Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2018

< 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

October 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 31
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Wang GuangyingEdit

Article: Wang Guangying (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Standard Yangtse Evening News
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (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: Famous "Red Capitalist". Article is fully referenced. Zanhe (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support sorry to have overlooked this one, looks like it's been ready to go for a day now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment make that nearly two days. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment reopening nomination after the posting of Mario Segale above. I've always followed (what I thought was) the rule and posted nominations under the actual death date. But the Mario Segale nomination shows that it's the announcement date that counts. By that standard, this nomination is not stale and as TRM has noted above, it's been ready for two days without being noticed by admins. -Zanhe (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable death. STSC (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment NOW ENTERING THE THIRD DAY WITHOUT ADMIN ATTENTION. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It's been a long while since I have edited the ITN template and I wouldn't normally post something I have personally supported but I've just added this one, knocking off one of my own noms - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Dumelow, that's really nice of you. -Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chen ChuangtianEdit

Article: Chen Chuangtian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is fully referenced. Zanhe (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hamdi QandilEdit

Article: Hamdi Qandil (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Egyptian journalist and TV presenter. A Good Article - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Article updated and in decent shape. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas EichelbaumEdit

Article: Thomas Eichelbaum (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Former New Zealand Chief Justice. Article looks fully referenced. Maybe a little short, if so let me know and I can look to expand - Dumelow (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support it's brief, but what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 19:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie McCoveyEdit

Article: Willie McCovey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times, Sporting News
Nominator: Muboshgu (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: I know it's in no shape to post yet, but this guy was a baseball legend, so we'll get it up to standards by tomorrow. It's better now, but may still need some work. I'm tired, tell me if there's still any problems tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: article looks to meet quality threshold - Dumelow (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - referencing is sufficient for the main page now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support still some room for work, but sufficient to post. StrikerforceTalk 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Gracias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Teodoro PetkoffEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2018 (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: Teodoro Petkoff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington PostSun Herald
Nominator: Jamez42 (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: Venezuelan journalist, presidential candidate and former guerilla fighter. Prominent government critic, founder of the Tal Cual newspaper and of the Movement Towards Socialism party. Jamez42 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There are more unreferenced paragraphs than referenced. Only four inline citations in the whole article - Dumelow (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dumelow. I've added the {{more references}} orange-level tag as the referencing is so poor. Unfortunately I'm not awake enough to go hunting for citations myself right now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose still tagged, eight hours after nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Reverted non-admin closure as asked by the editor. I didn't see the comments until now and the respective reference for the paragraphs was included, but I didn't remove the tag in case further changes are needed. Waiting for any further recommendations; as of the time of this comment, the nomination is not stale. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2018 (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) Statue of UnityEdit

Article: Statue of Unity (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India has unveiled the world's tallest statue, which cost 29.9bn rupees (£330m; $430m) to build.
Alternative blurb: ​India unveils the Statue of Unity, the tallest statue in the world, at 182 m (597 ft).
Alternative blurb II: ​India unveils the Statue of Unity, the tallest statue in the world at 182 m (597 ft), to honour its first deputy prime minister Vallabhbhai Patel.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Nizil Shah (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs to be updated. Worlds tallest statue. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support notability yes, quality nearly, but would venture that the height of the statue is more relevant in the blurb than its cost. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with TRM so I've proposed an alternative blurb that also adjusts the tense per our usual convention. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article well referenced and topic of interest. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb per TRM, Thryduulf, Capitalistroadster.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is looking reasonably good. The second blurb is my preference. AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The second blurb clearly. Although the cost is an important issue considering the local protests and criticism against the statue, there's no point in stating just the cost in blurb without the context. The second blurb is much better. Breakfastisready (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb Alt2 – "In the world" is a winner. Pic might be problematic as it's necessarily a vertical, but it would be very useful even at ITN. Sca (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adding a second alt blurb to explain whom the status commemorates. --Masem (t) 13:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the second blurb. The prominence of its height overshadows both whom it commemorates and its cost; it seems people care little about that. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • also, please someone check if we should use "honor" or "honour" here. --Masem (t) 17:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Should be 'honour.' Indian English generally follows British spelling/conventions, –Ammarpad (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I've tweaked the second alt-blurb to use "honour". Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2. Good article, good blurb, significant. wumbolo ^^^ 14:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and not ready. Missing refs, needs tense update. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"Three months long nationwide campaign collected 5,000 tonnes of iron." copyedit too. Did anyone actually read this? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, hence my comment. Did you actually read it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No TRM, the direct quote "Three months long nationwide campaign collected 5,000 tonnes of iron." with the questionable tense and grammar appeared to me in a vision, and I was compelled to come here and comment. I've not actually read the article at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I said "hence my comment. Did you actually read it?" try again before coming off so put out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, needs slight copyedit throughout. Brandmeistertalk 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I've taken a whack at copyediting it. Check it out again. --Jayron32 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I've done some more copyediting as has Opencooper. Marking this as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy with either Alt1 or Alt2 for the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt2. --Tone 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've scheduled the image for protection, so we will soon have the option of using it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article well referenced and topic of interest. Kautuk1 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Asia Bibi blasphemy caseEdit

Posted, anything more is unnecesary. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (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: Asia Bibi blasphemy case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Christian woman who was sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy has won her appeal and been acquitted in a landmark ruling.
Alternative blurb: ​A Christian woman who was sentenced to death for blasphemy is acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a landmark ruling.
Alternative blurb II: ​Thousands of Islamists demonstrate in Pakistan over the acquittal of a Pakistani Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy.
News source(s): BBC, AP (second-day update)
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Landmark ruling. Article is GA class. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I saw wide coverage of this even before the ruling. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article needs a thorough update now that there's a finalization, and it should explain why this is a landmark case (BBC's article calls it that and is even weak on why). Should also point out any current protests that happened as a result of this ruling. Given how much of a impact the case has had, this final conclusion should be the thing that ITN posts about it. (Also added altblurb to note this was at the supreme court there, so this a final decision). --Masem (t) 05:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose would have supported on notability had the sentence been carried out, this is just another day, another acquittal. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story and these blurbs appear to be more of sensationalism than the substance of the matter. She was not executed and it's quite what was expected. It is worth noting, despite this law in Pakistan nobody was ever executed by court for this offense; so she is not the first and definitely not the last. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability (I'll leave others to assess quality). Important story for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free speech, Christian-Muslim relations internationally, Pakistani politics, etc. The case had previously resulted in the murders of liberal Pakistani politicians Salmaan Taseer, a Muslim, and Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian (and unfortunately may yet result in more murders, judging by the angry conservative reaction, tho that's NOT part of my case, being WP:crystal). This was the Number 1 story on the BBC World News website this morning, and varied between number 1 and number 2 in their World News TV headlines (although not mentioned at all in BBC Breakfast news headlines, where the lead international story was Trump visiting Pittsburgh a day ago).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Far from being sensationalist, as claimed by some, if anything our blurb and altblurb may well be unduly downplaying the story, by, for instance, currently omitting any mention of the related murders of the Muslim Salmaan Taseer and the Christian Shahbaz Bhatti (may these brave and good people both rest in peace, and belated condolences to their loved ones). Incidentally, like Banedon above, I also saw significant coverage of this beforehand, altho that may have been a side-effect of my country's Blasphemy Referendum last week, as part of the case for repeal was that we had been criticized internationally for helping to give international respectability to laws such as the one that led to this particular death sentence and the related murders (at least as far as I could see, this particular case was the example most frequently mentioned - in other words, it seemed to be the most important current blasphemy case internationally even before today's development). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt. We do post Supreme Court cases (the same-sex marriage ban in India struck down last month), and this is a GA. wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support Although an acquittal, the case is receiving a lot of press coverage and the article is of very good quality (GA). Would like to see a little more of an update regarding this decision. SpencerT•C 15:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - and post. we do post Supreme Court cases. article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support we do post Supreme Court cases and this is a high quality article. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. High court case receiving international attention. Article appears to surpass any reasonable referencing standards. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The news is getting media coverage globally and the aricle is in excellent condition. It's a landmark verdict by SC that is surprising for a lot of people. Amir (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt & marked Ready - Consensus to post seems to be clear at this point besides the article is good quality. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support alt A landmark event in the histories of both South Asia and the Islamic world. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment funny how many times I'm reading "landmark" yet that's not mentioned once in the article... Is this the first time anyone has even been acquitted of this crime? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
From the article: Omar Waraich, Amnesty International's Deputy South Asia Director, described the ruling as a "landmark verdict".[54] Maybe any posting admin should put 'landmark' or 'landmark verdict' in quotes?Tlhslobus (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, from the article two hours after I made the comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
TRM, you want the words "landmark verdict" within the article? No problem, I'll add it shortly. "Stately, since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations, even before their trial could be conducted in accordance with law" - reads the court order: Samaa TV. Its seems this is the first time anyone has lived long enough to see themselves get acquitted of blasphemy. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't answer my question. Lots of people are killed around the world all the time for such things. Now then, to repeat: Is this the first time anyone has even been acquitted of this crime? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not the first time. When she was originally convicted in 2010 The Telegraph said people were usually acquitted on appeal. The scale of the local protests and/or the international fuss may be unprecedented, but I wouldn't even be sure of that (tho the scale does seem to be relatively rare, as is the distinction of those politicians murdered for trying to save her, which may even be in some ways unique, and may help explain the scale of the fuss - these high-profile murders presumably made it almost impossible for anybody in Pakistan to be unaware of the case; Openlydialectic also points out that lots of people have also been killed in related protests - in terms of national divisiveness, as well as in terms of religious conservatives vs persecuted member of religious minority, it looks rather like Pakistan's Dreyfus case, but deadlier - but I suspect Dreyfus's acquittal would be opposed at ITN too, and on much the same grounds). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well that makes it clearer to me that this is just sensationalist headlines about something that has happened already. If the sentence had been carried out, it'd be a different story altogether, but right now this is just a continuation of the status quo with no changes happening anywhere to anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I get that the story is making headlines, but it screams tabloid - CHRISTIAN woman in MUSLIM country narrowly avoids DEATH PENALTY. Except it seems that was never actually going to happen... ghost 12:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Comment
    >Except it seems that was never actually going to happen
    [citation needed]
    Openlydialectic (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, we don't usually do that at ITN, but here you go:[1]. No one has ever actually received the death penalty. If she had, that would be clearly be more notable. You can't blurb BOTH possible outcomes (that's only for sports!). ghost 13:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, a single argument in some unknown newspaper is totally a proof she was not going to get executed after a 9 year long court battle in which one minister and one government were killed, dozens (or hundreds, depending on the source) died in protests and she and her family had to be hidden by the government. Cool story, bro. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    I showed mine, now you show yours: has anyone ever been put to death for this crime? Which would be more surprising: they finally carry out a sentence, or they continue with the status quo? Are you seriously suggesting you would oppose posting if they HAD executed her? Okay, let's do a altblurb: "Pakistan does same thing today as the last 18,924 days." ghost 16:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 – The real news here is the apparent depth and extent of "Islamist" outrage over something that wouldn't remotely be considered a crime in Western countries. This, in a country that is ostensibly a U.S. ally. Sca (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well as we all know, numerous individuals are executed every year by public beheading in "U.S. ally" country such as Saudi Arabia. This is a story about someone not being executed! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2, but without the scare quotes (sources don't do that, so we shouldn't either) and with a link to Blasphemy law in Pakistan. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
We certainly wouldn't want to offend them with "scare" quotes. (Alt2 modified accordingly.) Sca (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - This is notable news that highlights the fate of Christians in Muslim countries. STSC (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Simply sensationalist. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted per clear consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I can't support the blurb as it currently stands. Yesterday's news may have been the acquittal, but today it's mostly the protests that are making headlines. I believe the latter is the real story. Perhaps we can omit the "Islamist" label if it makes people uncomfortable. I.e. Protests break out in Pakistan over the acquittal of a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As an LGBT Christian who cares deeply about human rights, including of Christians around the globe, thank you for posting this. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting note we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and what GreatCaesarGhost above seems to have the nail squarely on the head: this blurb should be "Pakistan does same thing today as the last 18,924 days". This is neither a precedent nor a "landmark", it's just business as usual. But this posting now sets an interesting precedent for any future legal case where someone was just acquitted in a legal system where it had happened before and is most likely to happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose If the case overturned the blasphemy law I'd support, but this is simply a successful appeal based on the facts of the case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Struck post-posting oppose after more developments; updating the blurb can be discussed elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: A few quick responses to some of the comments made. When weighing consensus I discounted one supporting comment on the grounds that it strayed too close to WP:RGW for my comfort. I still believe that consensus clearly supports posting this. I chose the first altblurb mainly because while a consensus to post existed, there was not clarity on which blurb. The second one seemed a good compromise and IMO more closely reflected the underlying basis for the ITN nomination. If a consensus develops for a different blurb I will be happy to switch it. Likewise any uninvolved admin who believes that a consensus favoring another blurb exists should feel free to make the switch. Lastly, while I respect that this nomination has sparked some vigorous debate I would encourage editors to refrain from repeating points they have already made. If consensus turns against this nomination, I or another admin will pull it. However at present that seems unlikely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • PP comment – The real story continues to be strident Islamist demonstrations against the court decision, along with demands that Bibi (not yet released) be publicly hanged. (Alt2 modified per suggestions.) Sca (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing the recent coverage I have updated the blurb to include the ongoing protests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
PS: Bibi lawyer flees Pakistan in fear for his life. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2018 (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.

