Marches" might be better as it's not a single march (but on the other hand "2017 Women's Marches" might have to be more specific, such as "2017 Women's Marches against the Trump Inauguration", to avoid referring to all feminist marches in 2017). But I guess Wikilinking means that we can call it something like that in the blurb even if the article's name remains unchanged. As for any remaining article quality issues (a still dubious article name, and the list format of the locations), these are not part of my concerns, but they may still be part of other people's concerns.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted alt V without the inauguration bolding, as there wasn't much discussion of bolding both. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Haha, so balanced how the inauguration is not bolded. Good job unbiased admins! Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Nergaal: Your concerns are exactly why I suggested bolding both. It appears that it was posted without bolding solely because of insufficient discussion, not because anyone actually thinks it would be a bad idea. So I've WP:BOLDly bolded it (pun intended) under the assumption that it's unlikely to be controversial - of course any admin should feel free to revert me and we can have a discussion here. -- King of ♠ 11:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Nergaal: Let the people have their moment for sobbing and breached neutrality as a comfort for the inevitable truth that won't change. It's pretty obvious here that the main news is no longer the inauguration but the march against it (please note just how the infobox in the article divides Trump administration and the leaders of the march like they are warring one to each other). I find it meaningless to debate here any more and, after all, Wikipedia is not perfect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • While not being the march's fan, I think the inauguration should be unbolded as the main subject seems to be the march (besides the consensus was not to post the inauguration). It was fine before, I can't recall when we bolded two items simultaneously. Brandmeistertalk 12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
          • It's certainly not standard practice to bold two items on ITN, but I guess someones feelings might be hurt because the bolded item isn't Trump. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Er, our ITN/C template has space for two articles to be highlighted. These are thus listed at the topic of the ITN/C blurb. When this is done, both can be bolded, but this also means that both articles have to be reviewed for proper front page posting. Certainly the Women's March article was vetted once it was identified, but I don't see any scrutiny of the inauguration article, which is why we should be careful just randomly bolding parts of the blurb. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Though, I have just checked the inauguration article and don't see any glaring issue. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Blurb says "millions of people worldwide." This sounds rather slap-dash. AP on Sunday says "more than 1 million people rallied at women's marches in the nation's capital and cities around the world," and that seems more prudent. Sca (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Other sources are giving 2+ million. ([16]). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Evergreen, that USA Today piece seems to rely on "projections" for its 2M+ figure. Note that cutline says, "Early projections show that over 2.5 million...." The NYT article cited with it in the article does not mention "millions" worldwide. Sca (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Who is this Trump character? What country is he in? Or do we presume that everyone around the world just knows basic information like that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I know it's been posted already, but I wish to express my support for it. Unlike what Lugnuts said, this is not just some "snowflakes" protesting against a president. It's an unprecedented worldwide protesting event against a strongly unpopular president in a strongly divided country. Not to mention, it has received significant news coverage and many notable celebrities participated. Definitely worth the blurb. κατάσταση 18:41, 22 January 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.

January 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 20

2017 Verona bus crashEdit

Article: 2017 Verona bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sixteen passengers lost their lives when a bus they were boarding crashed with a bridge pylon and burned immediately on January 2017 on the A4 motorway near Verona.
News source(s): BBC,BBCBBC
Nominator: Junosoon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: One of the notable tragic, bus accident in Italy, after 1999 foreign bus accident, in which eighteen Hungarian students had died. Junosoon (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose given that this is going to stale out in a day and it is older than the oldest ITN presently in the box. Clearly this was reported at the time, but as it wasn't nominated, we can't do much about it. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with the reasons provided by @Masem. –Aditya(talk) 14:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Melbourne car attackEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:17, 23 January 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 Melbourne car attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Five people are killed and up to 20 injured after a car is driven deliberately into pedestrians in Melbourne, Australia
News source(s): NYT BBC
Nominator: Aircorn (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Decent article. Relatively low death count compared to the recent rammings, although this one doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack. Rare event for Australia and is pretty big news over here at the moment. Not sure how much impact it is having with overseas news agencies though (although found (linked above) sources from the NYT and BBC). AIRcorn (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as I would like to think that Australia is the centre of the universe, the truth is that this incident is of no international significance. Having it up on the ticker alongside the Gambia, the anti-Trump protests, etc, would look silly. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and I'm Australian). If this was a terror attack, maybe. But this was nothing more than a deranged person on a rampage who killed 5 people. Which is terrible, of course, but killing 5 people is not unusual enough to warrant being on ITN. Also, my impression is it's not dominating Australian news in the same way as, e.g. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, which did make ITN. Adpete (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mkativerata. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 23 January 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: Harry MiddletonEdit

Article: Harry J. Middleton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Austin American-Statesman, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post
Nominator: Fuebaey (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: American speechwriter and library director. Fuebaey (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article seems all in proper shape and ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Well crafted article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Good quality article, which is now all that really matters for RD. Wth 2 others agreeing on its quality, and no dissent on quality (at least so far), marking item as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Extradition of El ChapoEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 15:45, 22 January 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: Joaquín Guzmán (talk, history)
Blurb: Joaquín Guzmán, also known as "El Chapo Guzmán", is extradited to the United States
News source(s): New York Times, CNN, New York Daily News, Reuters
Nominator: Ramaksoud2000 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Possibly the most famous cartel leader is extradited to the U.S., marking the end of his grip on the Mexican government Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in great shape, this is being covered by all major news outlets, the man is the largest drug lord in the world, he's finally going to trial and he hasn't escaped. Perfect ITN if I've ever seen one. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am pretty sure Chapo has been on ITN at least 2 times by now. Unless he escapes Hollywood style or is executed he doesn't need to be put on ITN again. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until he is convicted in a US court. We don't need to post every step in this process. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Conviction in either this district or the other districts that have indicted him is assured. The surprising piece of news is that the Mexican government actually extradited him. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nothing is certain. Someone like him or his organization could intimidate jurors; he could escape again(albeit unlikely), anything could happen. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Once he's convicted in the U.S., the blurb will be opposed here on the grounds that it was expected, that he has been previously convicted, that he still needs to be sentenced, that he could appeal, that he could strike a deal to reduce his sentence, that he could escape, any number of reasons. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
          • @Ramaksoud2000: All I can say is that I support posting it then. I can't guarantee it will be, but I think it should be. We usually post convictions as they are a formal judgement of criminal activity- even if they are overturned later. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We normally don't post criminal stories until there's a conviction, for obvious BLP reasons. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at some of the article's contents - there's quite a lot there that I'd have expected to see framed as 'allegedly' at the very least, if not removed altogether. That said, I agree that the story has the significance to be posted at ITN, but I share the concerns voiced above about when in the process would be the right time. I could be convinced either way, though. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • He has been convicted for organized crime in Mexico. That's why he was in prison when he escaped twice. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - he was convicted of drug crimes long ago, so no BLP issues here. His sudden extradition, which Mexico had long refused, is the big news. -Zanhe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For now, per 331; await verdict and/or sentencing. Sca (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wait until conviction.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that he has been tried and sentenced in Mexico courts already, and with US officials been trying to get him extradited to try him here for months now, makes this an unsurprising turn. Agree that the US conviction will be the point of ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on BLP grounds. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Contrary to the suggestion above, it is not certain that he will be convicted. I have no idea what the basis is for the suggestion that it is certain that he will be convicted. It is never certain that someone will be convicted unless the trial is a show trial, which I see no reason to believe this will be. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find people's objection on grounds of BLP ridiculous. He was convicted and sentenced in his home country Mexico more than 20 years ago, and escaped from prison twice! BLP does not say that only people convicted by a US court can be considered criminals. -Zanhe (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment BLP isn't a suicide pact. Currently, 2017 Gao bombing is on ITN. It identifies Al-Qaeda as behind the attack. Next people will say they haven't been convicted for this specific attack, so it's a BLP violation. The blurb isn't even about his crimes. It's about his extradition, an indisputable fact. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Invoking BLP in opposition to this nomination is completely spurious, as Ramaksoud2000 correctly points out. My ground for opposition is that I don't see this step of the criminal justice process against Mr Chapo as amounting to an event of international significance. But it's not far from it, either. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:32, 21 January 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] Inauguration of Donald TrumpEdit

Consensus is clearly against posting the inauguration on its own merits, and this is not going to change in advance of the ceremony. Iff something unexpected actually happens (more than just peaceful protests), then a new nomination may be made to assess the consensus of posting that. Note this is not a WP:BOLD closure, it is a WP:SNOW closure explicitly supported by 331dot, StillWaitingForConnection and GoldenRing at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 20 January 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: Inauguration of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.
Alternative blurb: Donald Trump's Presidential inauguration leads to protests across the United States.
Nominator: Newyorkbrad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: For posting after the swearing-in that will take place at about 12:15 p.m. US ET, and obviously subject to the article's being updated as of that time, which I have no doubt will occur. I anticipate some editors' suggesting that we do not post an inauguration to ITN where we have already posted the same person's election to office. But the circumstances here are extraordinary: Whatever one may think of Trump or of his upcoming presidency—and this thread should absolutely not become a political discussion—there is no doubt that Trump's becoming president today will be the most prominent story in the mainstream news across the world, and will be what January 20, 2017 will always be remembered for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already posted the result of this election. We don't ever post inaugurations, which are just formalities. The precedent in this case is extremely clear, and inaugurations have as far as I can ascertain always (correction: almost always with only one known exception a decade ago) been rejected on ITN. If we post this, then we will have to do the same for other countries too, and post, for the example, the much anticipated upcoming inauguration next week of Alexander Van der Bellen as President of Austria, despite already having posted the election result after the election. The inauguration of a new President, particularly in a larger country such as the US, but also France, China and many other countries, will always be a major story, and there is a reason that we only post such events (namely, a country getting a new President) once, not twice. --Tataral (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's actually not true. We posted the First inauguration of Barack Obama because of the singular historic nature of it, given the record breaking crowds and his status as the first African American U.S. president, not to establish precedent (which does not exist at ITN. If momentum in baseball is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher, "precedent" at ITN is only as good as who shows up to vote in a discussion on any given day. Consensus of every individual discussion is always decided only on the merits of every individual nomination, without artificial connections to coincidental events of similar categories. But I digress) Aside from my digression my only point was that the "we've never posted inaugurations" is demonstratedly false, since we HAVE (and posting either that one or this one would not bind us to ever post anything else outside of consensus to do so). --Jayron32 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well, Trump is not the first white president, and is there any reason to expect record breaking crowds (except perhaps people protesting against him in the US capital, in which case the blurb should emphasize the protests against him if that was the reason for posting it)? --Tataral (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Did I make any of those statements regarding a reason to support posting this? Why would you bring them up? You'll note I opposed posting this blurb. Or maybe you couldn't be bothered to read that. --Jayron32 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't write that you made any such statements, I merely commented on the fact that the reasons that were apparently cited back then, nearly ten years ago, don't apply today. --Tataral (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb as written, wait for possible more interesting stories related to the event, such as aftereffects of protests, etc. To merely report the dry fact of the inauguration is burying the lead on this story. If nothing interesting aside from the inauguration itself happens, it isn't worth a blurb. If something else does, that should be the focus of the blurb and not the routine ceremony itself. --Jayron32 02:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this obnoxious US-centrism. However, like Jayron, I would be open to posting if something significantly out of the ordinary occurs. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Obviously, I would also support posting something if something extraordinary happened, for example something along the lines of: "50 people are killed in protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States" or "Two million people protest against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States". If there is just the usual formalities, then there is no reason to post anything. --Tataral (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    For me the more likely scenario that could result in an ITN post is that Trump carries out some significant--and I mean internationally not domestically significant--executive action on his first day. Maybe rescission of measures in relation to Cuba, movement of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a large and provocative movement of troops in Europe or East Asia, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Obama's 1st inauguration made sense as being the first African-American. Trump doesn't break any trends or records, and I think there are very few people in the English speaking world that don't know he will about to be President. Understandably on the principle of this being the effective leader of the free world, that's a huge power position, which is why I can see the US inauguration is more significant than any other country. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, the state of the article (pre-ceremony considerations) is a bit questionable. There's one section that has an orange tag, and I don't think including the full list of Senators and Representatives boycotting it is necessary on this page, making its POV in question. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The point of course is the transition and assumption of authority, not the ceremonies; we can select a different article to be bolded, if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Except that we've already highlighted (per ITNR) the election win, and barring any extremely unlikely events, the transition was assured to happen. And to move away from the inauguration article would be a poor excuse. I would not expect that the article at the time of ITN posting be as detailed as previous ones, but it should be in a shape that shows it ready to be added to by new editors were this to be posted, and right now, its far from it. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post inaugurations, and we shouldn't make a Trump exception. I would reconsider if there were massive violence in protests, or something else similar. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not true. Of all prior U.S. Presidential inaugurations that have occurred prior to this one during the timeframe when ITN has existed as a main page section, we've posted exactly 50% of the. If you're going to oppose, please oppose on the merits (note, please don't assume I supported this. Bad reasoning and blatant falsehoods should be corrected regardless of the conclusion.). --Jayron32 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That sort of oppose works on so many other nominations. We posted the election. Hmm, maybe we should post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Inaugurations in general, not just USA ones. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose and subject to reconsideration. As noted above, we don't usually post inaugurations, and I'm not just referring to US inaugurals, if the election results were previously posted. We made an understandable exception with Obama's first inaugural but I don't think that should be treated as precedent. All of which said, there are people and groups who have been quite openly promising to do anything within their power to disrupt the ceremonies, not excluding violence. If there are major disturbances I will likely reconsider my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There is an extraordinary amount of nervousness and uncertainty around the world around what will actually happen now that Trump is President, which simply would not exist if a mainstream candidate like e.g. Jeb Bush had been elected. Especially in Europe, as I understand it. It may seem sensationalist to say "this inauguration is special", but it really is. My local state media have a front page item with the title "we must accept that Trump is now President", for crying out loud. Thue (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. If something extraordinary actually does happen now that Trump is President, I'm sure we'll post it. "Nervousness and uncertainty" are not the makings of an ITN item. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support since it's generating so much news worldwide. The event hasn't come to pass but it's already made lots of headlines around the world. Bias is bias, but we have to be fair, powerful countries receive more media coverage than less-powerful ones, and the US has both the world's largest economy and is a member of the UN security council. As Mkativerata put it earlier this week, this is "real news" with major global impact - no idea why (s)he's opposing now. Banedon (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not "real news with major global impact." This is "event we've all known would happen for months happens." Inaugurations of presidents of the United States are not more or less ITN-worthy than inaugurations of heads of state of other countries - we shouldn't post this one, either. Arguably, we should be less willing to post this one, since part of the purpose of ITN is "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - One great thing about ITN is that it has a global perspective and does not merely roll out the same headlines as the conventional western press. So the "every other media will have it on the front page" doesn't necessarily hold. (There's a been a lot of coverage in the western media in the last few days about a robbery of Kim Kardashian, that doesn't make it ITN-worthy). I'm not seeing any pressing real world significance to include it. And besides, Trump will (unfortunately) probably do a lot of genuinely ITN-worthy things in the next year, so let's save Trump for that. FWIW, I probably would have opposed posting the Obama inauguration 8 years ago too. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - already posted the result of this election. This is just a party. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. What's newsworthy here is the extreme divisiveness and protest. This is unique. I've never seen it before. Jehochman Talk 07:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There's been protests nearly every single day since he won the election in November, so the protests aren't new. (And in most cases, they haven't been violent either, just angry) That said, if they actually disrupt any part of the ceremony, that might be something. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The election result was already posted, so no need for a blurb about the inauguration. The inauguration is largely a formality and just a big party. Also, I don't see what makes this inauguration that much more newsworthy than the swearing-in of heads of state and heads of parliament in other countries. If this article were to be published in ITN, then presumably a (bad) precedent would be set, which would see articles posted about the swearing-in of leaders in countries other than the US. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do no post inaugurations and there is nothing extraordinary about this. Also, saying that this "will be what January 20, 2017 will always be remembered for" is rather amusing. It may surprise you, but the rest of the world doesn't usually care about what Americans think or do. File this under "US bias" and move on. Isa (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose so what? Unless something exciting happens like an assassination attempt or similar, this is simply run of the mill. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure what to think about this - it's certainly not a run-of-the-mill inauguration. That said, I don't really think we can post this again unless and until something actually happens on the day. — foxj 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this section is called "in the news". I'm pretty certain this particular piece of news is front page in virtually every country in the world. I know it's run of the mill because of the election results, but it's still news, and readers will expect to see it here. I am not from the US, and I do sometimes think the coverage here is slightly biased towards the US, but this is major news whichever way you cook it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am of the understanding that the "In the news" section has a higher threshold for publication than just being for those things that are "in the news". If it was just "in the news" then presumably Kim Kardashian would be worthy of an article almost every week. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I personally use the criteria "in the future 'on this day' history books", not so much "in the news". By that criteria, Trump's inauguration qualifies (much more than any "normal" president perhaps except the first black one), while Kim Kardashian does not. Thue (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      True. Unfortunately Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria is not that helpful in this regard, as it does not really give any concrete guidelines for eligibility, leaving it up to individual discussions. Which is all well and good, but that tends to lead to biases and inconsistencies. My personal rule of thumb is that something on the front page news in multiple countries (e.g. US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany would be a good range) should almost always be posted, hence why I think this particular event is a shoo-in. Something that's more of national interest somewhere in the world, but is still significant, well that's a good contender too. Coverage in broadsheets rather than tabloids is also a good indicator. Not that I'm belittling tabloids, but as an encyclopedia, our coverage would lean towards the broadsheet end of the spectrum.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment What makes this inauguration any more newsworthy than those of Obama in 2012, GW Bush, Bill Clinton or GHW Bush? Gfcvoice (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, Obama's 2008 inauguration was actually posted, presumably because the first black president was so symbolic. As for Trump's inauguration being more notable than a normal US inauguration, it is because of how big a break with the past it is. Trump is not just another politician as e.g. Jeb Bush would have been, but has e.g. made EU politicians seriously consider whether the EU-US alliance is set in stone. Like if Le Pen was elected to lead France - it is a break with the past, which looks sure to get special mention as "not just a run of the mill Democratic change of power" in future history books. Thue (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Comment. I attempted to close this, as I see no reason to drag this out any more as there seems to be clear opposition to posting and the support arguments seem unpersuasive, but was reverted. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO there was nothing bold about the closure. The consensus is clearly not to post unless something unexpected happens. And I would suggest that keeping the discussion open in the interim harms the chances of a new consensus being reached should something unexpected actually happen. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trying - I think it would have been the right move. To add to the very clear record, I oppose this nomination. IMO, posting Obama's inauguration was a mistake. Some of the supports above are verging on, "This isn't just any inauguration - he's the president of the USA!" Most of the others are firmly gazing into their crystal balls. If something extraordinary happens, as others above, I'd support a blurb. Otherwise, this is "rich white man who won election takes up his office." GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 20 January 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.