October 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 30
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Kepler spacecraft diesEdit

No consensus, unimproved. Stephen 21:48, 4 November 2018 (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: Kepler (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA's Kepler exoplanet-discovery telescope is retired after running out of fuel.
News source(s): Space.com The Verge NYTimes
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I dunno about using the word 'die'. It's what's used in many sources, but it's a bit flowery. Banedon (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Tweaked. Stephen 23:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb, clearly we need to account for RDs for inanimate objects *end sarcasm mode* Support on principle but the article quality is a tad weak, one tagged section, some isolated para with no sources, and there's no results of the mission post 2016 (even if it was just saying "they were keeping it alive as long as possible". --Masem (t) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we just need to argue that the claim that the spacecraft is inanimate is merely POV Western cultural imperialist systemic bias against non-Western schools of animist thought.   Tlhslobus (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article unsuitable for main page inclusion in any form. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Am I somehow missing something seriously wrong with the article, or is the above 'oppose' merely intended to be interpreted as *re-open sarcasm mode*? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Where I come from, multiple maintenance tags are indicative of quality insufficient to go on the main page, so perhaps take a look first before launching an assault at me once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sincere apologies, TRM, I was not intending to launch an assault on you. Your "in any form" (concerning an article that genuinely looked pretty impressive to me on first perusal despite some inevitable issues as already listed by Masem but merely summarized by them as "quality is a tad weak"), and following on Masem's preceding "end sarcasm mode", genuinely had me confused as to whether you were being serious or not. Once again, my sincere apologies if anything I said offended you. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw at least two orange tags when I looked, and in its mission findings, nothing mentioned post-2016. Plus a number of scattered no-source paragraphs. --Masem (t) 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as an item clearly in the news that is also seemingly (at least on first perusal) a fine example of Wikipedia at or near its best (showing such stuff to our readers is one of the stated purposes of ITN). Of course inevitably it ideally needs a few fixes as mentioned above by Masem, tho (unless somebody points out some truly serious flaws that I've somehow missed) I'd be quite happy to see it posted even if such fixes are not forthcoming.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The "lead too long" tag is not a show-stopper on its own (but it is borderline), the unreferenced section tag and at least two [citation needed] tags however are. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There are so many space probes out there that the expiration of one launched nearly a decade ago underwhelms. Sca (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Don't see how this is In the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's "Death" is clearly covered in news sources (NYtimes, Time, NatGeo, etc.) --Masem (t) 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I quiet clearly don't mean it was not covered at all, I mean it was not given any special attention, it was just another story. This is in quiet contrast to the second nomination above this where apart from the main unveiling story, analysts dig deeper, hence making it in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree, as many of these stories remarked what Kepler did do over its mission lifetime, including discovery of 2000+ exoplanets. We've done the same for major space missions where the space agency asserts the mission is complete/done/retired, like the Cassini–Huygens in 2017. I know there's lots of smaller missions out there, like that one to land on a comet, and to get to that point was effectively their mission, and I'm sure at some point the agency will say they consider that mission done but it won't get the coverage like these major launches that mankind has done. --Masem (t) 15:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: would consider supporting a blurb, but article quality is way off at the moment. Lots of missing references and is in desperate need of a trim or split (probably separate out the "mission results" section) - Dumelow (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2018 (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) Typhoon Yutu (Philippine impact)Edit

Article: Typhoon Yutu (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Yutu (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in the Philippines, killing 6 people and leaving at least 23 others missing.
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: As advertised in the nomination that was posted last week, Typhoon Yutu has struck the Philippines and caused significant damage and loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - essentially a "bump" of the recent Mariana posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems important enough if several people died. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Would calling this a "second landfall" be out of line? That would help explain why it's back in the news for any reader that follows that. ("Hey, why are they posting Yutu again?") --Masem (t) 00:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but would suggest making a blurb that makes reference to the previous destruction caused by the typhoon. For example, "After causing significant damage to the Mariana Islands, Typhoon Yutu makes landfall in the Philippines, killing at least six people." If someone wants to adjust the wording of that, feel free. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Support but suggest a change to the blurb per "Typhoon Rosita (also called Typhoon Yutu)" etc. This is suggested because this time the notability is specifically due to impact in the Philippines, where the name change applies; also because many readers might be searching for information under the alternate name. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose second posting. If the first posting was still there at the ITN then bumping a combined blurb was a no-brainer but strongly oppose 2nd posting. You guys should have waited till this Typhoon actually made an impact. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - and post. several deaths, important enough.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted , I added the Rosita alt name and that it was a second landfall --Masem (t) 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) Whitey BulgerEdit

Stale for RD, and not getting a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2018 (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: Whitey Bulger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American mob boss Whitey Bulger is found killed in United States Penitentiary, Hazelton, Preston County, West Virginia.
News source(s): NBC News
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: Two sections are tag, one as a quote farm, the other lacking sources, but otherwise generally is close Masem (t) 17:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a blurb. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Even though this would qualify under "unusual death" (he got to prison the day before and then found dead/killed), I would oppose a blurb here - he was already elderly, and would be serving the rest of his life in prison. --Masem (t) 18:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Solely on article quality which is lacking right now. Ping me when improved and I will surely say Support.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's an RD only case, clear as day, yet the article is just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, even if the article is improved in the next few minutes, the story is still in the developing phase; there are conflicting reports and a lot of speculation. It really isn't clear if Bulger was killed or not, a few news outlets are citing "unnamed sources", and the prison has confirmed that someone has died, but not who or the cause of death. Even if we get a good article soon, it may be worthwhile to wait for official word before posting. --Jayron32 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support posting, once the article is improved (not just the citations ... is "Goodfellas in South Boston" really a section hed that meets our standards? Especially when nothing in the section supports it?) but I don't think it merits a blurb. Outside of the U.S., and maybe even outside of the Boston area (too busy celebrating at the moment, I imagine), you'd have to tell people who aren't crime junkies: "you know ... the guy who Jack Nicholson's character in The Departed is based on?" Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    What?! Unknown outside of Boston? (checks editor's location) Oh I see. Carry on. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait Clearly the quality isn't there, and I'm an oppose on the blurb, but let's not trip over ourselves trying to minimize the man. He was arguably the most notorious fugitive in American history this side of Bin Laden DURING which time he was portrayed by Jack Nicholson in a Scorsese movie that won four Oscars including best picture. If you don't know who he is, that's on you. I've no idea who Jin Yong is, but I'm sure that's because I'm a hayseed. ghost 21:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Notorious? Ever hear of Al Capone? Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have. There was a noun after "notorious" I think you overlooked. ghost 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb on notability. When article's judged up to snuff RD is okay. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb on notability, even if it turns out he has been murdered - "murder in prison of aged murderous mobster and police informer" seems to be barely above the Kim-Kardashian-bares-bum level of global significance. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb and not ready for RD yet - those two sections are still tagged.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Now stale for RD, and given that it's not goin to get a blurb, closing. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2018 (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) 2018 Taumarunui earthquakeEdit

Consensus will not emerge to post an insignificant earthquake. Stephen 22:17, 30 October 2018 (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: 2018 Taumarunui earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A strong 6.2 Magnitude earthquake has rocked central New Zealand and been felt across the country.
Alternative blurb: New Zealand rattled by a 6.2 Magnitude earthquake with the depth of 207 km.
News source(s): Stuff
Nominator: Sheldybett (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: House of Representatives are currently suspended, but damage not yet comfirmed. Sheldybett (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Article fails to meet criteria at WP:NEARTHQUAKE. Not notable enough for an article, let alone the main page. Mikenorton (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NEARTHQUAKE. 159.53.174.143 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not meet the minimum magnitude and Mercalli intensity scale requirements of WP:NEARTHQUAKE. No major reports of damage or deaths at the moment and there is no tsunami risk. Parliament was only slightly affected and rail service notably continued with a slight delay. Unless some intense aftershocks occur this fortunately looks like nothing serious and the article may not survive an AfD. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is not a place to discuss notability. If anyone thinks this quake is not notable then AFD should be their next step. As long as the article exists, argument of not meet ing Nx is irrelevant. The amount of coverage and article quality is what only matter. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2018 (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.

(Stale) Jin YongEdit

Stale for RD, and no consensus to post a blurb (though if anyone thinks there is one, feel free to overturn this without informing me first). Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (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: Jin Yong (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Jin Yong, Chinese wuxia novelist and essayist, died at the age of 94.
Nominator: Wishva de Silva (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: Extremely influential. One of, if not THE most widely read novelist in Hong Kong and much of China WdS | Talk 14:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, and oppose on quality Article is clearly a distance from being posting due to lack of sourcing. As to the blurb, Fame != importance. I read this as being someone like Tom Clancy, writing historical fiction with an eye for accuracy, who is clearly popular, but not someone we'd have at ITN as a death blurb. --Masem (t) 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sold on a blurb yet, but I should point out that comparing Jin Yong to Tom Clancy is not appropriate. Jin Yong is the best-selling Chinese language author of all time. That makes him the best-selling author of the second-most spoken language in the world. The comparable English-language author would be Agatha Christie. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC))
I only meant this as to compare to "influential" writers (those on a shortlist to get the Nobel prize in Lit, for example) compared to "popular" ones. We want to try to avoid blurbs based solely on popularity and fame when the RD otherwise is suitable. --Masem (t) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
He was not just a popular writer, although his novels are certainly popular. According to The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Jin raised martial arts literature to a height "hitherto unimaginable", and transformed the genre from entertainment to literary art (Volume 2, p. 644). The scholarly study of his works has become its own field called "Jinology" (see [2] [3] etc). The English translations of his works are published by the academic Oxford University Press. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for blurb Just to give some Chinese perspective for western Wikipedian about the influence of Jin Yong: think of him to Chinese Wuxia genere as Tolkien to High-Fantasy, or Bruce Lee to KungFu, the foremost figurehead that defines an entire genre and will continue to be many decades after their deaths. Jin Yong's readers are not just limited to Hong Kong and China but is also equally as popular in Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and North American immigrants. His influences is not limited to literature, but also has significant impact in TV and Films (there's basically a new TV/Film adaption every second year) as well as the Chinese gaming industry where a huge proportion of games draw all kind of inspirations from his works. Between the influential Chinese novelists of the last century, he is probably only behind Lu Xun and Eileen Chang in terms of influence and certainly the most influential in the second half. I cannot say for sure how notable he is to western readers, but to any Chinese reader or non-reader alike, his notability is unquestionable. 80.110.80.77 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for either article quality is not good enough for either RD or blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on notability, but Oppose on quality. He has been wildly popular for half a century, his works have been adapted into probably hundreds of movies and TV shows. His novels have been read by hundreds of millions and intensely studied by scholars, who have formed an entire subfield of literary criticism called "Jinology" (see [4] [5] etc). Unfortunately the article quality is too poor at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per nom. Banedon (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on notability - BBC makes the comparison to Tolkien. starship.paint ~ KO 12:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – "Ninety-four-year-old novelist dies after a long illness" isn't really ITN-level news. RD only. Sca (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Earth-shattering notability.--WaltCip (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Article needs a lot more referencing. Once that is done I would support RD only.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once quality is okay. Easily the best-selling Chinese author of all time and essentially single handedly elevated the wuxia genre to the centre of Chinese literature. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. This even fails to rise to the level of the new Bowie-Mandela-Thatcher i.e. Franklin-Vajpayee-Annan. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Zanhe and others. Clear evidence of worldwide notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment here's the BBC obituary, which calls him the 'Tolkien of Chinese literature'. -Zanhe (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle, but oppose on quality. After thinking about this one for a few days, it occurred to me that I am an Anglosphere-biased person. RD Blurbs are supposed to be reserved for the best of the best--as noted by 125.209.99.10, the Franklin-Mandela-Thatcher level, or to put it another way, the people who are known by virtually everyone. I've never heard of Jin Yong, so I couldn't see a reason why he should get a blurb. But while the Anglosphere is the dominant cultural force on the planet, it's not the only one, and Wikipedia is supposed to be internationally balanced. Adding Vajpayee as a blurb was a step in that direction--a Mandela-level figure for a significant portion of the Earth. Given Jin Yong's status in China, Jin Yong is probably another such figure--another Mandela-level figure, just not for the English-speaking portion of the Earth. And while I'd argue that the Anglosphere does deserve pre-eminence over the others, it doesn't deserve a monopoly. Therefore, I suppose this blurb in principle. That said, it's ridiculous that there's a completely unreferenced section two days after his death. I really should have followed Wikipedia:Do it yourself, but I've been busy with work this week, unfortunately. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2018 (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: Li YongEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (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: Li Yong (television host) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Colipon (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: Iconic television personality in the world's most populous country for the past three decades; sudden, shocking. Colipon+(Talk) 16:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no justification at all for uploading a fair use file of a man barely dead who was very much in the public eye. I'll take a look at the rest of the article if this is fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've nominated that image for deletion by disputing the fair use rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Too many unreferenced paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (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.