January 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 19

[Posted] Gambia invasionEdit

Articles: 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis (talk, history) and Invasion of the Gambia (talk, history)
Blurb: Senegal, Nigeria, and Ghana invade The Gambia amidst an ongoing constitutional crisis
Alternative blurb: ​Armed forces from countries of the ECOWAS alliance enter The Gambia to intervene in its ongoing constitutional crisis
Nominator: BarrelProof (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sorry for the poor formatting of this request. The suggested article is 2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis, which is already listed but with a blurb that is seriously out of date. The topic (which currently has a completely obsolete blurb) is about to "age out" from the main page, but new events make that unjustified. A new president has been sworn in and military forces have invaded the country. The vice president and much of the cabinet have resigned, the navy has declared support for the new president, and the army has expressed neutrality. These are major new events – especially the invasion. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support a blurb refresh. Events of the last 24 hours clearly warrant it: constitutional crisis; rival inauguration; Senegalese troops crossing the border. Don't worry about the formatting. Someone at some point decided to make ITN nominations inaccessibly difficult. They should be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Banedon (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone may want to suggest a blurb and add some value to the discussion. Or do we ignore that now? Stephen 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support posting as a development of 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis. Oppose posting of Invasion of the Gambia which seems a rather POV article name (and is an inappropriate article name anyway, should at least have the year). For instance, the article International Force for East Timor is not called "Invasion of East Timor". Adpete (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the blurb should refer to an intervention rather than an invasion. This is a regional intervention in an internal constitutional crisis, not the invasion of a unified country. It also seems likely that the Invasion of the Gambia article will be merged into the constitutional crisis article. Details of exactly which forces entered the country should be checked. It seems clear that Senegalese forces entered the country and that Nigeria sent at least one warship and provide some air support. It seems less clear whether Ghanaian troops actually entered the country. Togo and Mali may also be involved. Some of the sources are slightly dated reports about preparing to go in, rather than reports of what actually happened after that. It may be better not to try to list the specific countries at this stage. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Both articles look in good shape, though there is a discussion about merging them. IMO we should go ahead and post, and if the merge happens soon then the blurb can be tweaked. Obviously significant to the modern history of Gambia, and In The News. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I prefer the altblurb but don't object to the original one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. "Invasion" isn't the correct word to use. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • What do you call it when troops from one country make an opposed entry into another country? It's true that none of the sources currently cited in the article use the 'invasion' language, but surely the dictionary supports this? GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • "Invasion" suggests the forces have no permission to enter the 'invaded' country. Jammeh is no longer the legitimate leader of the country, so him opposing this intervention does not make it an 'invasion'. The legitimate leader, presumably the people who voted for him, most of The Gambian military, the UN, and other countries all support this action. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not too worried either way. I'm seeing reports of clashes as troops entered the country and tens of thousands fleeing, which to my mind makes this sufficiently invasion-like to call it an invasion. I haven't followed the political situation very very closely; if everyone in the Gambia (except Jammeh) supports this, then why is it even necessary? GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't say everyone in The Gambia supports it, but most people seem to(including the navy, and the army chief, though a few individual units are still loyal to Jammeh. If Jammeh is no longer the leader, he is just a trespasser with supporters to protect him. It's only an 'invasion' if the legitimate government opposes the action. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Surely 'legitimate government' is in many cases in the eye of the beholder? It's worth noting in this context that the Gambian parliament has voted to extend Jammeh's term. So the foreign forces are not only opposing a few units loyal to Jammeh, but also the national parliament (whose vote may well have been unconstitutional, I'm just saying it's complicated). GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Legitimate is a particularly muddy word to use here. What Jammeh is doing is quite possibly both legal and showing contempt for democracy, simultaneously. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
              • (ec) You are certainly correct- but more groups and people seem to think Barrow is now legitimate than Jammeh. Yep, it is complicated, though. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
              • This also appears on our List of invasions if that helps (which it probably doesn't) GoldenRing (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
                • I thank you for finding that, I wasn't aware of that page. It may be worth examining how they came to post it there. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • The top of that page defines an invasion as, "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." This would qualify. GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • Googling the word invade states that the armed force must enter "so as to subjugate or occupy" the entered area- which is not the goal here. But I will say that I don't strongly oppose the use of the word 'invasion'; just that I feel the other would be better. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. According to the article Senegal halted the invasion to give Jammeh one final chance to step down, with a deadline of noon (same timezone as UK, so we're talking 45 minutes). I would suggest waiting until then to see what has happened. I would support the transition of power either way given the circumstances, but see no point in posting an invasion for the sake of waiting that length of time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Update according to the BBC, Jammeh is "highly likely" to fly to Guinea today. What's less clear is whether he will formally stand down. I advocate waiting here. I would note that a non-violent transition of power under these circumstances would be highly newsworthy in and of itself - I support any conceivable outcome, but think we should wait to see what that outcome is rather than post something for the sake of posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's too late for a non-violent transition. There was already a pretty big military incursion yesterday that was met by armed resistance – mostly mercenaries, according to some reports. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt. blurb per 331dot.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. It's an ongoing constitutional crisis, so it makes the most sense to put it in ongoing. We had just featured a related blurb, so I'm adverse to having another one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing Exactly the type of story that is changing a few times a day and likely will until the crisis is resolved. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb (before the two ongoing comments were added). I'm open to moving it to ongoing, and perhaps it should have been put there when it aged off originally. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Can we not wikilink The Gambia? I didn't know it was a country, I thought it referred to a disputed territory or something and had to bloody type it in search to look it up. Would have preferred a simple click. #wikiproblems --Natural RX 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Long-standing convention at ITN is not to link countries. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • This came as a surprise to me, too, recently, but then that's because most of my geography comes from the precursor to Wikipedia, Dr Fegg's Book of All World Knowledge, also known as The Nasty Book, according to which the Gambian national anthem ends, "From mountains down to flat bits, ring out your anthem great, though now you're part of Senegal the words are out of date." [17] GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jammeh agrees to step down, again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.124.212 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Attention needed: This blurb should be updated to reflect Jammeh's departure from power: [18] -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nomination for new blurb made. Elisfkc (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Request for attention resolved per above section entitled "[Updated] Yahya Jammeh leaves". —BarrelProof (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Miguel FerrerEdit

Stale. Stephen 23:43, 24 January 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: Miguel Ferrer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: 331dot (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.

 331dot (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Needs more sourcing. R.I.P. Albert Rosenfield. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too many references needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 20 January 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] Plasco BuildingEdit

Article: Plasco Building (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Tehran, Iran, at least 75 are killed when the Plasco Building collapses due to a high-rise fire.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 20 people, including firefighters, are missing and more than 70 injured after the collapse of Tehran's Plasco Building due to a high-rise fire.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Sun
Nominator: Jehochman (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This one is very likely to be posted once there is a quality article, due to the high number of fatalities and the unusual circumstance of a high rise collapse due to fire. I am placing this nomination to draw attention of experienced editors to help write that article. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I note that they seem to reporting between 30-50 firefighters that were attempting to fight the blaze and were caught in the collapse, so I believe this should be included in the updated blurb. I do not that this is definitely ITN-appropriate as it is about an iconic building in Tehran in addition to the lives lost. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support notability and post once expanded beyond a hub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when article is developed - Similar to TRM Sherenk1 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment/Update - The Iranian state-sponsored media has reported that at least 75 are dead (see here), I'll edit the article and blurb. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - Honestly, the best decision would be to wait. My father is a firefighter and he says it takes multiple days to sort out a fire with a high death toll. This could take upwards of a week, possibly two, because of identification and confirmation. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I've been updating the article, and there are definitely still fluctuating numbers. That said, even if everyone ended up safe (doubtful, but..), the collapse of this building itself is also significant. I would recommend that we altblurb "At least 20 firefighters are reported missing from the collapse of the Plasco Building." or something like that. If this blurb is then still up at ITN when a fixed death count is known, it can be updated. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major disaster. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Article is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment article looking more than adequate now for main page inclusion, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted I went with the alt blurb pending more solid numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think for the picture of the news, this file is better. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @GTVM92: changes to posted blurbs, including issues with pictures, is dealt with at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Blurb update: GambiaEdit

Yahya Jammeh hasn't stepped down. -- KTC (talk) 01:45, 19 January 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: 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent President Yahya Jammeh agrees to step down shortly after a midnight deadline from ECOWAS of intervention.
News source(s): [19]
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: News coming out of Senegal (and despite this weeks ago at this hour is that the threat of ecowas intervening at midnight had yielded to pressure. (Nigeria had offered asylum if he steps down by today, so he MAY be headed there (apparently, Mauritania first though)). Nevertheless, its notable that an Ivory Coast like crisis was averted. Still given South Sudan and the above source id keep an eye for a potential coup/coup-like situation in a few months (like ivory coast just now, but we dint post that, ironically)...should be interesting to see how he worldks with a parliament that issued the extension for three months. Lezze.
The article title shuld be changed as there was really no crisis, despite a threat of one, and, further, he left when his mandate expires. Looks like Mauritania pulled off a coup (no pun intended)...dunno if we should mention that in the blurb? Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not confirmed by other sources. The situation remains unclear. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 19 January 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.