October 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 29
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Living Planet IndexEdit

No consensus to post. SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2018 (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: Living Planet Index (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Living Planet Index registers a 60% decline in vertebrate species population worldwide.
Alternative blurb: The WWF Living Planet Report finds that humans have killed off 60% of wildlife populations.
News source(s): The Washington Post, WWF, BBC
Nominator: SusanLesch (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article not ready but I can work on it this afternoon. I prefer the Wildlife Conservation Network but apparently they don't fund a report like this. SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose ALT1, which is flat-out untrue; the report says habitat loss has led to a decline of 60% of vertebrate populations, not that "humans have killed 60% of wildlife". ‑ Iridescent 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Nobody I know of said that except you. The Washington Post headline says: "Two generations of humans have killed off more than half the world’s wildlife populations, report finds". I struck ALT1 above, nevertheless. Thank you for the correction. The report cites four other threat categories besides habitat loss (overexploitation, e.g. ivory poaching, invasive species and disease, pollution, and climate change). -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday, The Atlantic called out The Guardian, The Washington Post, Quartz, and USA Today for misleading stories about the index. Mr. Yong singled out Vox and NBC as having done a better job. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose generally, its a caution, but unlike climate change matters, difficult to determine what impacts this has outside of biodiversity (which is important, don't get me wrong, but far more difficult to quantify). I would suggest if posted, the blurb needs to say this is 60% of vertebrate species. (eg not counting insects). --Masem (t) 18:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"vertebrate" was already added above. I added a section that summarizes three critiques. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant finding similar to the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC that was posted. Article looks expanded. Brandmeistertalk 12:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - expanded article seems completed. Significant finding.BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb is useless without context, the article appears to be asserting that the rate of decline is actually decreasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: can you please clarify your objection to the article? Suggest another blurb? By the way, I added three resounding critiques from the popular press. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I object, immediately, to the poorly constructed hook. Once we have something, then I'll turn more attention to the article. But at a glance, it appears that this isn't really news, it's actually getting less worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You are the only person (possibly in the whole world) who thinks the decline in population is decreasing, so I ask you to please contribute constructively. Driving by waving hands doesn't help, and possibly will cause this to go stale. Can you please rewrite the blurb? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. But I’m only one editor anyway. Take some time to read my thoughts before you next respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear, I am terribly sorry for misunderstanding. How embarrassing.
@The Rambling Man: You posted vague negatives that I would try to fix if you would clarify. The blurb seemingly you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The clock is running out. I say this after trying for three or four days to come up with a balanced article. I don't see that you have edited either the article or the blurb even once. Maybe I'll wake tomorrow and be surprised. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's "vague" about saying the hook is useless without context and that the article seems to imply that the issue is getting less worse. Maybe you'll wake up tomorrow and re-read it and understand it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Again my apologies for misquoting you, The Rambling Man. No I do not understand your point. In the absence of input from anybody, I am going to close this out and give money I don't have to WCN. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2018 (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) Lion Air Flight 610 crashEdit

Article: Lion Air Flight 610 (talk, history)
Blurb: Lion Air Flight 610 crashes off the coast of Java.
Alternative blurb: Lion Air Flight 610 crashes off the coast of Java with 188 passengers on board.
Alternative blurb II: Lion Air Flight 610 crashes off the coast of Java, the first accident involving the Boeing 737 MAX.
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters, AP, BBC
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: 188 people on board, fatalities not confirmed yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait only to make sure about the fate of the passengers. It doesn't sound like there will be any survivors, but... --Masem (t) 03:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing conflicting numbers about whether it's 188 or 189 people on board. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Not so much the exact number, but simply if there's even a slim chance they survived. It doesn't seem likely, and we'll likely know in a few hours. --Masem (t) 04:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support significant level of coverage, notable as being the first instance of a crash of a Boeing 737 MAX.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Any major aircraft accident is always notable. It has been covered by major worldwide online news sites. Chongkian (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Mass casualty event with almost 200 involved. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 04:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Any plane crash of this scale will pretty much always be ITN worthy. AusLondonder (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, significant event and article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt1 – Context of number of people is important but can't say they're dead without official confirmation so this is the most appropriate blurb. Alt2 is more trivia and suited for DYK. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Three sources added. Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

October 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 28
Business and economy
  • Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
    • American online payments system company PayPal bans American social media site Gab, known for its association with the alt-right movement, while Joyent, Gab's American hosting provider, states that they will terminate their service tomorrow. The move comes after it was revealed that the suspect in yesterday's 11 deaths, Robert Bowers, was an active member on the social network. (CNET)
  • American computer company IBM announces plans to acquire American software company Red Hat for US$34 billion. (CNBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) 2018 World SeriesEdit

Article: 2018 World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the Boston Red Sox win the 2018 World Series (MVP Steve Pearce pictured).
Alternative blurb: ​In baseball, the Boston Red Sox defeat the Los Angeles Dodgers win the 2018 World Series (MVP Steve Pearce pictured).
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)
Updater: Spanneraol (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Donnowin1 (talk • give credit) and Dmoore5556 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Article looks good enough; has been updated as Series progressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good quality article, no visible issues, ITN/R criteria are met. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb: Article looks good, has sources cited, is up to date, part of ITN/R. TheMrP (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm posting this now. Just a moment... Jehochman Talk 03:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support Article looks decent. Congrats to the Sox. Not really a big Boston fan, but any team loathed as much as they are by Yankee fans works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ad Orientem: I'm a Yankee fan btw. Our 27 World Championships are still more than however many (or few) Boston has. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Muboshgu: Commiserations. As a Mets fan all I can offer is our motto. Wait til next year. As for all your titles that's one of the reasons I can't pull for the Yankees. It's like cheering for Donald Trump to win the lottery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Ad Orientem: It's like cheering for Donald Trump to win the lottery. Now that the Red Sox have won the World Series four times in fifteen years while having one of the highest payrolls, if not the highest payroll, in MLB, shouldn't that be said about them? —184.207.73.253 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
          • When they get to 27 drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
            • @Ad Orientem: Oh you're a Mets fan. Now I get it. Let me know if Timo Pérez learned how to run the bases. (I'll let your Donald Trump comparison slide because I know how inferior you Mets fans can get sharing a city with a real baseball franchise. Hiring deGrom's agent as GM?  ) – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I was rooting for the Dodgers. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • So was I. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Minor hitch: we don't have a picture of the MVP in a Red Sox uniform. Does anybody happen to have a better picture? Jehochman Talk 03:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Vichai SrivaddhanaprabhaEdit

The discussion has been around a while. RD is posted, there is no consensus for a blurb. The helicopter crash is a new article so it can be sent to DYK. Closing this now. --Tone 09:19, 30 October 2018 (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: Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-46013381
Nominator: KTC (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.

 KTC (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is being updated as I type and is in overall good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb so as to include 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash, which is in decent shape. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Because the helicopter crash is also massive news both in the UK and Thailand. Article should include updated info, like the Thai football team trapped in the cave were in the UK over the weekend to attend a Manchester United game on Sunday, and travelled to Leicester to pay tribute to Seivaddhanaprabha, an iconic Thai businessman. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, undecided on blurb (and there's no proposed blurb yet). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above include link to 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash TheMasterGuru (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD for the time being, for which there is a clear consensus. The blurb discussion can continue. --Tone 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggested blurb A helicopter crashes in Leicester, UK, killing all five people on board, including Thai businessman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb for the reason stated in the previous nomination below. -- KTC (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per KTC. RD is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb very tragic, but does not rise to the level of a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb for same reasons as before. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb oppose per above, especially in light of the more recent, deadlier crash of Lion Air Flight 610.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - that there has been another aircrash is irrelevant. Article is up to scratch, it's in the news, and worth posting. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article is in good shape, this is active in global news, and death is sudden. I support blurb along with restoring the RD tag that was removed when Srivaddhanaprabha's tag was added. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb No problems at all with the RD post but light aircraft crashes are relatively common and disproportionately affect the rich and famous. 3142 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • 3142 The AW169 is not a "light aircraft", it is a fairly heavy helicopter. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Light aircraft has a rigid definition for various regulatory and licensing purposes, and yes, the vehicle involved fits the classification. 3142 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - locally devastating but globally insignificant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"locally" to where? Leicester where it happened, to all of the UK where football is beloved, to Thailand where Srivaddhanaprabha was well regarded, to China where he began his business empire? Sure, let’s call it "local". Kingsif (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It's devastating to Leicester, and upsetting elsewhere. But, as has been said, helicopter crashes are relatively common globally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
With notable individuals onboard? Name the last one which wasn't posted as a blurb to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Does it become more significant with the other passengers revealed? One of the most influential Polish women and a former Miss Universe Thailand? I don’t think it does, but they could be in the blurb? Kingsif (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence for their independent notability? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Given the prominence of the Premier League globally and the coverage of 15-16 run, Srivaddhanaprabha is a globally prominent person. Some element of his biography is known to tens of millions of people. This is the most textbook blurbable death I've seen in years. ghost 11:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is sufficient. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. Does not rise to blurb prominence IMO. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb only based on past process. We posted the dead of three athletes in the same crash as a blurb (even though there were others among the dead), even though the helicopter there was also a private one. Seems no different here if both the bio and the crash article are up to speed. --Masem (t) 13:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb this has been all over the UK press since it happened, but I imagine a lot of that has been down to a reluctance to state that everyone onboard died and who they were. It's still headlining here, with a near-Princess Diana-style mourning effort going on outside the King Power stadium. It's more notable because it's the first hull loss of its type, and deadly helicopter crashes within the mainland are extremely rare. The international notability is beyond question, but is it receiving coverage outside the UK? According to ITN rules, that's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Minor crash receiving disproportionate coverage. An order of magnitude less significant than either of the same-day (Oct 27) blurbs it would have to replace. This is what RD is for. If this fails to gain consensus again, is it going to be nominated a third time on yet a later date? —Cryptic 08:40, 30 October 2018 (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) Brazilian general election, 2018Edit

Articles: Brazilian general election, 2018 (talk, history) and Jair Bolsonaro (talk, history)
Blurb: Jair Bolsonaro defeats Fernando Haddad to be elected President of Brazil.
Alternative blurb: Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) is elected President of Brazil.
News source(s): AP (via Washington Post)]
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

One or both nominated events are 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: This is ITNR, but the articles need quite a bit of cleanup so I'm posting now in the hopes editors will get started before the results are in (initial results will be in around 2200 GMT). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There's also discussion about whether Brazilian presidential election, 2018 should be a spin-off article or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: How can A defeats B and at the same time B defeats A? Is there mixup in these two blurbs? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The results aren't in yet. I'll remove the incorrect one after results are in. I've deliberately posted this early because the article on the election is too far away from being ready. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment At 22:06GMT, Bolsonaro reached 54%, winning the vote. Confirmed by the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yup, it's over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment He was officially elected. Almost 100% of the votes counted--SirEdimon (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and possibly an image. 99.9% of votes counted and he is the confirmed winner. Both articles on election and the President-elect sourced and free of tags. Major event in one of the world's 5 largest countries. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Image added. ArionEstar (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With the alternative blurb. - Alumnum (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb and image. Defeating a rival candidate is of secondary importance to being elected. The bolded article has a few unsourced statements but they seem to be uncontroversial statements of fact, maybe a weak support for now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Slight preference for longer version with Haddad (it was a two-man run-off election) but, whichever is chosen, Bolsonaro (and Bolsonaro alone) should be bolded. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb, primarily on article quality. The election article has some gaps in referencing. The biographical article is, if not perfect, good enough and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Major election in a fairly important country. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news in world's fourth-largest democracy, especially given the global rise of fascism and far-right politics. AusLondonder (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dunno if this support !vote is neutral, but it is significant regardless. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold on There are still significant gaps in the election article. There's a lot of notability supports above, which are unnecessary for ITNRs. ghost 11:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: as I understand it, Bolsanaro won't take office until some time next year. Could we finesse the blurb as 'the next President' or similar? Modest Genius talk 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support w/ alt blurb and image - the holes in the article could easily be fixed before it goes live on ITN. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Now we can have an article about the assassination attempt. wumbolo ^^^ 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the second blurb (with picture) as defeated opponent Fernando Haddad may not be noticeable enough. --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I fixed all referencing gaps I could find in general election article. Alt blurb is ready to go on ITN with image. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I left the image of Pearce for now as it hasn't even been up a day, but if that's not okay, I can change it(or I invite someone else to). 331dot (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove: Killing of Jamal KhashoggiEdit

Removed, no further discussion here is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2018 (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: Killing of Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk)

Nominator's comments: No longer ongoing. Everything substantial that's worth saying has been said. The now trifling here and there news will never end. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There's still a slow boil on international politics but it's not a storm in a teapot-level of concern. Any breaking change would likely be best served as a blurb. --Masem (t) 16:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support agreed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yea, this has settled down. We can always re-nominate any subsequent diplomatic developments. Teemu08 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – "Slow boil" is apt – but something is likely to put this back on the front burner at some point, I would guess. Sca (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, all information has come to light. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- In just the past few days Turkey has shared audio of the incident, the Saudi AG admitted the death was the result of premeditated murder, Turkey requested extradition of the suspects, and MbS announced an investigation and that he will punish those found to be responsible. If anything this story is heating up, not cooling down. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Post-removal support. @Bzweeb: That is a good example of the "slow boil" described above - requests, announcements, commencement of investigations, etc, but no decisive action, nothing that would stand a chance if nominated as a blurb. As Masem notes, if/when something significant happens in the story then it will be best served by a new blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Update – Multiple stories quoting Turkish Chief Prosecutor Irfan Fidan saying in a statement that Khashoggi was strangled as soon as he entered the Saudi consulate and his body was dismembered before it was removed: AP, BBC, Reuters, Guardian. — Sca (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Which is only a claim (just as the Saudis' statement was). It's presently a battle of words, and not sufficiently fast moving anymore for ITN. --Masem (t) 20:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Just letting folks know it's back in the news, temporarily at least. Sca (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • More bits – The order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest level of the Saudi government, Erdoğan reiterates in a Washington Post piece (AP, dpa). Adviser says body was dissolved in acid. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (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.