January 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 18

[Posted] Gao, Mali bombingEdit

Article: 2017 Gao bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing at a military camp near Gao, Mali, kills at least 77 people.
News source(s): (Globe and Mail), New York Times
Nominator: 2620:101:F000:700:710D:69DF:BCCE:63B6 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadliest insurgent bombing in Mali's history 2620:101:F000:700:710D:69DF:BCCE:63B6 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - A very important event with a huge amount of casualties. The article needs work however. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support deadliest attack on Mali soil, article could be larger but with current info, it's all in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak support The article is reasonable and it has been described as Mali's deadliest suicide attack. Only weak because the international news is dominated more by the avalanche and building collapse. However, given the number of causalities and concerns about systemic bias (which may partly explain the relatively low coverage) I think we should post this. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major terrorist attack with high death toll. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We are going to need a new photo in order to post this as it will knock the The Gambia story off ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few good photos for Plasco Building. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I've asked for file protection for the main Plasco photo over at Commons which ideally should be done before posting a photo to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted No oppose votes and this has been up for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Italy avalancheEdit

Articles: January 2017 Central Italy earthquakes (talk, history) and 2017 Farindola avalanche (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Up to 30 people are killed when an avalanche strikes a hotel following earthquakes in the Abruzzo region of Italy.
Alternative blurb: ​Up to 30 people are reported missing following an avalanche triggered by series of four major earthquakes in the Abruzzo region of Italy.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 4 people are killed and 35 missing following an avalanche triggered by series of four major earthquakes in the Abruzzo region of Italy.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait at least until we have some idea of how many is 'many'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, of course. The rescue attempt, it appears, is still ongoing, the figure is "up to 30". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait per Tlhslobus. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per pvs. Deveolping – support in principle. Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I do note in news stories that while the hotel/avalache is no small part of this story, the fact there were four quakes in an area under a cold snap and that was hit by quakes around the same time last year is also a significant part of the story. It will probably be a few days to confirm how many they have been able to save or not, so I would suggest something along the alt-blurb line to get this up sooner than later (noting we can update the # and status once the rescue attempt is complete). The article, however, still has sourcing issues. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - 2017 Farindola avalanche should be target article. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Four have been confirmed dead and up to 35 others are missing. The blurb can easily be updated as more information becomes available. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment ok, alt2 added so this can get to the main page sharpish. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt2, but to simplify for int'l audience suggest we make it just "in central Italy." (That it occurred in the Abruzzo Region doesn't seem particularly relevant to the event.) Sca (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whether it's 4 or 34 dead, it simply isn't of lasting or global significance. Having this and the Tehran one up at the same time would distract unduly from the far more significant stories ITN presently has: climate change, Chelsea Manning and Gambia. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a dramatic story. Anytime dozens of people are suddenly buried by snow (or anything else), there's great interest. Sca (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in drama. I'm interested in ITN being more than a news ticker for the latest natural/maritime/aircraft disaster. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Your interests are your own. But this is definitely in the news, and will continue to be for a time. Sca (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not really in the news at all. For example, on the New York Times homepage it is a small-font headline-only link well down the page. They correctly take the view that it is a minor albeit tragic disaster that doesn't warrant significant editorial attention. We should take the same view, because it is the correct view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It's good to know what is real and what is not. – Sca (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major, unusual disaster, widely reported. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. An unusual type of disaster, with casualty figures broadly in line with the sort of casualty figures that tend to garner consensus for more conventional types of tragedy. The rationale for the sole oppose amounts to "Chelsea Manning being released in May is too important to be bumped off by this". It would be like me trying to pick quality holes in RD nominations for the sake of keeping Graham Taylor on the main page. If you support the intention and the workings of this section then you must respect its outcomes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone alter the blurb? It explicitly states in the article that the cause is unknown at the moment with the earthquakes as a possibility. We shouldn't treat it as fact. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 was the hottest yearEdit

Article: Instrumental temperature record (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA, the NOAA and the Met Office announce that 2016 was the hottest year in history, the third record-breaking year in a row, due to anthropogenic climate change
Alternative blurb: NASA, the NOAA and the Met Office announce that 2016 was the warmest year in recorded history, the third record-breaking year in a row, due to anthropogenic climate change.
News source(s): Guardian BBC
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The article needs updating with the newly-announced 2016 values, but this is a good opportunity to point readers towards some excellent encyclopaedic content. Modest Genius talk 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Pedantic note—"hottest year in history" is journalistic shorthand and has no place in Wikipedia, since it's very obviously not been the hottest year in history (that would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or parts of the Neoproterozoic, depending on which geologists you listen to). What this actually was was the hottest year since systematic worldwide records began to be kept in 1880. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • History must by necessity have been recorded. You're referring to prehistory. Modest Genius talk 21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Pedantic pedants note—Still a bit clumsy, as history extends far earlier that the means of accurate temperature measurement; it should really be "in the history of climate measurement". I guess that's even clumsier. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Just say "hottest year on record" rather than "hottest year in history". I can't see why that wouldn't be an accurate short-hand. Although I prefer "warmest" to "hottest". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Agree. And "warmest" would be more in line with useage in the linked article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • For what it's worth, I originally wrote 'on record' before realising that having 'record' twice in the same blurb sounded horrible. Happy for someone to come up with better phrasing, and I agree that 'warmest' is better than my 'hottest'. Modest Genius talk 22:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Absolutely. We need a goddamn wake-up call around here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - yes. Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle (pending an accurate blurb and good article). Obviously the blurb needs to be corrected, per Iridescent's more-than-mere-pedantry point. I can't conceive of any possible reason why this not ITN-worthy. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support an alt-blurb based on Iridescent. Climate change is real and important news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WaltCip UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply because this is yet another record-breaking year. Climate change will take decades to reverse, so we'd technically be seeing this type of story each year for decades. I think a more interesting story related to climate change would be this potential break-off of a giant ice sheet from Antarctica as this could potentially raise sealevels by 10 cm alone. (It hasn't happen so no ITN/C yet) --MASEM (t) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • And what's wrong with posting this, and then a year later posting when 2017 becomes the hottest year on record? What ITN policy says we shouldn't do that? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's the unwritten ITN policy of posting nothing other than minor maritime tragedies. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • So maybe wait until we can post "New York under 2 ft of water"? That'd be newsworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Simply because all but a few people recognize that we're undergoing climate change and the years are going to keep getting warmer and warmer. Saying this year was warming than last is basically is the equivalent of "the sun will rise tomorrow". On the other hand, events like the ice sheet crack are much more concrete sights that something different is happening. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • The ice sheet crack is concrete and observable, but one could say it's just as "inevitable" as the temperature increasing. They'd both be worth posting. Also, I think that every consecutive year that sets another record adds to the newsworthiness of the warming, by showing that it's going up, up, up over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has not been updated yet. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but say "hottest year on record" or "hottest year in recorded history" or something similar; I'm not picky. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - certainly newsworthy, and post it every year if the record keeps getting broken. If the trend continues, we should add it to ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have updated the article. C628 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support get some real news onto ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Incidentally those who think this story will have to be posted every year are probably mistaken. The next record year probably won't be until after the start of the next El Nino in a few years' time. The blurb could debatably be improved by a mention of the contribution of El Nino, but, if so, there is a different forum (WP:ERRORS) for discussing changes to posted blurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - even if this is superseded next year (of which there's no guarantee), what's wrong with posting it then? There are ITN/R stories that repeat every year. Banedon (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Espresso Addict has changed the blurb to read "... due in part to anthropogenic climate change" (emphasis added), citing WP:ERRORS. I think this change is unwise as it can be read as the science organisations suggesting that some (or even most) of the warming is not due to climate change, though I think the intent is to note that variations like El Nino mean there is natural variation and not every year is expected to be a new record. Anyone wishing to comment in support of the change or otherwise is advised that Espresso Addict has noted the change at ERRORS. EdChem (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    Given that the Guardian article says "... with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change", I think the original blurb was correct. Is Cyclonebiskit around to help with this? Banedon (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    Some sources have political motivations in their reporting. The more impartial BBC article states "The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists...", so the blurb correction is sensible. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have responded at main-page errors. Suggest we keep the discussion together. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rachael Heyhoe FlintEdit

Article: Rachael Heyhoe Flint, Baroness Heyhoe Flint (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, ESPN,
Nominator: Black Kite (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: Very notable English female cricketer, captain of England side for many years, journalist, MBE/OBE etc. Article is mostly reasonably sourced, I've just done the most obvious gaps. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RD Article quality seems OK to me, which is basically all that matters for an RD these days. But maybe a few other editors (hopefully with more experience of assessing article quality for RD purposes than I have) might want to have a look first. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Suggest using the title of nobility in the RD posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A couple of extra sources would be good, but nothing problematic outstanding I don't think. @WaltCip: Do you mean posting as "Rachael Heyhoe Flint, Baroness Heyhoe Flint" or as "Baroness Heyhoe Flint"? I'm happy with either of those or just as "Rachel Heyhoe Flint". Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. It's normal practice to just display the name, sans title. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 08:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 17

[Posted] RD: Tirrel BurtonEdit

Article: Tirrel Burton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, MLive
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Cbl62 (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: American football player and coach. Fuebaey (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, everything appears to be in order. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. The infobox and article body disagreed on the death date (infobox said 18th, prose said 17th) but as the source given in the article says he died on "Tuesday" which was the 17th, I changed the infobox to match the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ken WyattEdit

Clear consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 19 January 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: Ken Wyatt (talk, history)
Blurb: Ken Wyatt becomes the first Indigenous Australian to hold a ministry in the Government of Australia
News source(s): [5][6]
Nominator and updater: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: LordHello1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think this more or less speaks for itself, but in any case, Wyatt's status has been a cause for remark for quite a while, beginning from when he was the first indigenous person in the House of Representatives. Vanamonde (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the article states that he is "of Aboriginal Australian, Indian, English and Irish descent", which seems rather less poignant than "first Indigenous minister". Is it really the case that this is the first person of any amount of Aboriginal descent in government? The single line under "Family" has no source and may run afoul of BLP.128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Virtually all of the sources refer to him as the first indigenous [insert office here], probably because AKAIK, in Australia (as elsewhere) indigenous people identify as such even if they are partially descended from non-indigenous people, and their right to do so has legal basis. Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources that dispute this point, or does the government have an official position on this? I'm all for posting this, I just have a hard time believing that a country the size and age of Australia has never had anyone with any Aboriginal parentage in government. That people can identify as whatever they wish is fine and good and certainly the tradition elsewhere (c.f. "Indians" Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchil and "Black" Czech activists in the US), but if there's ambiguity about an assertion we should specify it in the blurb so as to not diminish the accomplishments of earlier persons who were just as much (or more) Aboriginal as the subject, but for whatever reason did not identify as such. I'd suggest something like "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal...".128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Every source I have read so far has not disputed it, and I think that hedging in that manner when the sources do not is not entirely appropriate. I will look for sources that disagree, though. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support just to be clear, whichever way this goes.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Mal Brough, who was a minister in the Howard government (appointed in 2004), has some Aboriginal ancestry but is never described/identified as indigenous. The first Aboriginal minister at state level was Ernie Bridge, who was appointed in 1986. I agree that the distinction between "indigenous" and "of indigenous descent" is pretty arbitrary, but we have to follow what other media use. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't think this is significant enough for ITN, and AFAIK we don't have a track record of posting any similar "firsts". For a bit of context, Wyatt has not been promoted to cabinet, but rather to the "outer ministry", which is broadly the equivalent of being a junior minister (in the UK) or a deputy secretary (in the US). He was previously an "assistant minister" (an even more junior position), which means his elevation isn't really much of a surprise. Frankly, the distinction between his previous position and his new position is only one of semantics – he'll probably get a small pay rise, but there's no real change in his responsibilities. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is an internal appointment in a country. Further, there are many possible "firsts", as any reader of sports trivia will know. For example, there might be "X becomes the youngest ..." or "Y becomes the first celebrity ...". Banedon (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the concern over exactly how they are classifying "indigenous" here and that this feels like a DYK rather than an ITN (an interesting factoid but nothing groundbreaking), I don't think we should include this. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal..." sums it up perfectly. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There have several of indigenous Australians appointed as Ministers in Australia's states and territories. Mal Brough, a former Minister had some aboriginal ancestry through his maternal grandmother but did not identify as indigenous. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Close? Is it time to close per WP:SNOW on grounds of no hope of consensus for posting? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Invoking Mal Brough or State Ministers is disingenuous. Reliable sources clearly do not identify Brough as indigenous. And a Commonwealth Ministry is far more significant than a State Ministry. The Cabinet/non-Cabinet distinction is also immaterial: Cabinet Ministers have just as much power in law as non-Cabinet Ministers. I would have thought that a landmark in indigenous representation in any country is of international interest. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 18 January 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: Colo (gorilla)Edit

Article: Colo (gorilla) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, BBC, Spiegel
Nominator: Roentgenium111 (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: Oldest gorilla ever, first born in captivity. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Article in current state poorly reflects this animal's importance and is under-referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose substandard referencing needs to be fixed. --Jayron32 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
What content/references exactly are missing in your opinions? The article doesn't have any [citation needed] or similar tags...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support due to updates made since my original objection. Reontgenium111 maybe doesn't realize that articles are frequently edited, so the version he viewed may not have been the same as the version I viewed. Also, they may not be aware that tags do not make an article substandard. Being substandard makes an article substandard --Jayron32 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hope this doesn't turn into another #DicksOutForHarambe. Let's hope #CocksOutForColo doesn't happen. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Referencing is a problem, I don't know if the genealogy section is necessary here since none of the other gorillas are notable (yet), and that "favorite food" line in the lede stands out like a sore thumb. This needs a major copyedit before considering posting. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. I've added some sources and I would say ready to go. There was an uncited statement but it wasn't really relevant to the article (belonged in the article on her zoo) so I decided to remove it. Blythwood (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in the news from Arizona to Rome to Belfast to Der Spigel. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigerian bombing of civiliansEdit

Article: 2017 Nigerian refugee camp bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: An airstrike in Rann, Nigeria kills at least 50 civilians after a mission to attack Boko Haram forces strikes a refugee camp instead.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC
Nominator and updater: C628 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Appears to be a significant and tragic blunder by the Nigerian military. Comparable to the Kunduz hospital airstrikeC628 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose The apparent fact that this was accidental significantly dilutes its ITN-worthiness. It makes it only marginally more significant than a plane or boat tragedy. In my opinion these are fairly run-of-the-mill events which ITN should avoid. There are hundreds of accidental civilian casualties that occur on a weekly basis throughout the Middle East, which illustrates the relative insignificance of this event. I don't think this is comparable to the Kunduz hospital airstrike: that was committed by a foreign military and gave rise to all kinds of grave international ramifications, as the article on that tragedy explains. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, significant loss of life, and significant event in Nigeria. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Unusual for such an accident to have such high casualties (52 killed, 200 injured in BBC report), including multiple international aid workers. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Espresso Addict. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Nigeria isn't some small, uncoordinated nation. This is a nation of 140 million with a formidable military. Things like this don't normally happen and especially not with such a high number of casualties. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support - because accidentally hitting civilians on a large scale is rare. Weakly because international coverage appears to be limited (but I'm seeing more coverage than the Chelsea Manning event). Banedon (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The clashes with Boko Haram have not really touched too much on civilian lives (compared to the Syrian war, and of course outside of the women they have kidnapped), so innocents killed in such an accident is significant. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Chelsea ManningEdit