October 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 27
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Closed) Sri Lankan political crisisEdit

Stale and no consensus to post anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2018 (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: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena suspends parliament after replacing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Alternative blurb: ​One person has been killed after a Sri Lankan MP's bodyguard fired at a mob amid a growing political crisis.
News source(s): Reuters NYT WaPo
Nominator: 58.27.134.33 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: An article may be created about the ongoing political crisis and assigned as the target article. With this latest development, this blurb can serve as a combined blurb of the ITNC below and rest the ITNR/no-ITNR discussion. 58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no primary article to link to currently. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Joseph2302: me thinks you should reconsider your vote coz it looks like we do have an article. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems no real justification for 2 noms. One of them should probably be closed. Probably this one should be snow-closed and the nominator can always post their blurb as an altblurb at the other nom if they wish. But as this is not 100% clear to me, I'd prefer to leave the decision to an admin. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC) The other story is now closed as superseded by this one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added alt blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is a major event, marking big political changes in the country. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's such a major event that it's not even noted on the BBC news homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Above the fold in the BBC News homepage in my neck of the woods, and is the eighth most read story (4 of 10 are about the Indonesian airline that crashed.) Neither presidential elections are most read. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as this is still making news. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2018 (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: Madan Lal KhuranaEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2018 (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: Madan Lal Khurana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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 Delhi Chief Minister and senior BJP leader in India. Article has referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2018 (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) 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crashEdit

Consensus will not develop to post the crash as a blurb. This is without prejudice to a separate nomination for the notable passenger - if it is confirmed they died in the crash. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2018 (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: 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A helicopter crashes in Leicester, United Kingdom, killing one person.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Sheldybett (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

 Sheldybett (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, do helicopters die? Can helicopter crashes die? Openlydialectic (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't qualify as RD, changed to standard nomination. Added a basic blurb, but also oppose on being a minor aviation incident. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha can be an RD nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC) If he didn't survive. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WAIT - For context, the helicopter was an AgustaWestland AW139, a medium sized helicopter capable of seating 7 passengers. Owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha is confirmed to have been on board. There are no reports confirming that he has survived, but no confirmation of fatalities at the moment. If it turns out he was killed, then a blurb mentioning him and the accident (both bolded) would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable but terrible accident, sorry for the Leicester FC fans. STSC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurb as presently worded is almost certainly inaccurate, as reports are that there were at least four people on board the helicopter at the time of the crash. At the very least, someone had to be piloting that helicopter aside from the owner. That said, this might be a good time for editors to start prepping the article for Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, as he is likely to have an RD nom in a few hours. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC))
    • Per my earlier comments, we are waiting on official confirmation of the number of casualties (if any). Already covered in article that at least two people are involved. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor crash getting a disproportionate amount of coverage. While an article on the crash can probably withstand an AFD because of the likely demise of the notable Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, it's not newsworthy enough to go beyond RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a single private helicopter crash that doesn't appear to have directly involved large number of people or major structure on the ground. -- KTC (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose private helicopter crash, albeit one famous person was on board. Also article is very short, and not really enough details. The blurb- "At least one person died"- doesn't appear to be confirmed, and in fact isn't in the article anywhere. If Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha is confirmed dead, then a RD for him would be acceptable (but probably nominate that separately). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be better as an RD on the notable passenger if it is indeed confirmed he died in the crash. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Sorry, but this is a comparatively minor event. Sca (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2018 (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: Ntozake ShangeEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2018 (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: Ntozake Shange (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]
Nominator: Muboshgu (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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While text of article is referenced, the awards and works sections are unreferenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Early life needs more referencing, and latter sections (as noted above) are woefully cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2018 (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) Pittsburgh synagogue shootingEdit

Article: Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at a synagogue kills 10 people in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Alternative blurb: ​Eight people are shot at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
News source(s): CBS News, AP, BBC, Guardian
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Appears to have been religiously motivated. EternalNomad (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment the article quality isn't there yet, and the situation isn't clear enough yet to assess impact. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Article name updated after move; there's every possibility this will be moved more times in the next day without move full-protection. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Support it's complete enough now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait We don't know enough right now. If this turns out to be terrorism related I may support. However, if this turns out to be just another random mass shooting my support will become less likely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If the shooter yelled "All Jews must die", as is reported, yeah I think that counts as terrorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on merit, pending further expansion Hate crime, should be enough of a body count for you WP:MINIMUMDEATHS folk. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Added an ALT1 blurb that follows other ITN stories in having the death toll first. SounderBruce 17:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the biggest terrorist attacks motivated by anti-semitism in a long time. This shooting will probably have massive implications. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Moving from "wait." This is now being treated as a hate crime which means it is most likely some form of domestic terrorism. That's enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not the run-of-the-mill US mass shooting, but an instance of racial/religious hate crime. Had the perpetrator been a Muslim it would have been called terrorism many times by now (although undoubtedly prematurely in at least some cases), but I can't immediately see this in reliable sources currently. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment I prefer the original blurb as the alt is incorrect - while eight people have been confirmed dead, many more were shot. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, since it's been confirmed that the minimum deaths for terrorist incidents inside the United States is zero, consensus dictates that I support this. WaltCip (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip: What are you on about? There is no minimum deaths criterion for anything, whether that is terrorism inside the USA or something else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (alt0 is fine) Support original blurb (per Thryduulf) actual terrorist attack by gun at a gun-free zone with a pretty bad death toll – at least eight dead. Article is neutral and sourced. It's not up to us to judge whether it's random and whether it's terrorism. We won't know if it's 100% wiki-voice terrorism until someone is convicted... wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - and if there are issues with the article, by the time this discussion is sufficiently concluded, the article will be fine. Volunteer Marek 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about someone write an article about the synagogue? Here's a couple sources: [7] [8]. It can be linked from a blurb, e.g. "A mass shooting kills eight people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States." wumbolo ^^^ 19:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Not really necessary: in the spirit of BLP1E, a local church should not be notable for a single event, and that alone wont' make it pass WP:NORG. --Masem (t) 19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • There is some coverage from before the shooting. Combined with the shooting, it should be enough. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support L293D ( • ) 19:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • BREAKING. TEN people were killed wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
AP says 10, BBC and Guardian say 11. (Added as sources above.) – Sca (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I posted with 11 as that is what the article currently says, sourced to CBS. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Wumbolo 's source at Twitter is actually AP. Sca (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. It's fairly obvious that this is going to be posted, so I don't see any reason to delay that given that the article is now in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Article well-updated, receiving a lot of press coverage globally. SpencerT•C 02:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: please wikilink Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha, article created by Yoninah. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Irish Presidential ElectionEdit

Article: Irish presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael D. Higgins is re-elected as President of Ireland.
Alternative blurb: Irish voters re-elect President Michael D. Higgins, and remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.
News source(s): . Guardian
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: The Presidential Election is ITNR, tho the Blasphemy Referendum is not. We probably need to wait for the official results later today before posting, tho the exit polls leave no room for doubt with winning margins of over 30% in both votes. Altblurbs may be wanted if one of the items is ready well before the other. P.S.: I'm also not sure whether this nom should not be for yesterday, when people voted and the exit polls were published in Ireland, rather than today, when vote-counting begins and is expected to be completed. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No need for two different processes be combined. Presidential election should be nominated separately likewise referendum. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've separated them. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I've added 2 altblurbs (altblurb1 with one main article, and altblurb2 with 2), just in case there are editors who think it makes more sense to post them as a single story (as I originally did, and as I may well come to think again later, tho at the moment I'm happy enough to have them separate, at least until I see how that works out).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The altblurbs could also be reworded something like "Irish voters re-elect President Michael D. Higgins, and remove the offense of blasphemy from the Constitution.", or shorter with "Irish voters re-elect President Michael D. Higgins, and remove blasphemy from the Constitution." Tlhslobus (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I've now added one of these as altblurb3 (although there are in fact 4 possible versions of this altblurb, with 1 or 2 main articles, and with or without "the offense of"). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I've now put two of these in place of my original altblurbs 1 and 2, as they're shorter and just as informative.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If desired, further altblurb shortening could be achieved by shortening his name, replacing "President Michael D. Higgins" by "President Higgins", which I've now done for altblurb3.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also added a shorter altblurb3 (there are other possible versions of this).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
No, since they've been separated they cannot be considered. We can't have 3 nominations about 2 events at the same time. –Ammarpad (talk)
I'm sorry, but since when did a lone editor get the right to unilaterally delete reasonable altblurbs, thereby unilaterally suppressing discussion of what is the best blurb for this item, purely on the excuse that somebody else has unwisely created an entirely irregular and hopeless nom somewhere else at their suggestion? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Therefore I have now restored these altblurbs, so that editors and/or posting admins, if they wish to do so, can discuss and decide what is the best blurb to use when posting the ITNR Presidential story, rather than have this unilaterally imposed on them by a single editor without discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
(Now reduced from 3 and then 4 very similar altblurbs, all created by me, to just 1, for reasons explained below).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination should be dated when the result is known. If there is no reason to doubt the exit polling, maybe it could have been dated yesterday, but today is fine too I think. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Alt-blurb 3 is a bit misleading - it makes it sound like the Irish constitution contained blasphemy. Smurrayinchester 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I entirely agree (and I much prefer the other options), but as common sense suggests that is probably not what it means, it might be acceptable to posting admins if needed to save space, which is why I've put it there. But if enough editors object, or any object strongly enough, then I myself have no objection to them adding back "the offence of ", leaving the removal of "Michael D. " as the only shortening.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
When restoring the deleted altblurbs (for reasons explained above), I put "the offence of " back in.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I've added altblurb4 to give the full range of options.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Smurrayinchester clearly indicated their support for including both articles in a single blurb yesterday (in effect a Support any of the current altblurbs subject to quality), but they placed their support in the now closed thoroughly irregular nom, so I've taken the liberty to copy it to here (on the other hand it seems impossible to know whether most opposes there were just opposes to a stand-alone referendum item, tho mine clearly was; the nom was closed on the basis that there was no support for a stand-alone item, among other problems):
  • While they should be nominated separately, they should probably have the same blurb (just as for a US election we would post "X is elected president and party Y wins control of the House"). Anyway, support when confirmed Smurrayinchester 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support any of the altblurbs as it's more informative to tell our readers there were 2 votes. I have a slight preference for altblurb2, then altblurb4, then altblurb1, then altblurb3 (followed by the presidency-only blurb if necessary as a last resort).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC) (Support switched below to blurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In terms of article quality, both Presidential election and Referendum articles now seem Ready to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(Incidentally I'm not sure whether this matters now or not, but both articles were originally part of this nom (and were both named in its original title) until the nom was split by another editor totally irregularly - and unwisely, since there was never any real justification for the second irregular, hopeless, and now closed nom).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To try to avoid further delay I'm Marking this as Ready. Please feel free to remove it if you feel this is premature.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ammarpad: Since you have removed the Ready flag two hours ago, please indicate why you think it's not ready and what more, if anything, you think needs to be done.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, this is an example of how not to nominate an article on ITN. Editors, for the most part, aren't particularly interested in ITNR election articles - let alone the relection of figurehead ones. Obfuscate that with an indirectly related event, add several virtually identical altblurbs and a one-person monologue is a good way to put more off. The low turnout gives a rough indication of the significance of the referendum (insulting religion), compared to the previous three (abortion, lowering presidential candidate age and gay marriage). Quality-wise for the election, there is no prose about the electoral campaign or debates. The article jumps from candidates to results, with a few tables in between. Fuebaey (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose election article on quality grounds per Fuebaey - there needs to be more prose throughout, and some of what is there doesn't belong (e.g. the procedure section belongs in an article about Irish presidential elections generally). Oppose the referendum as not very significant - Ireland holds more referendums than just about anywhere else so, unlike in the UK for example, simply having one isn't newsworthy. The turnout was low and the result was not surprising. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all mention of the blasphemy referendum - Not only has there not been a conviction under the 2009 act, there's not been any conviction for blasphemy on the landmass called Ireland since 1703. So in the Republic of Ireland, a state that is often described as having a historical domination by the Catholic Church, there's never been one person convicted of blasphemy. The vote on abortion was a change to an active situation in which Irish women had to travel to England to terminate, and changed a law that is widely attributed to causing a woman's avoidable death. In comparison, the blasphemy referendum is much less important and if it wasn't in a Western Anglophone country we wouldn't even know about it. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the helpful feedback, everybody, and apologies for taking up your time. I'm switching to support blurb below as a result. Re article quality, I don't expect to be doing anything about it myself, but I'm going to copy Fuebaey and Thryduulf's objections to the article Talk page, in case anybody there wants to try to fix it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (switched from support altblurbs due above feedback). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Removing altblurbs 2 to 4 to leave space for new altblurbs just in case anybody needs it; (leaving altblurb1 so people can still more or less see what the fuss was about, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: If you are changing your recommendation, please strike through all your other previous recommendations for clarity. Also, you do not own this nomination - either anybody can unilaterally remove altblurbs or nobody (including you) can. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've struck my previous support. I don't claim to own the nomination (tho, incidentally, if people don't own their noms, they presumably should not be allowed withdraw them, even tho they quite frequently do, and are allowed to do so). But I merely removed 3 of the 4 altblurbs, all created by me, and all basically slightly different ways of saying the same thing, at a time when nobody except me had expressed any support for any specific one of the 4 altblurbs, and when Fuebaey had made the perfectly reasonable point that there were far too many of them. I also left one of them "so people can still more or less see what the fuss was about, etc" (with that ", etc" being shorthand for ", and other reasons, such as that one other person has expressed support for having both stories, and others might wish to do so", as has now happened with ArionEstar below). That's quite different from unilaterally preventing discussion by removing all of them, and is more like slightly adjusting an altblurb that one has created. And it leaves room for others to put in their own adjustments, or entirely new altblurbs, if they wish to do so. However if you want to restore any of the 3 that I have deleted, please feel free to do so.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb Both events are significant. ArionEstar (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose election blurb on quality, per Fuebaey. A brief summary of the debates or other events is needed. Oppose blasphemy referendum on notability, per anarcho-authoritarian. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mention of referendum which is routine, lacks significance and not in the news. Also oppose the election on article quality. It needs prose, not array of tables of debates, opinion polling results and even whole election results, like a government website. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Ammarpad. (In case you're wondering why I'm thanking you, it's because I had asked you above for your reasons). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close as stale? No work has been done on the article since 14.55 yesterday (that is, since before there was feedback here, since copied by me to the article Talk page, on what still needed to be done). I don't know whether it's technically stale as there's seemingly still quite a lot about it in The Irish Times (perhaps because its print version doesn't appear on Sundays). But even supposing it's not technically stale, I'd be very surprised to see its quality brought up to scratch. I'd consider withdrawing the nom to stop wasting editors' time, except that it has already been pointed out above that I don't own the nom, so I'd prefer to leave any closure decision to some uninvolved admin.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd say this is nowhere near stale. Many news outlets may not publish this until today. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Support. Ok, so the article could be improved with more prose. But many readers will just want to see the basic facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Irish Blasphemy ReferendumEdit

(non-admin closure) Nobody, including either person who may have proposed this, supports a stand-alone posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 27 October 2018 (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: Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A referendum removes the offence of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.
News source(s): . Guardian
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The Presidential Election is ITNR, tho the Blasphemy Referendum is not. We probably need to wait for the official results later today before posting, tho the exit polls leave no room for doubt with winning margins of over 30% in both votes. Altblurbs may be wanted if one of the items is ready well before the other. P.S.: I'm also not sure whether this nom should not be for yesterday, when people voted and the exit polls were published in Ireland, rather than today, when vote-counting begins and is expected to be completed. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've separated the two nominations, as they are different processes. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • While they should be nominated separately, they should probably have the same blurb (just as for a US election we would post "X is elected president and party Y wins control of the House"). Anyway, support when confirmed Smurrayinchester 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Party and president are inherently related, that's not the case with a 'referendum'. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like a relatively routine removal of an outdated law, largely notable only because such a thing requires a referendum in the first place. Per the blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland article, "As of 9 May 2017, no prosecution has ever been brought under the 2009 act." Perhaps am I underestimating the effect this law has on Irish free speech, but at a glance it doesn't seem like this will have a major effect. Teemu08 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing this being reported in depth by mainstream sources. Routine amendment. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an entirely irregular nom, somehow credited to me, but actually created by 331dot in response to a comment by Ammarpad at the Irish Presidential Election nom of which it was originally a part. Once it got created by 331dot, I went along with it (perhaps unwisely) in order to be cooperative, and, as I said at the time, to see what would happen (and as far as I can see what is happening looks like wasting a lot of editors' time on something which seems very unlikely to succeed). Personally I do not think there is any justification for treating this as a separate nom from the Irish Presidential election, since I do not think there is any way of justifying posting it on its own, nor any likelihood of getting consensus for posting it on its own. If it were up to me I'd withdraw it, but I feel I probably can't withdraw a nom that I did not create. However it might be a good idea if some uninvolved admin Snow closes it on grounds of being an invalid nom that also seemingly has no hope of success. I can't do this myself, as I'm not an admin, and I'm involved, and this is not something so clear-cut that an involved non-admin should do it. Once closed (and perhaps even before that) I would expect or hope that either me or somebody else would add back my altblurbs referring to this item at the Irish Presidential Election nom, altblurbs that Ammarpad has unilaterally deleted. The point is that this nom makes no sense on its own, but it may well make sense to mention its subject as part of the blurb when posting the Irish Presidential Election per ITNR, and the question of what should appear in that blurb is a question for editors there to decide, and suggested altblurbs are not something that should be unilaterally removed by lone editors, thereby unilaterally suppressing discussion about the appropriate blurb there.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I have now restored the above-mentioned deleted altblurbs to the Irish presidential Election nom, and briefly mentioned the reason there. But I still think it advisable (perhaps even more so) to snow close the current entirely irregular and hopeless nom.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my above comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Request Snow Close of an entirely irregular and hopeless nom (which was NOT created by me), per my above comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (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.