Assessing the arguments made on both sides, there is no real dispute that this is in the news internationally and the coverage has been significant in the mainstream news media. This alone is not sufficient to post as the purpose of ITN is not to be a news ticker but to highlight encyclopaedic coverage of events that are in the news. Those supporting this nomination made arguments highlighting various factors such as the international coverage, the significance of the crimes and how the severity of the original sentence was viewed around the world. In contrast most (although not all) of the opposition was framed in terms of personal dislike or subjective comparisons to other stories that were not posted - if you make these comparisons it is important to justify why it is a relevant comparison and why the same reasoning should apply to both, and that was almost universally not done. Also highlighted by the supporters, was the importance of Chelsea Manning to the LGBT movement, and while this is not directly relevant to either the original sentence or the commuting of that sentence, it is one reason that the coverage of this commuting is more significant than any of the others Obama has done - which completely refutes the 'just one of many' arguments made by some opposing. Overall, there is a consensus to post the story.
Less clear though was which blurb should be posted, as there was little discussion of this. Altblurb II, featuring Oscar López Rivera, is very long and would ideally need to be condensed and the significance or otherwise of the commuting of their sentence was essentially undiscussed so there is no consensus (for or against) including them. I went with altblurb I as I feel that the added context helps explain the significance to those unfamiliar with the story.
I know it is not normal practice here to close a discussion when posted, but this is an emotional topic for some and the standard of discussion was staring to slide so I feel it best to draw a clear line to stop it getting unnecessarily heated. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 19 January 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: Chelsea Manning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May, instead of the original date of 2045.
Alternative blurb II: ​U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentences of Chelsea Manning and Oscar López Rivera, both are expected to be released in May, instead of the original dates of 2045 in the case of Manning and 2051 in the case of López Rivera.
News source(s): BBC Independent (obviously far more US sources)
Nominator: 128.62.64.238 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: One of the biggest heroes against the horrors of Western imperialism is soon to be free. 128.62.64.238 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Point of order: Manning was not pardoned; her sentence was commuted. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point (and the sources back that up). Blurbs changed. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Your POV is showing. Makes it hard to consider this on its merits. So I'll say oppose unless a better reason is presented that I find convincing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the POV of the IP, this is going to be a huge story. Waiting to see how it goes, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it might be, because it's effectively Obama sticking the middle finger up to Trump. Someone in Trump's cabinet (the national security adviser? I forget) said Manning should be executed, remember. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume you're referring to this by KT McFarland. Anyway, I presume Obama is above giving the finger to Trump and is doing this based on his own convictions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very possibly, but I suggest that it how it will be seen. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet decided whether I think this should be posted, but in answer to Muboshgu's above question, neither Rivera nor Cartwright are mentioned in the cited BBC story (I haven't checked the cited Independant story). If necessary somebody could count their Google hits compared to Manning's - I haven't bothered, but I'd expect Manning to get far more hits than the other two combined. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As already pointed out by Muboshgu above (and by at least one other editor below), the nominator's POV is unfortunate and possibly thoroughly counter-productive since it may provoke editors who hate Manning into opposing the nomination. That would be a pity, as a good case can be made that those who hate Manning should also support the nomination, precisely because they think Obama's reduction of her sentence is very wicked, and should not be hidden from our readers. (Note: I don't hate Manning, but that's somewhat irrelevant.) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose too minor. She was convicted of leaking classified US material to Wikileaks. That's the classified material of one country. There are also lots of people worldwide who have their sentences commuted. There are lots of more notable events with longer lasting impact, such as Theresa May's speech laying out the plans for a hard Brexit. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You mean Theresa May's speech laying out a possible plan for a transitional arrangement for a possible hard Brexit, although that might be with a negotiated customs union agreement, and the whole thing depends on the attitude of the 27 EU members to a possible arrangement on immigration and free trade, although she's not going to commit to anything yet (oh and Parliament might get to vote on the plan, if it ever becomes a plan. Or they might not.)? Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a big difference between a speech about an action not yet taken and an action taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There's also a big difference between an action taken in a minor affair and a speech about an action to be taken in a major one. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's comparing like with like. In any case, you could always try to nominate Brexit as an item for Ongoing, but that discussion would belong somewhere else. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is currently the top story on Google News, New York Times, Washington Post, and my local newspapers here in Denmark. These newssources apparently judge that this is not a minor story. While there may be many leakers in the world, Manning has become symbolic, and hence notable. Thue (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The "this is the top story in this, this, this and my local newspaper" argument is a dangerous one, because it is extremely vulnerable to sampling bias. This isn't front-page news in newspapers in Malaysia, Turkey and Argentina. I didn't cherry-pick these countries - I just selected them as the first countries that came to mind. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be front page news in every country to be ITN. But it is front page news in some places, which helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It is an embarrassment to have rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage. First, even if this were a purely domestic event, the degree of international coverage is such that it transcends its locality. Second, it is not a purely domestic event: Manning's leaks were of great international significance; her release may also prove significant in and of itself if it forces Julian Assange to comply with his apparent promise to consent to extradition. In this case I think it would be correct for the blurb to mention Manning only; it is far less clear that any of the other commutations or pardons, either individually or in total, are internationally significant. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I very much agree with the "rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage" part! Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The day we start posting things like Trump calling Clinton's imprisonment as a felon on the grounds that it receives significant international coverage is the day I can get behind posting this. Until then, we're stuck with our current setup behind a massive wall of precedent (see also AO's oppose). Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I couldn't give a shit about precedent; it is usually the refuge behind which a poor argument hides. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • OK then let's make this happen. Still not going to support this, but hey. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Judging by the coverage of this story in reliable sources, this is a major story. --Tataral (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The leak, the circumstances with WikiLeaks, and Manning's treatment has lend the affair notability enough to feature ITN. Also Assange's promise to be extracted to the US is an interesting twist. Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Orig. Either blurb. High-profile story, with a long history; leads many U.S. news purveyors on Jan. 17. Sca (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The outgoing President pardoning those of federal crimes is nothing unusual. Following the supports, there are subsequent results that would become more important as a result of this action if all processes go through, but are crystal-balling their signifigance here. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, I will note that this did not change the previous ruling - Manning is still considered guilty, simply that the sentence was reduced to time + 4 more months. That's not changing anything from the original case. If the President decided to completely overturn the case (I don't think he has this power, but let's pretend), that might be something more, but that's just not happening. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We just said no to posting the death sentence in the case of a racist mass murderer but we are going to post this? Either we are going to post criminal justice stories or not. And for the record I do not appreciate the political editorializing in the nominating statement which is contrary to NOTFORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    The Manning case has a much larger international impact and coverage in reliable sources around the world. For these reasons, it is more noteworthy and significant. I'm usually opposed to posting US domestic news on the main page that we wouldn't post if it happened in another country, but this particular case has been demonstrated to be much more significant on a global scale than the usual news about death sentences from the US. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, Tataral, you couldn't make this stuff up could you... Comparing Dylann Roof's sentence to Chelsea Manning's release on the basis that they are both "criminal justice stories"... That takes the cake for today. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    As was pointed out at the time, there was also a serious WP:CRYSTAL problem with the supposed significance of that death sentence, because the appeal process meant it was completely unclear whether and/or when the death sentence would be put into effect. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Claims that it is insignificant seem to be completely at variance with the editorial judgment of almost every 'quality' news source in the Western world. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose one person among 273 whose release was announced today. What makes this case special among them? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Have any of the 272 others received comparable coverage in reliable sources around the world? Or done anything with a comparable impact, as judged by reliable sources around the world? --Tataral (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good for her, but this is more of a human interst story than something fo real significance. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Major story, coverage in numerous major news sources. Funcrunch (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Who am I to stand in the way of a growing consensus? I've come around. It's not a "human interest story" so much as a major part of the WikiLeaks saga. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obama has commuted sentences hundreds of times, this one will be notable iff it happens. Trump will certainly have something to say about it, and if he allows it then it'll be an even bigger story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI only, pardons and commutations cannot be reversed by another president. Once done, they are done. Outgoing presidents typically do a flurry of them before they leave office(such as Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich in his last hours in office). I would add that you are correct that Obama has issued more commutations than any other US president. [20] 331dot (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, pardons can be reversed and have been. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
^[citation needed] Funcrunch (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
See Isaac Toussie. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Pardon revoked by the same president who issued it (and also noted as unprecedented). Not particularly relevant to your Oppose statement. Funcrunch (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec) That case was an example of a President announcing a pardon and then changing their mind before delivering it. The article you cite states that was the first example of such an instance, and that the legal authority to reverse an issued pardon is unclear at best. No President has reversed another President's pardon/commutation. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Presidential pardons have only been revoked a handful of times in US history. If that happened, it would arguably be a much larger story. George Bush revoked his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, and Ulysses S. Grant attempted to revoke a handful of Johnson's pardons. As far as I know, every case where a pardon was actually revoked, the decision to cancel the pardon was made before the official pardon documents were delivered and accepted by the pardonee. In one of Grant's attempted revocations, the documents had already been delivered and the subject released. The precedent at that time was that once delivered the pardon could no longer be revoked and the subject remained free. Dragons flight (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
My vote stands, cover it when she walks free. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The commutation is the story, not the release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This !vote illustrates the need for a "know what you're talking about before you say it" rule on wikipedia. That rule would see 98% of current editors get blocked, but would probably give us a better product. Of course presidents cannot revoke pardons and commutations granted by their predecessors. That would amount to the purported exercise by the executive of judicial power: re-imposing a lawfully nullified sentence. No sane legal academic would disagree. Here is just one academic noting this Captain Obvious: "Using pardons, the president of the United States has the power to lift criminal consequences from people. The president does not, however, have the power to reimpose them unilaterally, which is what a pardon revocation would do."[21] There might have been room for debate in the Toussie circumstances, which involved a pardon that had not been made fully effective at law, but there is not a shadow of doubt that Trump could not reverse Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence. This ill-conceived red-herring oppose should be discarded. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the rant and the personal attack. If you actually read the oppose notes, I state that not only will Trump have something to say about this, but Obama has pardon hundreds and hundreds of individuals, and the real story will happen when Manning steps out of prison. Have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that no major media outlet of record shares your quixotic view of "the real story".--Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, sure. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support In spite of the nominators obvious POV and Mkativerata's surprisingly combative approach I tend to agree that this is notable enough news item enough to include. Support the original blurb, but without the in May part - if that was the important why not wait until May)AIRcorn (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - An internationally covered story well worth featuring as a blurb at ITN. Jusdafax 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has zero implications onto the world. It is one person let out of jail 4 months from now. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support any blurb. Prefer both be mentioned. Major news with international coverage. In spirit of DUE, blurb seems warranted; even if individuals here don't think it's that remarkable media coverage suggests otherwise. E.g., It's the second article listed on Le Monde's front page ([22]) EvergreenFir (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant decisions especially in terms of the possible impact on potential people considering leaking information or using US government data for their own purposes. The commutation of the sentence for Lopez Rivera is also significant. Both poor decisions (in my opinion which counts for nothing) but significant. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outgoing presidents commute/pardon regularly. Nothing particularly special about this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • And because there is nothing special about this one commute, really just one random among many, it is the top news item on nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com . Quick, someone should tell those newspapers that there is "Nothing particularly special about this one"! Thue (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ongoing This is part of the process of the changing of the guard from one President to another and we can expect lots of news items about this this week. Perhaps there should be an entry in the Ongoing section? Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It really should be done when she is free. We will want to list her again when that happens, so that is when it should be done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It is huge news now, and all over the mainstream 'quality' media, so we should cover it now. We have no idea whether it will be big news when she is actually released, so the suggestion to postpone has a fairly strong whiff of WP:CRYSTAL about it, among other problems.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for altblurb (U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May, instead of the original date of 2045.). While we are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, her commutation is a historic victory for transgender/human rights.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    She wasn't imprisoned for being transgender. How'd you draw that conclusion? Banedon (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
1) She made a mistake in her early twenties. I think we all did, though not on that scale.
2) She made this mistake because she had access to documents she shouldn't have. The USFG needs to review who can access classified documents; they need to take responsibility for their own system.
3) Members of the LGBTQ community are more likely to 'act out' in their early twenties, because they grow up without the prospect of equal rights as they try to become adults.
4) The documents she leaked were apparently republished by the mainstream press, like The New York Times, El Pais, The Washington Post, The Guardian--yet their editors-in-chief were not imprisoned.
5) To essentially end someone's life by imprisoning them for the rest of their life when she made a mistake in her early twenties made America look like a dictatorship. The sentence was meant to scare whistleblowers, which is fair enough, but Obama must have realized that this made America look bad to the rest of the world.
6) As I said, we (and the USFG I would assume) are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, but it would make America look very, very bad indeed in terms of its human rights record if she were to commit suicide in prison. I think this is a huge story and shows that Obama has more humanity in him than one might assume. It would be interesting to note if he talked about it with the president-elect, and what his views were; in any case, this is very significant and should appear on the main page as ITN, given how much international media coverage it has gotten.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
While I personally support Manning's release, I don't think we should be discussing whether or why she made a "mistake" here; that's a matter of opinion that has nothing to do with whether this news item should be featured. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't the right decision, so I think it can be described as a mistake. She was 23 when this happened I think! Has Obama spoken about it yet?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it wasn't the right decision, and that it was a mistake. That is not the only view, and it's not relevant to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really. Who is the world would think this was a good idea? No one!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Lots of people do. Get out of your bubble and you might learn about some of them. You can even start by reading the whole thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that this piece of news has been receiving front-page coverage in non-US sources suggests the impact that it has been having. Comparing this to Dylan Roof is just silly. And I find the argument that such commutations are routine somewhat specious: elections happen every so often, but we do not hesitate to cover those, do we? Also, the remarkably off-topic POV arguments from both sides are rather bothersome. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Adjusting the sentence of a single convict is hardly ITN material. Whilst the original leaks by Manning had important repercussions on international affairs, the details of the length of punishment do not. Some of the support !votes above seem to be because users agreed with Manning's actions, not based on the ITN criteria. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the rights or wrongs of the leak, that's not something that should influence !votes on this ITN nomination. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The fate of Manning has become symbolic of the the fate of whistle blowers, as a prisoner of conscience. The history articles I have read are full of prisoners of conscience, and find mentioning their fate important enough to include. If History (and the front pages of the major newspapers) finds his fate relevant, then I don't see why we shouldn't. Dismissing his fate as "Adjusting the sentence of a single convict" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the symbolic significance - should we then refuse to mention any one man's fate ITN, no matter how significant that person? If the New York Times finds his sentense adjustment notable enough to feature as a top story, and you don't (do you think the New York Times and Washington post is making a mistake?), then I consider it likely that it is you who let your ITN "vote" be influenced by your personal opinion. Thue (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We do not post every story covered by the mainstream media on ITN. You appear to be confusing us with a news service like WikiNews. You have no idea what my personal opinion is on Manning - as it happens I supported the leaks. So please don't accuse me of letting personal opinions bias my judgement. Modest Genius talk 18:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a potential misrepresentation of news to readers. The sentence is commuted, but the conviction and record remains. In effect, the government believes that what Manning did was wrong and illegal, but have decided to be lenient after the fact. Manning in neither "in the right" nor able to live a rehabilitated life beyond imprisonment. That we need to avoid confusion in this story is apparent by the editor above who believes that this somehow has something to do with LBTG rights(?).128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The Transgender rights aspect of the story is widely covered in the mainstream media, so it seems that the editor who thinks it has something to do with such rights is no more 'confused' than the mainstream media who report the matter (much as such media are presumably also similarly 'confused' when they think this is a newsworthy story). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am honestly very surprised at the quality of many of the oppose arguments, claiming this is insignificant. While I am relatively new to ITN, I cannot see how a story that is on the homepage of a very large number of major news services outside the US is not considered significant: BBC (UK), The Hindu (India), Al Jazeera (Qatar), News24 (South Africa), ABC.net (Australia) and Le Monde (France). I mean, seriously? This is getting more coverage than any story we have up on the main page right now. Vanamonde (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Kim Kardashian's jewellry theft in Paris was all over the main pages of news outlets. Doesn't mean we should have featured it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    There is a big difference between celebrity news and this case. Also I really, really doubt that Kim Kardashian's jewelry theft was featured at the top of the New York Times - I actually never heard of it before now. Thue (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Nothing in the world has changed outside of one non-violent person being released from federal detection several years earlier; the crime was still considered committed so that story doesn't change. The only major thing that seemed to hinge on Manning's release was a statement made by Wikileak's Assange that he would voluntarily be extradited back to the US to stand trial if Manning was released, and as far as I can tell, Assange's not said anything (tons of speculation from third-parties though on this). And even if Assange was extradited, that would still be a trial to show if he's guilty or not, and we'd not report on that until the trial was over. Add that we are overlooking 200+ others receiving the departing President, and that's basically leaving us with a very weighted story towards one person that doesn't affect anyone else. That's why this is a poor ITN/C, it reflects a systematic bias of the press. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Close? I voted Support, and I still support it in principle, but I make it 14 Support, 12 Oppose, so is it getting near the time when some admin should close this item per WP:SNOW, on grounds that there seems to be little or no prospect of a genuine consensus for posting, and leaving the matter open will thus simply tend to distract editors away from doing more productive work? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, don't close, that would look like censorship. Let this ITN run its course please.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
None of the oppose votes cite valid policy-based arguments, only personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims that this isn't more significant than hundreds of other pardons and commutations this week, which is obviously not true at all. At Wikipedia, noteworthiness/significance (for ITN's purposes) has to do with with how reliable sources treat the subject, not editors' personal views. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Ultimately, Wikipedia provides a service to readers by highlighting comprehensive articles, like this one, that provide background and context that might be missing from many newspaper accounts. The ability to highlight broadly informative wiki content is probably the thing that pushes me over to support here. I think, on the merits, commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence didn't really need to be front page news around the world, but there are many news organizations that treated it as such. It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important. This story is also not so trivial as the tabloid / celebrity news we often ignore, since the larger context of her leaks had impact on international relations and issues of national security. So, I think this story meets the requirements for ITN although less decisively than some news stories. Dragons flight (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important.". WP:ITN/C is not a news ticker. We are much more selective than the mainstream news to avoid the sensationalism that mainstream news has. Otherwise, might as well just dump WP:ITN/C and stick an RSS feed to CNN on the front page. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Obviously you mean a more neutral organisation like Reuters or BBC News, surely not CNN.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • hmmm? --Jayron32 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Hmmmm? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Could be BBC, Reuters, AP, any other number of sources, but key is they all nowadays tend to report sensationisticly and do not give great weight to actual impact on the world-at-large, what our measure is for encyclopedic appropriateness. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Our measure? So, now you get to decide what impact is without any referral to any reliable source ever; just what you adjudge to be "sensationalic" based on your own feelings about what should or should not have any impact? Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or widely cited essay that says "our measure for encyclopedic appropriateness must explicitly ignore reliable sources like BBC, the AP, Reuters, etc. and instead be based solely on "impact" as adjudged by the personal opinions of a small number of very loud and aggressive Wikipedians? Because I don't think that I was present for that discussion that invalidated WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR and the like. It is one thing to say "I oppose because there is no source material on this topic showing it is likely for people to be seeing it in major news outlets." It is quite another to say "I know literally every major news organization in the world is dedicated to covering this in substantial detail, but I don't really like it, so I am more important than the entire editorial decision making staff of every major news organization ever." --Jayron32 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
                • The relevant policy is WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOT#NEWS. We are evaluating things that happen to be in the news that are of encyclopedic quality, which cannot be measured by counting how much coverage the story is getting in a short (one-day) time period. That's how we avoid being sensationalist that the mainstream media are more likely to be nowadays. Wikinews is thataway if one wants to corroborate on breaking stories. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 • If I counted right, it's 13-11 in favor. Needs attention. Suggest post. Sca (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yep, it's time to close this I agree with the above comments. We are nearly evenly split with no realistic likelihood of gaining consensus. I can't do it myself as I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Based on valid policy-based arguments here (relating to the significance/newsworthiness of the topic as seen from reliable sources), there is consensus to post. Comments that are not based on Wikipedia policy, such as purely personal views, should not be taken into account. --Tataral (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly the point I was trying to make on WT:ITN after the non-postings of the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting and the College Football National Championship. Don't count votes. Evaluate them and disregard the ones that should be disregarded. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ad Orientem, as an admin, should know that we don't count votes, we analyse them. There's a consensus to post this, because most of the Oppose votes are of the "this isn't important" type which is clearly proved wrong by the fact that it's front page news all over the globe. Those, therefore, can be discarded. Most of the policy-based votes are for Support. I'm not going to post it myself, because I commented above (even though I didn't vote). But it should be posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I could argue the exact opposite: most of the support !votes are of the "it's on the (media outlet) website", which has nothing to do with the ITN criteria, which state "Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites". Most give no other reasons to post this. You could equally discard those. We're currently at no consensus. Modest Genius talk 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • After that bit you cherrypicked, it goes on to talk about the "length and depth of coverage, the "number of unique articles about the topic", and the "frequency of updates about the topic". It passes on those three. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Sigh. Assessment of significance is subjective. You may feel that the media coverage is sufficient to justify posting this to ITN. Others came to a different conclusion. Personally, I feel that the media coverage is no greater than dozens of other stories each week, and that there are insufficient encyclopaedic repercussions to merit posting. You clearly disagree. That's okay - we're allowed to have different opinions. What we cannot do, though, is discard contributions here just because we disagree with them. Black Kites' 'clearly proved wrong' is in fact a matter of opinion, where there can legitimately be differing views. Modest Genius talk 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Agree fully with Muboshgu and Black Kite. I see consensus to post, given further supports below. Jusdafax 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • A symptom of the modern discourse. Modest Genius's position can be summed up with "My feelings are more important than your data" He doesn't like the story, so his vote should "count" actually more than people's whose votes are based on a dispassionate analysis of source material and data. It isn't who has the best data or best source material, just who shouts the loudest. Typical. --Jayron32 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
              • ITN/C has turned into the United States Congress. Some people argue with facts, other people counter with unsubstantiated opinions, discussions get deadlocked and no progress is made. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support Was lead article on BBC and Guardian this morning, so clearly of international interest. More significantly will have ramifications re Julian Assange's extradition to US. 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – the only commutation/pardon of international interest, and the international interest is such to merit an ITN entry. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The commutation of this sentence is very much not of international interest.--WaltCip (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • As someone who lives outside the US and watched last nights news and saw it as one of the lead articles I can say with some confidence that it is of international interest.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You state that this is "not of international interest", but you don't offer any sort of rationale or evidence for this unsubstantiated opinion at all. This of course is true for all the other oppose votes here, and is the reason that we will have to disregard them. Such expressions of personal opinions are not relevant for this discussion. The ITN process is not based on whether editors personally like the topic under discussion, but on how it is treated by reliable sources. Editors who don't think it is significant would need to go and look for evidence that reliable sources don't consider the story important, but not a single editor has done so. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that reliable sources from across the planet treat this – both the commutation as such, but also Manning's fate more generally – as a highly significant, important, noteworthy story of very large international interest – to put it in perspective, I'm not aware of any US presidential pardon or commutation ever receiving the same amount of coverage in reliable sources globally, or being considered to be as important. Therefore, there is clearly consensus to post this now – consensus doesn't mean counting votes if they offer nothing of substance and no valid rationale, it means evaluating comments based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Blythwood (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 • 16-12. Time's a' wastin'.   Sca (talk) 21:54, 18 January 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] Gambian state of emergencyEdit

 Fuebaey (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support perhaps with a mildly toned down hook, but the article is excellent and something we should certainly be proud of posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable development, and a great article to post. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support BFD. Should this be an ongoing rather than a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Marked ready. Prefer blurb to ongoing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I know this will be a very controversial vote, but I think this is not notable, not because of the topic at hand but rather the nation itself. The population of The Gambia is about 2 million and it's only about 4,200^2 miles. Let's put it into comparison. Connecticut is about 3.4 million and 5,500^2 miles. If the governor of Connecticut refused to step down, it wouldn't warrant an ITN notification. Also, The Gambia is an extremely poor third world country that relies on UN aid for survival. If Barack Obama refuses to step down on Friday, maybe it'll be a different story. But for now, I say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Luke 1021 (talkcontribs) 14:28, January 17, 2017 (UTC)
Connecticut is not a nation; The Gambia is a nation. Leaders of other nearby nations are attempting to intervene, and the UN and governments around the world have weighed in. This is in the news and notable. I would add that arbitrary population cutoffs to limit which nations are posted have been proposed and failed in the past. Only systemic bias would prevent this from being posted. Small nations deserve attention too. We also have a good article to post. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Comparing the relative significance of stories by the size of landmass is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's comments like these that give Americans a bad name here. The success or failure of a democracy in a sovereign nation is a major international news story regardless of the land mass or population of the country in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. I also think a blurb is better than ongoing, since there are not so many day-to-day updates in the article at the moment. --Tone 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There will be war in less than 20 minutes. So we should change blurb accordingly. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] MH370 searchEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 22:58, 17 January 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: Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk, history) and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysia, Australia and China suspend the underwater search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
Alternative blurb: ​Malaysia, Australia and China end the three-year underwater search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the costliest in aviation history.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could be the end, leaving it to private searchers. Reported to be "the costliest in aviation history". Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This seems more like a whimper that the search is being ended (And I'll bet there's others like me that thought they closed the search down months ago). I'd also add that there's still a chance private companies might pick up the search, just that any gov't sponsored search is now over. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it is a "suspension" rather than a "termination". If further new evidence came to light, such as perhaps a large amount of new debris, one assumes a search might be re-started. That said, such new findings do seem very unlikely and it does sound like the authorities have "given up". The cost is a major factor and could be usefully part of a blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well, maybe. But the statement ends: "We remain hopeful that new information will come to light and that at some point in the future the aircraft will be located." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was always a search which was unlikely to be successful. Surprise surprise, they didn't find the aircraft. It's not ITN-level news if a long shot fails. The ongoing media obsession with this flight is frankly weird. Modest Genius talk 16:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination per Modest Genius. "Man does not win lottery" is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - We featured the airliner's disappearance and we should feature the results of the search. The airliner was a hot news topic from the day it went missing to the day it was suspended. All in all, newsworthy, 100%. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No updates in the timeline section (other than this) since July. Even CNN long ago moved on from MH370. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original crash wasn't in the news and this item will fade before the day is out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't in the news?? The press was full of it for days... and it was posted on main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • TRM is technically correct; the plane going missing was in the news, not it crashing. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, no one knows if it crashed or not, do they. I'm not sure that makes it less newsworthy. Many might argue that makes it more newsworthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll clarify, the search after the crash really hasn't been in the news lately, a few odd bits of plane found on a beach somewhere, but really it's not news, and therefore the decision to suspend such an unfruitful search isn't really remarkable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Reported total costs of the search have varied between US$135-160 million. That's quite a sum. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has kind of petered out in terms of interest. If significant wreckage washes up somewhere, or is found by private searchers, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per User:Modest Genius and others. --Fixuture (talk) 20:26, 17 January 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.