October 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 26
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • Flash floods in southern Russia result in six deaths and one missing person. (WECT)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed as superseded) Mahinda RajapaksaEdit

(non-admin closure)Superseded by the Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nomination above --Tlhslobus (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2018 (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: Mahinda Rajapaksa (talk, history)
Blurb: Mahinda Rajapaksa is appointed Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.
News source(s): BBC Times of India
Nominator: Sheila1988 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating
 Sheila1988 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support very well written article, no problems visible. I have fixed a few incorrectly formatted references. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support WP:ITNR, article is good enough Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Striking per 331dot's comment that this isn't ITNR.
  • Oppose he was President between 2005 and 2015 and PM 2004-2005. I do not think it is an important investiture by someone who has already held the position previously. Alsoriano97 (Alsoriano97) 22:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because he's done the job before, doesn't make it less notable. We post many election results where the incumbent leaders or parties stay in power, and this is him taking the role again (which is more interesting than just keeping it). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. Needs a copyedit for stuff like " Basil was arrested in April 2015 for many corruptions." and missing refs. If we're going to blindly ITN/R post the appointment of a meaningless figurehead, the article can at least be in good shape. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't have time tonight, but with sections like "Allegations of war crimes" and "Election fraud" the article needs to be scrutinized for WP:BLP issues and WP:NPOV. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not ITNR; the Sri Lankan PM is appointed by the President, who is head of state and head of government. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose superseded by the Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nomination above. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2018 (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: Rudolf GelbardEdit

Article: Rudolf Gelbard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post (+ multiple in German)
Nominator and updater: Joseph2302 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent Holocaust survivor, died on 24 October Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nikolai KarachentsovEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2018 (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: Nikolai Karachentsov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RFERL
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been brought up to snuff. Brandmeistertalk 14:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two unreferenced sentences and an unreferenced paragraph in the "theatre career" section. There are two unreferenced paragraphs in the "film career" section. There is an unreferenced sentence in the "Injury, illness and death" section. Around half of the acting credits aren't referenced - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: all but 3 of the references are in Russian (and the 3 in English are primarily about his death) making it hard to very the article's contents. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you crazy? Since when does the language of references influence the decision to post an ITN note? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not seeing any unreferenced statements. Willing to mark those you allegedly saw with citation needed tags? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is well-written. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Several paragraphs end without a reference. Stephen 22:03, 29 October 2018 (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.

October 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 25
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Tyrone GayleEdit

Article: Tyrone Gayle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9] [10]
Nominator and updater: Wumbolo (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.

 wumbolo ^^^ 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Just one citation tag; once that is fixed it should be ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon YutuEdit

Article: Typhoon Yutu (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Yutu becomes the strongest tropical cyclone on record to impact the Mariana Islands.
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Category 5 landfalls are usually a guarantee for ITN-worthy impact, and this one is no exception. Given that the affected area is a relatively small US-territory coverage is nowhere near as wide as it should be (Hurricane Maria redux), so sources may be limited for the time being. Damage on Tinian and Saipan is among the worst ever seen in the region. This could need a reposting next week pending on impacts in the Philippines, but that's WP:CRYSTAL territory so just sticking to the Mariana Islands for now. Landfall was October 25 local time so adding it for that date rather than UTC which was the day prior. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support should but informative, no clear problems. I agree that the severity of the typhoon makes a compelling case for ITN. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose purely based on article quality; we need more of a lead than Typhoon Yutu (commonly referred to as Super Typhoon Yutu) was the most powerful storm on record to impact the Mariana Islands. Enough impact to support once the article is improved, though I expect we can come up with a better blurb. This will need an update if it's still on the main page when it hits the Philippines, China, or Vietnam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Still not perfect, but probably good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support a significant event though, per enwiki, the article quality leaves a bit to be desired. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Issues from the oppose has mostly been solved. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, marking "ready". SpencerT•C 04:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations -- (1) has since been renamed Typhoon Rosita, having entered a different zone of responsibility (will this lead to confusion by potential readers?), (2) blurb may need to be updated after (predicted per sources) impact with Luzon, Philippines on the morning of Oct 30 local time at similar strength (but not citing any possible future impact at this time per CRYSTALBALL). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. If the impact on the Philippines is as significant as predicted, open a new nomination then making it clear the proposal is to bump and update this blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cheam ChannyEdit

Article: Cheam Channy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Cambodian opposition politician. The article could use some more detail on his early life and career. I will see if I can find something - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-written & sufficiently sourced. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support well written, no visible problems. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Meets minimum standards and has consensus, but if anyone finds more information about his early life and career before the arrest, please add it in. SpencerT•C 23:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Oldest stone tools in North AmericaEdit

Consensus against this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (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: Settlement of the Americas (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Oldest Stone Tools Weapons Discovered
News source(s): [11]
Nominator: CaptainAhab1841 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: These are the oldest stone tools discovered in North America. Can somebody expand my point in this article? I don't have time.
  • Oppose, secondary sources are quite critical of every aspect of this story. The spearpoints are not the oldest, they are more primitive than expected. The tools are in a poor state, broken and probably don't explain the things the authors want them to explain. The dating is suspect, as is the soil stratification. Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive Good faith, and it's certainly interesting, but this find is not confirmed to be as exciting as the nomination would suggest. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:01, 26 October 2018 (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) Sakharov PrizeEdit

unimproved, stale. Stephen 23:14, 30 October 2018 (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: Sakharov Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Jailed Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov wins the Sakharov Prize.
News source(s): France24
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated for the same reason as last year's nom. Will support if Oleg Sentsov is the bolded article. Banedon (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Sentsov's article has some issues, such as poor wording. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I agree with sentiments of Banedon and AusLondoner, but the winner is now bolded and the quality is good enough for me.ghost 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
OH YEAH, article should mention he won. Whoops. ghost 12:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bolded article does not have a sufficient update with the recent events. It doesn't even mention anywhere that he won the prize. I would expect a minimum of a paragraph in the body of the article describing him winning the prize, the reasons for it, and the implications of it, and a sentence in the lead to summarize. The last events mentioned in the article are over 1 month old. --Jayron32 11:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    No-one said it was updated. You could probably have done it in the time it took you to lay out what your requirements were. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
irrelevant to main discussion. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I am not asking for this to be posted on the main page. --Jayron32 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    Who is? I'm simply providing a service that notifies interested parties that this ITNR item has rolled round again. And there I was thinking it was all about the quality for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think we're done with this conversation. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Several issues with the article including its very title. This is not a biography, but a story of trial and jailing. –Ammarpad (talk)
    • There are quality issues on the article, but it does seem like the reason he has been given this award becuase of his arrest and protests from within captivity; I would expect a significant section to be about that on this article. --Masem (t) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This quite plainly is not a BLP1E seeing as how his film Gamer, which was shown at several international film festivals, was released in 2011, three years before his arrest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. Lepricavark (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated per Jayron32. Consider this a support if the article is updated with recent info, particularly more information regarding his winning of the prize. FlipandFlopped 03:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose but only because the BLP appears to be a story of a trial masquerading as a bio. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2018 (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) Sahle-Work ZewdeEdit

Article: Sahle-Work Zewde (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ethiopian members of parliament elect Sahle-Work Zewde (pictured) as the country's first female president.
Alternative blurb: Sahle-Work Zewde (pictured) becomes the first female President of Ethiopia
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Robbyyeb (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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: First female president for Ethiopia. Article has referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Question isn't this ITNR? Banedon (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is ITNR as an election/appointment of a head of state. Article is satisfactory, but could do with expansion and more refs. AusLondonder (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in no fit state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    You could probably have done it in the time it took you to lay out what your requirements were. --Jayron32 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    Here you go Jayron, since you seem confused by what the basic ITN requirements are, the big orange tag pretty much covers it for me: This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Let me know if you need anything more on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    I was thinking it was all about the quality for you! --Jayron32 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, you seemed confused about my "requirements" which (to me) seemed obvious enough in that the big orange maintenance tag, by default, prevented this from being promoted to the main page. If that's not clear enough for you, let me know. I can give specifics, upon request. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is extremely sparse, and has no where near enough information to be posted on the main page. I would expect someone who is the head of state of a country to have a fairly well documented life in reliable sources out there somewhere. Find those sources and use them to expand the article to include a relatively complete biography. A few 1- and 2- sentence paragraphs is in no way a comprehensive representation of available text out there. --Jayron32 11:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment in case you're wondering "The President of Ethiopia, officially the President of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia is the head of state of Ethiopia. The position is largely a ceremonial one, with executive power effectively being exercised by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia." so this technically is ITN/R -- which is objectively broken for this criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The target article needs non trivial editing to even be assessed. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is quite poor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support first female president for Ethiopia and actually the only female head of State in whole Africa. --Holapaco77 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
As it's ITNR you don't need to support on notability - it has to be posted provided article quality is brought up to scratch.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Now fully referenced and ready to go in my opinion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quality now seems OK to me too. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked as Ready. With 2 editors assessing this ITNR item as good to go, an assessing admin can presumably either post it or remove the Ready flag if they think it's not in fact Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has the bare minimum of content, but what's there is adequately written and sufficiently referenced. I've added a more concise altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    I added a photo. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. The picture can be added when it gets protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talkcontribs)

October 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 24
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) Hurricane Willa and Tropical Storm VicenteEdit

Articles: Hurricane Willa (talk, history) and Tropical Storm Vicente (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Storm Vicente and Hurricane Willa impact Mexico, resulting in at least 20 deaths.
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)
Updater: Figfires (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: LightandDark2000 (talk • give credit) and Hurricanehink (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Quick succession of tropical cyclone impacts with widespread damage and loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support but suggest reversing the two (chronological order). Dunno how much more about the Vicente impact could be said there. --Masem (t) 17:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Swapped them around; I'm working on expanding Vicente's article now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant natural disasters & the articles look good Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both articles are informative, and thought shorter than I'd like I see no problems with either of them. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Large death toll and the articles are in decent shape, though maybe some of the paragraphs could be split for the sake of readability? 01:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this looks like it's been ready to post for around 30 hours...... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James KarenEdit

Article: James Karen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I don't love the current formatting of the filmography section, but there are no apparent sourcing issues, and the article is ergo good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No visible problems with the article (although I agree with Stormy clouds about the formatting of the filmography section, I don't think this should prevent a posting). --DannyS712 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been ready to post now for about 9 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Carmen AlborchEdit

Article: Carmen Alborch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Alsoriano97 (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: Spanish actress, former Minister of Culture and pioneer of feminism in democratic Spain. Had been very beloved by the socialists during her life. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose: article too short and has two uncited paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait article is short (stub) and uncited, but has potential, especially as a result of her recent death. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Request close clear consensus (IMO, as an involved editor) against this nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If it's not improved in time, it'll be closed as stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose more than a stub but poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose This article is very short and does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Suspicious packages interceptedEdit