January 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 January 16

[Posted] RD: William OnyeaborEdit

Article: William Onyeabor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [23], [24]
Nominator: Iridescent (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: A bit stubby, but sourcing someone who lived in a developing country and was only active pre-internet (other than a brief flurry in 2014) is always going to be tricky at short notice. One of the most influential musicians of the 20th century within his (admittedly limited interest) niche.  ‑ Iridescent 21:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Adding sources for the albums/years and support subject to that - it's not a stub any more. Fascinating. Good work. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Each album now has at least one source confirming existence and year of issue. BencherliteTalk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This kind of 'niche' news is what the page needs. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Quality is good. Sourced and in good shape. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] BPM Festival shootingEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 20 January 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: The BPM Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting linked to a drug cartel occurs at a Playa del Carmen nightclub during an electronic music festival, killing 5 and injuring 15.
News source(s): "Mexico BPM music festival: Reports of shootings in clubs". BBC News. 16 January 2017."Several people dead in nightclub shooting at Mexico BPM Festival". Sky News. 16 January 2017. "Mexican cartel demanded payment from BPM festival ahead of nightclub killings: source". CBC News. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
Nominator: ViperSnake151 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Rather shocking event, and now sources are saying that this may have been conducted by a drug cartel. This event appears to be a rather major draw. Article for the festival itself may need to be rewritten, or a dedicated article created on the shooting. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. With all due respect to the deceased, the injured and their families, this is of zero significance on a global scale. ITN needs to get serious: fewer maritime, aircraft and shooting tragedies and more real news. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment A second shooting happened the following day in Cancun that killed 4