Closed. It's posted, the opposers have opposed many times in many ways, if there are issues, take it to errors. Re-open if you think you can get it pulled. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2018 (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: October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Suspicious packages believed to contain explosives were sent to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, CNN, and others as part of a series of mail bombing attempts.
Alternative blurb: ​Packages containing pipe bombs are mailed to notable U.S. Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, George Soros and others.
Alternative blurb II: ​A Florida man is charged with having mailed pipe bombs to notable U.S. Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, George Soros and others.
News source(s): CNN, Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, everything in between USA today, Washington Post, CBS, FBI, AP, BBC, Guardian
Nominator: 98.118.32.140 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: All over the news, and there are multiple instances makes this significant 98.118.32.140 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. First, we'd need a separate article, but even if one existed, these having been found and extracted before they could do any damage makes it sort of a non-event at this point. --Masem (t) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Re-Opposing on the re-opening of this. Again, nothing happened, the packages were intercepted. If there was a plot, wait for the FBI and authorities to figure it out and arrest and convict that person(s), at which point that might be ITN. --Masem (t) 05:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      • To add further, the article now is reflected the spot-market sensationalism of the media here; the media is blaming Trump, Trump is blaming the media, and our article has far too much detail on that back-and-forth. That's exactly the type of stuff RECENTISM tells us to avoid. So the article quality is not there either. --Masem (t) 01:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no article, no sources (links) given. If the sender is found, and an article is created, I'd likely support that proposal, but in this current form I can't. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose I have no article to assess the quality of. You can't post nothing on the main page! --Jayron32 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC) striking and revoting below per article being written. --Jayron32 10:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article, and even if there was one, the news is still unfolding with the Secret Service saying there was nothing sent to the White House. Nihlus 15:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if they'd exploded and killed Obama and/or the Clintons, I'd consider changing my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
And having considered, you might then conclude that just made 3 deaths so posting would just be yet more pro-American bias (unless ex-Presidents are ITNR, in which case post Obama and Bill but not Hillary)   Tlhslobus (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I think that the assassination of two ex-Presidents and one failed-wannabe-President would probably be sufficiently notable for a blurb. Some potentially hazardous hate mail is definitely not and is being overplayed by the US media and Trump in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL again, TRM - and thanks, I may just love your above use of the word 'probably' even more than your previous use of the word 'consider'.  Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There's still no there there; "undelivered packages don't explode" is roughly akin to "dog doesn't bite man" as far as a lack of newsworthiness. If something more develops we can reconsider, but I don't see any reason to post this now. The bad image layout on that article is, separately, reason enough to oppose in my view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment – 'Bombs fail to go off' is not an ITN story. I suppose big-time political notables such as ex-presidents get all kinds of crap mailed to them. Sca (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a stub at 2018 explosive device incidents. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Post-close oppose - Did anyone die? No? Then there's no there there.--WaltCip (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-close comment - The article at October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, which documents this story, is no longer a stub. Since there is now an article (not a draft or a stub), @Ammarpad: would this warrant re-opening the discussion? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This discussion should be reopened and I support posting. It's a decent quality article at one day old and it's domestic terrorism in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712: When I closed this, there was no article at all, it was stated almost an hour later. Now reopened, though I (personally) think it's unlikely to pass. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: I completely understand. I wasn't suggesting that you closed it improperly. I just thought that, as the original closer, the question of reopening should be directed to you. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have updated the nomination with an altblurb and sources. I support this nomination, but would also support a nomination to ongoing about the ongoing FBI investigation. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose No bombs went off. No one has been hurt. I may be open to reconsidering this once more information becomes available and as the situation develops. But right now, I don't think this rises to ITN level. I recall some recent instance where ricin was sent to prominent Republicans. The letters were all intercepted and it was handled with minimal fuss. I don't recall any ITN nominations, which I would have opposed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article's stil pretty low grade, "man doesn't open parcel" is not ITN-worthy, and, frankly "it's domestic terrorism in the United States" has to be one of the most bizarre rationales ever—as if such a phenomonen was rare as unicorn dung.——SerialNumber54129 06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is a huge difference between 'believed to be containing' and 'containing', so there's practically no proof that someone's life was threatened. But even the containment of explosives was proved, no strong reason appeals to support this with no casualties at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This kind of thing really isn't unusual; high-profile public figures get all kinds of crap sent to them all the time, and normally it wouldn't even be reported. The only thing out of the ordinary here is that in this case one of the packages forced the evacuation of a TV studio during a live broadcast, and as a consequence more people were aware of it than usual. ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb obviously, this sort of thing certainly does not happen "all the time" on the scale of this incident, in western democracies. The article is in decent shape, item is in the news, law enforcement is calling them pipe-bombs now, there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS so that argument can go straight in the garbage where it belongs. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should change the blurb to "The Donald calls for peace and love" as that really is unusual?   Tlhslobus (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I guess I'm missing something but it seems to me that someone or some group trying to kill several former and current government officials(mostly or totally on one side of American politics), media staff of one outlet, and putting US Mail staff and the staff of the officials at risk seems important to me. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is good, story is a top story on many world-wide news outlets. --Jayron32 10:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many of the above at the moment. It may develop into something more later, in which case we should re-visit, but news story of "no-one hurt in bomb scares" is a fairly lame line at present. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing exploded, no-one was hurt. This is something for a police investigation, not an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am wondering what "WP:MINIMUMNUMBEROFBOMBSMAILED" has to be to merit posting. We aren't talking about one or two, but a clear coordinated effort to harm many liberals/Democrats, including Robert DeNiro as discovered this morning- an effort that Mayor De Blasio in New York calls terrorism. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    I would probably support if we reached WP:MINIMUMNUMBEROBOMBSEXPLODEDANDKILLEDOBAMA >=1. Otherwise, these are just futile (and clearly incompetent) attempts to upset people. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Now De Niro has been targeted. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
De Niro is the tipping point? Really?--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears so. You don't mess with Travis Bickle. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support as nominator, also now Joe Biden is on the list. 98.118.32.140 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You are the nominator and so already assumed to support your own nomination. You cannot !vote again.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – With Biden and DeNiro having been targeted, this is looking more newsy. It bears watching. (Cancelled my oppose above.)Sca (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As we have a pretty good quality article, the story is developing and readers will be looking for the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought the article was surprisingly good quality and the event has been in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is good and very much in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Can anyone find reports of a credible trigger? Without one the risk of harm is quite minimal. ghost 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's all that relevant. The quality of the article and the significance that reliable sources have given this is what we're assessing. Either the sources are or are not covering this story, or the article is or is not up to quality. Specifics of the story are probably best discussed in other venues, such as the article talk page, etc. --Jayron32 16:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's the difference between someone hanging a noose from your tree and putting it around your neck. It's the difference between trying to kill someone and making a political statement. Given so much opposition is tied to body count, the INTENT of the perp and the RISK to targets are incredibly relevant. ghost 16:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, whoever is sending these parcels is clearly completely incompetent, once they start exploding we'll have a reasonably interesting story. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Except we're not assessing how interesting the story is to us. We're assessing how reliable sources are covering the story. --Jayron32 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't be silly, if that were the case then we'd be publishing every iota of Trump's "reign" thusfar. We need to apply some common sense filtering to it, that's what the community are here to do. Once something actually happens that's of note, we should publish. Until then, this is all a load of bluster, pretence and propaganda. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually we wouldn't, your unfounded insistence that we would to the contrary. Saying it over and over again won't make it true. --Jayron32 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course we would. Publishing the same old Trump tripe time and again because the article is of sufficient quality and it's in the news? What junk. Try WikiTRIBUNE if you want a ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape, this is an unusual event, gaining global coverage, and targets are high profile. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support GMGtalk 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The article is pretty good, and this has been all over the news. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I've heard, the White House was not a target of the attacks, but today Joe Biden and Robert De Niro were targeted; the blurb should be corrected. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. We rarely post blurbs about terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, so posting an attempted assassination of extremely high-profile people in the U.S. is extremely U.S.-centric. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No, this is unusual – and high-profile. Sca (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    • (1) Nominate any Middle East-related terrorism articles you want. Their posting or not being posted has no bearing on this discussion. (2) The U.S. is part of the English-speaking world and quite relevant to the English language Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    • We post terrorism stories from the Middle East and Africa all the time like the attack on an Iranian parade just last month. Come on man. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      • You mean the actual attack where actual people were actually killed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – IMO, one or two new instances of bombs sent to notable Demos would push this into ITN territory, but it's not there yet. Sca (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Eleven. Sca (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
According to PBS News Hour, the total of intended recipients is eight. So I must revise my answer to nine. Sca (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      • As noted, since they're so incompetently put together, they're more like "pipes with bits of glass and pieces of timer together with some tape that don't even go fizz, let alone bang". I'd say the minimumpipebombs needs to actually act like a bomb, rather than a mild inconvenience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Yep, they're actually pipe bombs. [12] --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's time for you to pipe down. Sca (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Historian said, that Assassination attempts are unprecedented - [13]. 46.71.90.245 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but one problem is that the alleged eminence of historian Douglas Brinkley is denied by some in his bio article, and secondly he seems more interested in attacking Trump than in trying to be an impartial objective historian, which may help to explain the third problem, which is that his claim of unprecedentedness is based on his assertion that this is an attempted assassination of two ex-Presidents, but neither our blurb, nor our current article, nor the Washington Post article that we are currently using in our sources even mentions Bill Clinton, presumably because the parcel was addressed to Hillary (so if Bill died he would presumably just count as collateral damage, as there's no clear evidence the bomber was attempting to assassinate him).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Assassination attempts are unprecedented"? Unprecedented means "never done or known before": there have only a few presidents assassinated and a stack of attempts (several since 2000), so it's hardly "unprecedented". - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but in fairness to the IP, s/he's just slightly misquoting a historian's (pretty dodgy) claim that these particular assassination attempts are unprecedented - any blame seems to rest far more with that historian than with the IP. For all I know, it's even possible that some parts of that historian's claim are right, tho enough of it seems wrong for it to be pretty worthless, at least in my eyes. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy, ok article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (1) is the article of sufficient quality? Yes. (2) is there objectively a high level of coverage of the article/event in international news media? Again, yes. As I've said before, if these criteria are met then we should not decline to post due to editors personal (and biased) opinions about which news is the most newsworthy. FlipandFlopped 03:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose who cares? No one even died Openlydialectic (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, enough people care that it is being reported... or, "in the news", rather. Since when did ITN officially correlate newsworthiness as being based solely on death tolls? FlipandFlopped 03:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A case of domestic terrorism that has caused no deaths. Too much Americentrism. This is not USApedia. - 39.57.149.65 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support on notability (I leave article quality for others to judge). It's arguably somewhat overhyped, and quite likely not unprecedented (as I've partly discussed above), and nobody has died (at least not so far), but even so it is at least a rather rare example of the at least apparent attempted assassination of a rather large number of assassination targets, some of them of very high notability. And it's also clearly in the news in both America and abroad. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we posted the Congressional Baseball shooting under similar circumstances of a failed politically motivated assassination (I don't think we should have, but just highlighting the precedent) - however, this is, at present, just an interesting story with minimal lasting substance. No harm done, no lingering impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    "Lingering impact" is not a criterion at ITN, as it would necessarily require a WP:CBALL. We also posted the stabbing of a Brazilian politician last month, so as you point out, precedent favors posting. Clearly a successful attempt is more notable than a failed one, but that does not mean that an attempt cannot be notable itself. ghost 14:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As the initial hysteria is winding down and the substance based reporting has begun, I think we can now see that the devices were credible[14]. The chance of success is not really at issue here; a person who pulls a gun on POTUS is very unlikely to get a clean shot off, but we're going to post it anyway. ghost 10:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 – With Cory Booker, we're over the top. Altblurb 1 offered above. (AP, BBC, Guardian added as sources above.) Sca (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: "12th suspicious package found ... addressed to former director of national intelligence James Clapper" – Washington Post. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
PPS: They've arrested a guy in Fla. No details yet. Sca (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think that we can say in good faith that this isn't in the news and the article quality meets our typical standards. Teemu08 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be fine with supporting a genuine assassination attempt on a suite of the most widely known US political figures. The trouble is the article does not make it clear how credible of an attempt this really was. At least one of the packages had no trigger; many others did not reach their destination. How much beyond run of the mill hate mail really is this? Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    If you fire a gun at someone, and miss because you're a bad shot, you're still trying to kill them. Someone who mails a bunch of pipe bombs to people, but where the pipe bombs aren't skillfully made, so thankfully no one gets hurt, is no different. If your standard is "show me they were trying to kill these people", well, they were. They mailed pipe bombs. Admittedly, badly made pipe bombs that did not kill as intended, but again, that's no different than a would-be assassin who is a bad shot. What you're arguing is that the person who missed their target when they fired the gun did so intentionally, and not merely because they were a bad shot. I'm not sure how we could prove such a shooter was intentionally missing. --Jayron32 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Preliminary details about the suspect reveal it's a nut with a history of petty criminal convictions. Not exactly what comes to mind when it comes to visualizing a hardened terrorist bent on carrying out a comprehensive assassination plot. I stand by my oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, failed domestic incident involving an incompetent wannabe. Game over. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close or post? So I think we're done...? I think we have consensus that A) the credible attempted murder of 8-12 prominent members of one one political party is blurbable, and B) the perp is not a good bomb maker. But there's some debate about C) if poor technique renders the attempt "non-credible" and D) if an attack on this scale is nevertheless blurbable even if its chances of success are minimal. ghost 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like only one guy was arrested. I doubt there's going to be much consensus to post after this. The only reason to post that I see is that the targets were high-profile, but does that mean that we wouldn't post if they weren't high-profile? That is systemic bias unless we give more weight to politicians who are in office. And the numbers people above keep repeating include a lot of former office-holders. The only victims who are in office at the moment are one Senator and one Representative. Not 10 and not 12. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: altblurb1 does not link to article; accordingly, I'd like to suggest to whomever closes this that "as part of a series of mail bombing attempts." be added to the end of the list. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Link to article added to Alt1. Sca (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This was the attempted murder of 13 high profile people, why does someone need to be dead for inclusion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 – The suspect has been charged. Thus, Alt2 offered above. This is obviously the No. 1 story in the English-speaking world today and is likely to continue as such through the weekend. Sca (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Sca: I have formatted Alt2 so that the link to the article is formatted as an inter-wiki link rather than a url. Is this okay? Also, I support Alt2. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks. Sca (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we're done here, the greatest show not on earth concluded with a meaningless arrest following some bits of glass and wires being sent to various anti-Trumpists. Next. The Rambling Man (talk)
Sca (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ummm.....this doesn't take away the fact that 14 h14 now high profile people had received pipe bombs. This was large enough to effect an entire nation and get worldwide attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Thankfully no one was killed or injured, so I am not seeing the significance of this. A nutcase does nutty things and is thwarted by the authorities is the ultimate result. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape and this incident has received wide coverage. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - there *might* have been some legitimate reason to oppose it a few days ago. This is no longer the case. And per User:EtienneDolet. Volunteer Marek 06:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too localized to the United States; if this resulted in death or damage (thankfully, it didn't) it might be a bigger deal but, given the daily bombings elsewhere that actually result in death and damage, elevating mere threats to the main page seems Americentric improperly weighted (by way of example, just today five people were killed in a different bombing [15]; I don't support, and wouldn't nominate, placing that ITN and therefore can't in good conscience support something in which no one was even injured) Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Chetsford: As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." At least 14 high profile people got mailed bombs, putting thousands of people at risk(postal workers, staff of the targets, etc.). How many does it have to be to be notable? 331dot (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If there are bombings occurring that you feel should be nominated, feel free to do so. We can't evaluate what isn't nominated. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
331dot - thanks for the reminder. I've refactored my !vote. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Twitter was complicit in terrorist threats made by the suspected perp. wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • As soon as the story starts going there, with all the blame pointing about why this type of person existed or why people didn't act to stop him, it becomes a non-story for purposes of WP w.r.t. to NOT#NEWS and NPOV. This is the type of story that WP cannot cover well due to RECENTISM issues with analysts and talking heads rather than facts and undisputable statements, and makes for a terrible quality article for ITN. --Masem (t) 13:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still in the news on Saturday. Since this nom. was reopened, I make it 18.5 supports to 10.5 opposes.
    Needs attention. Sca (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt 2 (but with a significantly trimmed list of names) and dated 26 October for the day the suspect was charged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    You missed the two most important ones: Maxine Waters and Cory Booker. They are the only ones currently in office. wumbolo ^^^ 18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Wumbolo: I just took the first three in the list here, and I don't think there should be any more than three in the list, I also don't propose to keep changing it so I suggest you propose at WP:ERRORS (where changes to posted blurbs are best discussed) which set of three you would prefer and when there is consensus for particular set it can eb changed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think WP:ERRORS would probably quite rightly tell them it's not an error. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment probably the most poorly constructed blurb ever posted. Firstly, we never post people who are "charged" with things, we always wait for conviction. Secondly, this "having mailed" construct is particularly gruesome. Next, "notable"? REALLY?? And then this odd "including ... and others", and no serial comma?? Appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
See discussion of syntax at WP:ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Not necessary, it's clear that this is ground-breaking in its lack of quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do we never post charges? It's a verifiable fact cited to multiple WP:RS that he's been charged with the crime. Something wrong with that? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Being charged is not the same as being guilty of the crime. Only time we'd likely post an arrest/charge if we were talking a sitting world leader or the like. --Masem (t) 00:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support an orchestrated attempt to assassinate numerous high-profile individuals. Lepricavark (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • One person acting alone is not "orchestrated". --Masem (t) 01:13, 28 October 2018 (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.

October 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 23
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Max WebbEdit

Article: Max Webb (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Connormah (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: Philanthropist, holocaust survivor. Article in good shape. Connormah (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Skip CampbellEdit

Article: Skip Campbell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Former Florida state senator and sitting mayor of Coral Springs. Date of death not confirmed but announced on 24 October. I have taken a run through and added missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Sun Sentinel has the 23rd [16], with staffers speaking to him and Gillum commenting on his death the same day. ghost 13:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice work, could you add it to the article? Unfortunately I can't read the Sun Sentinel page, they seem to be blocking access from Europe over GDPR - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I found confirmation of 23 October in the Tampa Bay Times so I have updated the article and moved this to the correct date - Dumelow (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good work. G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good quality article, no visible issues --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been ready to go for about 8 hours and 58 minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment another three-and-a-half hours has passed. Is there a good reason that a more recent RD was posted earlier but this one was not, when both were marked as (Ready)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau BridgeEdit

Article: Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge, the world's longest sea crossing, is opened.
Alternative blurb: ​The Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge, the world's longest crossing over water, is opened.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jojoyee (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The bridge will have significant impact on transportation in the area, connecting three major economic hubs. EternalNomad (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Quiet iconic and in the news, but the article has some sourcing issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Just seen this on the BBC. Some issues in the article, but they can be fixed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Notability seems undeniable, but the article needs a good copy-edit. There are issues with tense, missing articles, etc. ghost 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, as a world-leading piece of civil engineering, but oppose on quality. There are lots of {{cn}} tags, unreferenced sections, ongoing split and move discussions etc. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the sourcing issues are worked out. The first 2/3rds of the article seem to be in decent shape, but it goes rapidly downhill from there. If someone could get on the last part of that article, fix the numerous problems, I would remove my opposition. --Jayron32 12:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: Done a number of edits and hopefully the numerous problems have been solved. Jojoyee (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in theory, looks like major world news. shoy (reactions) 13:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - the "Proposed Effects" has exactly one source that I Can see, inappropriate for a section that long. (But this is an important section so just deleting it to "improve" is not going to cut it). --Masem (t) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently there are 11 citation needed tags. Additionally, the subsection regarding logistics does not cite any sources at all. However, once these are fixed I would support the nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality (see below) - I tried to clean up the article a bit, removing unsourced opinions and added source, but the article needs substantially more work before it gets even close to ITN quality. -Zanhe (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability per Modest Genius and others. I leave it to others to decide about quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "Proposed effects" section is pretty much entirely unreferenced. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-blurb 1. Engineering marvel. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be good if the world's longest bridge was actually noted and referenced in the actual article. Stephen 02:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait The opening of the bridge is definitely ITN worthy, but the article isnt quite there. Yet. Therefore, wait for the article to be cleaned up. QuantumFury (talk) 3:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eleven paragraphs lacking a single reference Stephen 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I guess this is what happens when you don't have buy-in from all the stakeholders; nobody feels like writing the Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - significance is clearly there, sourcing is clearly not. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - C'mon guys, every article is work-in-progress. STSC (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Cleaned Up - Done a clean-up to the article. Take a look. Jojoyee (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Great work Jojoyee for fixing the big mess. Article is ready, please post ASAP before this goes stale. -Zanhe (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, this looks good enough now. Ready to post. Modest Genius talk 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

October 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 22
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Gilberto BenettonEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (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: Gilberto Benetton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Edwardx (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: Co-founder of the Benetton clothing firm. Article is short, still a stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait the article is currently a stub, and needs to be expanded before it can be posted. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has only seven sentences in it. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale I have marked this as stale, since the oldest RD currently listed is from the 23rd, and this RD is from the 22nd. Please let me know if I did this wrong, this is my first time being WP:BOLD and performing a "non-admin closure". --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2018 (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.

October 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 21
Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Ilie BalaciEdit

Article: Ilie Balaci (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Romanian footballer and manager. I have been through and added some missing references, just looking for one for his career stats as a manager - Dumelow (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Idris Legbo KutigiEdit

Article: Idris Legbo Kutigi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Article might still be a little short but I am expanding it - Dumelow (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – Pretty stubby for Main Page material. Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nearly not a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi TRM, Sca. I have added some more material that I think might push it over the line. Would you mind taking a fresh look? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Support good expansion, I made a few tweaks (including removing the "Living people" category and including the "2018 deaths" category"). It's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support short but decent. Vanamonde (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Taiwan train derailmentEdit

Article: 2018 Yilan train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 18 people have been killed and 137 more injured after a passenger train derailed in Yilan County in Taiwan
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Szqecs (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Joseph2302 (talk • give credit) and PotentPotables (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Still a stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Support once the blurb has been corrected for target location and death count. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - That there is another rail accident currently on ITN should have no bearing whatsoever on this getting posted. Sometimes these things happen in twos or threes. Let's stick to whether or not this is "in the news" (it is), and whether or not the article is up to scratch (it isn't at this point in time). Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article has been bashed into something resembling a shape now. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's barely above 1,000 characters still. That wouldn't even be allowed at DYK, and their standards are below-basement.... (p.s. who mentioned any issues because of another rail incident being up there??) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The article is still being worked on, and will expand. Nobody mentioned any issues of another rail accident. As it was likely that someone would object on those ground, I thought I'd get my 2p worth in first. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, your support made me look again, but it still wasn't ready, so that was a bit of a waste of time frankly. We shouldn't be supporting stubs for main page inclusion, no matter what our involvement or interest is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is growing all the time, almost 2k now. And covers all the main details as currently known. The derailment is also clearly notable enough for ITN. And similar size to Hennenman–Kroonstad train crash when it was accepted here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article has been expanded and will probably continue to be as new information becomes available. Certainly a notable disaster. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks pretty good, and a train accident, nevermind the death toll, is usually pretty rare and newsworthy -QuantumFury (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted a modified blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joachim RønnebergEdit

Article: Joachim Rønneberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Norwegian WWII army veteran. Article is of good length and sourcing appears adequate - Dumelow (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 20
Disasters and accidents
  • Four U.S. tourists are killed in Costa Rica after a rafting accident on a swollen river. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) 2018 Sagay massacreEdit

Article: 2018 Sagay massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine sugarcane farmers are shot and killed in Sagay, Philippines.
News source(s): ABS CBN News
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)
Updater: BSrap (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article is in good shape; major incident in the ongoing land disputes in the area. EternalNomad (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support I can't find news of this without searching for it, which is normally a dealbreaker for me, but then it has been 3 days. The article is pretty great for an event that just happened. I note that Duterte has visited the site, which lends it significance. ghost 12:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support despite having just occurred, the article is in great shape. 23 references, not a single citation needed tag, and, though short, has enough content to explain the event. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 12:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just copyedited the article—it badly needed it. It also needs clarification and context for people who don't follow Filipino politics if anyone here can provide them (EternalNomad?): what land reforms are going on? Why is the Duterte administration being accused? what is current public sentiment on the CPP? What's the drug war connection? etc. I've put some potential sources on the talk page. FourViolas (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) BepiColombo launchEdit

Article: BepiColombo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European and Japanese Space Agencies launch BepiColombo, a set of two probes that will perform fly-bys of Mercury and Venus
Alternative blurb: ​The European and Japanese Space Agencies launch BepiColombo, a set of two probes intended to study the planet Mercury.
News source(s): New Atlas, NYTimes
Nominator: Floydian (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Floydian τ ¢ 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I know arrivals of probes are ITNR, but I wasn't sure on the precedent for launches of probes. It's the last in a series of missions. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, the article is in a good shape and it will take 7 years until it gets to Mercury. Now is a good time to post. --Tone 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is fine, and agree that as the next major event is 7 years from now, we can post that news again then. --Masem (t) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notability/quality, but blurb does not seem to capture the substance of the mission. Even "...probes that will study Mercury" would be better. ghost 15:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added other links, and added altblurb per ghost above. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability and quality per everybody above. I much prefer altblurb per ghost. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zheng XiaosongEdit

Article: Zheng Xiaosong (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, SCMP
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (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: Top official in Macau, died after falling from a building, possible suicide. Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Quality seems adequate to me (tho we might ideally want one or more second opinions, especially as I've done some work on it myself).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Incidentally, since the nom mentions a possible suicide, I'll briefly mention here that the BBC and the Independent are skeptical about such alleged suicides, tho this seems irrelevant unless we were considering a blurb, (for which I see no current justification, unless and until there is perhaps RS evidence that he is an exceptionally or uniquely high-ranking 'suicide', or perhaps some seemingly as yet unreported international dimension perhaps due to Macao being a former colony of EU member state Portugal, or perhaps some as yet unreported link to the arrested Chinese former Interpol chief which we posted recently, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ready: Marking as Ready - it looks ready to me, and since nobody has yet posted a second opinion either way in the last 12 hours, rather than leave it to go stale, I guess either an admin can now post it, or they or anybody else can remove the Ready if they are not satisfied. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter KwokEdit

Article: Walter Kwok (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (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: Hong Kong billionaire. Zanhe (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I took out a couple of sentences in the lead which weren't substantiated in the main body, otherwise looks OK- Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatyEdit

Clear consensus against posting at this time (and this has been open nearly 24 hours). This could change if and when the withdrawal actually occurs. Vanamonde (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2018 (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: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Trump announces the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces arms control treaty, citing alleged violations by Russia.
Alternative blurb: Donald Trump announces his intention to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces arms control treaty, citing alleged violations by Russia.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Arguably one of the two key pillars of modern arms control (the other being New START) that still prevent the world from sliding into a new nuclear arms race, so it's a huge deal. Also, all over the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2018 (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) People's VoteEdit

that's enough. Discussions have devolved to standard nationalistic sniping. Discussions over wording of the blurb are ongoing at WP:ERRORS. --Jayron32 16:00, 22 October 2018 (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: People's Vote (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over half a million people from across the UK attend a People's Vote march in London (pictured) protesting against Brexit.
News source(s): BBC News, NBC, Times of India, New York Times, Al Jazeera
Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Big event in the UK, supported by sources across the globe. I have to admit I'm not optimistic about this getting through, but if you don't ask, you don't get Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support significant turn-out, but per the nom, pretty much guaranteed to fail in these parts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant new turn in the Brexit saga.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the biggest demonstration about Brexit so far. Current organisers estimate 700,000 (compared with "over 1,000" at the "May Means May" gathering in Harrogate). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support easily, since we generally have posted national protests that exceed 100,000 ppl. Would like to see more about the planning of this one, as gathering 700,000 on a seemingly arbitrary day is not something happens spontaneously. --Masem (t) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable, even has its own dedicated navbox footer, also based on vast size --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant march with a very high turnout. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Someone update the image, please, the current one is about to roll off. --Tone 06:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. The local image is protected, there isn't a Commons version ATM. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So much for the belly-aching about the fears of not getting this item posted. Is this the equivalent of a WP:SNOW posting?--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Nominated 20:09, last vote in 23:47, posted in 06:31. Almost 4 hours worth of votes. Winter is coming. By comparison, the Women's March was indeed posted, but in much contentious discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Yup, Women's March was far from unanimous, and as you know, there's no minimum time here, but I note that it was very generously allowed to stay "ready" for six hours to allow those on the other side of the world to posture, absolutely none of whom did, let alone oppose. Everything is fine. And yes, winter is coming for some of us, so WRAP UP warm! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per above. Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process, when that's obviously not true. I hadn't heard of this event before seeing this nom, but I judged it on the news sources listed (and more that I found after looking it up) and the quality of the article. I wish U.S. stories with the same level of coverage would get the same fair treatment. Davey2116 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process heh! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The nominator said nothing about Americans. Nominators can have all sorts of reasons for pessimism. If I'd been the nom I'd probably have been more worried about opposition from Brexiteers than from Americans (or other non-Britons - incidentally, I'm Irish, not British, and not American either despite recently being implicitly accused of exemplifying ITN's alleged Pro-American bias  ). And as it turns out my worries would also have been unfounded, but that's not really the point. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Your worries may be founded after all, as there seems to be some late-breaking opposition to this posting over at WP:ERRORS, mostly over the authenticity of the numbers of those attending.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (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.

(Stale) RD: Wim KokEdit

Article: Wim Kok (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NOS, RTL Nieuws
Nominator: Blafzak (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: Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1994 and 2002, well respected throughout the Western world. He was PM during the legalization of same-sex marriage (first country in the world to do so). --> --Blafzak did say 19:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose several completely unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose still in poor shape, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • How so? He only died two days ago. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
      • More than three more recent deaths already posted, so even if the article was improved enough (which is looking unlikely at the moment), we wouldn't kick a newer one for an older one. This does happen sometimes when there's a glut of notable deaths. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Jamal KhashoggiEdit

Article: Death of Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Blurb: Jamal Khashoggi (pictured) is killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul.
Alternative blurb: Saudi Arabia announces that Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, and detains 18 suspects in the death.
Alternative blurb II: Saudi Arabia admits that Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on October 2, and detains 18 suspects in the death.
News source(s): [20]
Nominator: Wumbolo (talk • give credit)
Updater: Javert2113 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Extremely significant death. After all, it has its own article now. Some have speculated that it will end up in sanctions, or even another proxy war. Ongoing item will have to be removed. wumbolo ^^^ 11:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Since this has already been suspected since he entered the consulate and never left, I propose an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, Alternate blurb would be better, but looks a bit long. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb2 Huge news Openlydialectic (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Wait – Obviously the No. 1 story today, but the Saudis' explanation of a "fistfight" seems somewhat implausible. Perhaps wait until the Turks tell all? – Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    Saudi Arabia is not a living person, so there's no need to censor yourself; this explanation is clearly bullshit. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
But the 18 persons who have been arrested are living persons? As far as we know, none of them has yet been charged with any criminal act? Bone-saw or no bone-saw. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The blurb doesn't allege that they are the perpetrators, just that they were detained and charged for it. Notice that they aren't named (even though Wikipedia has articles about some of them, with photos). wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
They've been formally charged? With what? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems that they haven't actually been charged with anything. I'm not familiar with Saudi Arabian laws. According to the U.S. embassy, Suspects may be detained without charges or legal counsel, and with limited access to a consular officer, for months during the investigative stage of criminal cases. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment already listed in Ongoing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course it can. Just ask Franco. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The story would be removed from ongoing, added as a blurb (which I btw support), and if it still meets ongoing status when it gets pushed off as a blurb, perhaps readded there. No one is calling for duplication. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
→ It seems highly likely that more info will be forthcoming, so IMO it's still premature for ITN. Sca (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The next step is a legal conviction, which will take months, and will certainly not gain consensus to be posted. wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the next step would be the release of detailed evidence by Turkey, which would certainly be ITN material. Sca (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (though I'd want to see the article's name stablized before posting), with the pulling of the ongoing for this. Having Saudi Arabia admit its wrongdoing is basically a point of closure on this. I am sure there will be additional repercussions but the issues around this situation was the denial the Saudis insisted on creating international tension. --Masem (t) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support: Story has major geopolitical implications. Support ALT1 blurb and removal from ongoing Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we really 'know' (whatever 'know' 'really' means) that he's dead? As Altblurb1 (our seemingly currently most objective blurb on offer) seemingly implies, all we have is a Saudi statement which most people describe as 'incredible', 'bullshit', etc, while simultaneousy accepting it as 'proof' that he's dead. How can we be sure that saying he's dead (and killed unintentionally) isn't simply less inconvenient for the Saudis than a hypothetical scenario in which for instance he's actually still alive and still being interrogated and tortured? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The scenario you're describing is just so unlikely under the circumstances that, if what you were describing was the case, it would be newsworthy in its own right - like a reveal that Elvis Presley is still alive somewhere.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
In this case I doubt they'll find much in the trash cans? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, which have helped me make up my mind. This case is not remotely comparable to Elvis, for whom we have a mountain of RS confirmation that he is dead. For Khashoggi, if this were an RD proposal, I would at least half expect a few opposes on the basis that the 'reliably sourced confirmation' part of Criterion 2 ('Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.') had not clearly been met. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks. The alleged unlikelihood of my proposed alternative scenario, besides actually being a great deal less unlikely than Elvis being alive, is not particularly relevant since nobody is suggesting posting it (it's merely there to explain to unquestioning believers in the Saudi claim one possible way that the claim might be untrue, quite possibly among several such ways, as well as to elicit further info to help me make up my mind how I should vote, which it has successfully done, as the responses have now helped convince me to oppose). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb1, pull from ongoing as per above.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Bits continue to appear – this is still a developing story, i.e. still ongoing. Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: No doubt this observation will draw fire from someone, but FWIW, as of 17:45 non-English European Wikis continue to omit the Khashoggi story from their ITNs. – Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to post a blurb, then the ongoing is not appropirate. if the blurb rolls off the list and the story is still developing significant, then re-adding may be appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moving from ongoing to blurb and remove the "detains 18" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and keep in Ongoing. This happened ages ago, so it would already be superseded before it was even posted. Keeping it in "ongoing" is the best approach here as it's a slow-burn story rather than anything particularly having happened in the past 24 hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It "happened ages ago" only because the Saudi government wouldn't admit it. That makes it somehow less significant?? I am dumbfounded by that argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's not insignificant, but it happened two weeks ago so is no longer a recent story. We have three stories dating from the 17th or later, which supersede Khashoggi's death because they happened later. We can't remove those stories to post this one. That's the rules of ITN. The only recent development is the admission of the Saudis that he's dead, but that's just a small piece of a long slow burn story. Which is exactly why it's in Ongoing, covering every development over a period of weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's definitely newsworthy and I think pushing it out to a blurb will finally see it drop out nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Announcing that he was killed (without additional explanations in the blurb) would seem accurate without POV, and then it can return to Ongoing as it slides off the template. This is a significant development that I think would be the only posting related to his death relating to his case. Other updates would stay in upgoing, barring additional major diplomatic fallout. SpencerT•C 21:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and Keep in Ongoing at least for the time being (and Strongly Oppose any blurb that states he is dead, as distinct from merely reporting the Saudi claim that he is dead). We already have him quite satisfactorily at Ongoing. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks, along with some evidence (see replies to my question above) that at least some editors here seem to think that any skepticism about the Saudi claim that he is dead is on a par with believing that Elvis is alive (ironically almost everybody also seems to think that every other part of the same Saudi claim is 'bullshit', 'incredible', etc). Of course, probably like most people, I think that he is very probably dead (tho I can't be certain of this, and I've already offered in my above Question one (arguably very unlikely but) possible scenario for how it might not be true). But ITN is not the place to post 'Most people probably think Khashoggi very probably is dead'. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error. However in practice this now temporarily forces me to conditionally change my !vote to supporting altblurb 1, if that is what's needed in practice to get the current (at least in my view) unsatisfactory wording out of Ongoing, and the assessing admin should please interpret my !vote in that light. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • All blurbs state the truth, that the Saudis have stated he was killed. That is fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The original blurb does not say that. And ALT blurb II seems to assume the death is a fact. For some reason, folks seem reluctant to believe the claims made by the Saudis? Even if they were happy to accept the claims previously made by anonymous sources. I guess Tlhslobus might be satisfied by the video and audio promised by the Turkish government. I'm surprised he doesn't !vote "Wait". It's still very much "in the news", of course, whether or not the death itself can be seen as "a fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, Martin. I agree that Alt blurb I states the facts (whether these deserve to replace Ongoing with a blurb is a separate question). TRM's claim that the main blurb (and probably also alt blurb 2) is also 'fact' would be liable to lead to screams about WP:OR and/or WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV if it were used in an article, so it would seem very unwise to use either at ITN, probably at least as long as there are still a significant number of WP:RS that are still exercising caution. I've now added the words 'at least for the time being' after my !vote as (possibly useful) clarification in light of your suggestion that I should have !voted 'wait' - but it's unclear precisely what we should be waiting for. We're hardly going to be posting a blurb saying 'A consensus of ITN editors agrees the number of Reliable Sources still exercising caution about reporting Khashoggi's death as a fact, while still not yet zero, has fallen to a level so insignificant that the consensus is that it no longer requires to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV and UNDUE rules'  . Meanwhile we still have it in Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of a blurb saying "Video and audio evidence, published by the Turkish government, shows that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't even read the main blurb, mea culpa, but the others report the truth. I would advocate that the ongoing be changed to "death of .." per the initial report here, especially in the face of the news from the Kingdom. However it happened, it's pretty clear he's dead, per RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's pretty widely reported that he is dead. I'm not sure anyone has seen anything that would remotely pass as "proof" of this in a court of law. But then an actual body is not always required. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yep, just look at this where there's no question over him being "dead". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Switching from my earlier Oppose, as a google for "Reported death of Jamal Khashoggi" (in quotes) for the past 24 hours gives just 2 items, while removing 'Reported ' from the same search gives at least 10 pages of items. This seemingly means that there is no longer a sufficient minority of RS exercising caution about whether his death is a fact to require that caution to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV rules. Any of the blurbs will do, tho the altblurbs are more informative, and either altblurb is about equally acceptable to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Martinevans123 and The Rambling Man for their helpful comments.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, per comments above by TRM and others, I'd also prefer to see references to the alleged detentions either reworded in the altblurbs to something like "and says that it has detained ..." or removed from them altogether.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. They changed the story: [21] wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, so no gentlemanly fisticuffs after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Wrestling moves such as chokeholds presumably date back at least to classical antiquity in the ancient Olympics, but it may perhaps be a bit too soon for jokey public pseudo-discussions about the social class (or alleged lack thereof) of the alleged killers to be deemed to be in publicly acceptable taste, so maybe I'd better not say any more on the subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the original stories just said "fight", probably because the official statement just said "fight". Someone added the "fist" later, presumably to not confuse readers who think a fight is talking loudly, tweeting often or having cancer. But who would do such a thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, October 21, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful links, InedibleHulk. Surprisingly poor English for an official Saudi statement on such a seemingly key topic (says I, in a clause that lacks a verb, followed by an ungrammatical combo of 3rd person verb and 1st person pronoun  ), tho ultimately that seems irrelevant to us here. But I note that none of our proposed blurbs mention fights or fists or chokeholds, so this whole discussion is perhaps seemingly veering a bit too much towards WP:NOTFORUM (with perhaps me among the worst offenders  ). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose But move to recent deaths Abote2 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Inconclusive follow-up stories continue Sunday — AP, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters keep in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The instructions for this page ask "Please do not... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support As noted above, a death should not be left in ongoing. This has attained far too much coverage and is too unusual to be relegated to RD. If it turns out that Khashoggi is still alive somehow, that would be an even bigger story and we'd post that. Any of the blurbs are fine for me. Davey2116 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question How many times are we going to keep moving this nomination up the ITNC date queue? This nomination is, or should be, stale. Yes, you can also call this an oppose on those grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think that's the point, this is the end game, so moving it to blurb now means it will gravitate off. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm pretty sure a death qualifies as something significant that should be separate from ongoing, and this is pretty "In the news", as well as factoring in the political consequences QuantumFury (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, with a bare-bones blurb (removed the bit about detainees). There is consensus, albeit a weak consensus, for this item. First, this nomination is about the announcement of his death by Saudi Arabia; arguing that this is an old story is, therefore, a weak argument in my assessment. There is not consensus on adding the number detained, but that does not affect the rest of the blurb. Also removed from ongoing, obviously. Further discussion about the wording of the blurb is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. Actually the consensus doesn't seem particularly weak to me - I currently make it 11-4 (or 12-4 counting the nom, and it's seemingly even stronger if we discount votes without a supporting reason). That's quite a bit above the 2 to 1 we normally deem a consensus. Your wording also seems fine to me, and in line with the facts and with the previous discussion, so Post-Posting Support on wording. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, if this isn't a clear consensus, I'm not sure what is. Perhaps there's something else we're not seeing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: since you asked; the 11th support was added as I was writing my closing rationale, which I did not bother to amend, since it did not affect the eventual outcome. Also, while the quantum of support does matter, !votes without supporting rationales are usually not very helpful, especially when the nomination itself did not address the question of why this should be posted now (which is a slightly different question from whether it should be posted at all, as it already had been). Vanamonde (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus, rather than a "weak" consensus, whichever you look at it. It's a shame that this specific admin has been making up its own narrative. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On, the other hand, AP today quotes Erdoğan as saying Turkey will reveal full details of its investigation on Tuesday, Oct. 23. — Wait. – Sca (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

About time you started using conventional markup, your odd symbology makes it too difficult to respond. But in this instance, no. We don't hold our news to wait for his lord almighty Erdogan to reveal jack shit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Your tone is disparaging, but not new. – WP:CIV
Direct, yes, disparaging, no. We simply aren't going to "wait" for the ever-sparkling Erdogan's "big reveal". That's not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Jack Shit – very insightful.
Well indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll use whatever symbology seems to me to be most effective, Jack. Sca (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
No, best if you use conventional markup, like the rest of us. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, Sca's earlier 'wait' !vote was already counted above among the 4 against (just in case somebody was mistakenly counting this latest 'wait' as a new !vote against). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
What would be wrong with that? – Sca (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 19
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) October 2018 migrant caravanEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:43, 22 October 2018 (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: Central American migrant caravans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thousands of Central American migrants gather on the Mexican-Guatemalan border during the second 2018 Central American caravan.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Vami_IV (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There are not hundreds of migrants, there are 3000 and counting, waiting to get into Mexico. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would have to be Ongoing; I don't see the importance or the article quality to justify that at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now. Article qualityBabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It should be nominated for ongoing since this is not one-off event but the article needs more content even for that. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure of the ITN significance here. Article quality and length is also not main-page worthy in my view. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support interesting phenomenon, all over the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly not all over the news, and by the look of the article, almost a footnote in this ongoing silliness perpetuated by bonkers governance. Add it to the list. Perhaps we should have a "Top Trumps" list on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (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.

(Stale) RD: Tom DelahuntyEdit

Unfortuantely this was nominated too late and is already stale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2018 (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: Tom Delahunty (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [22]
Nominator and updater: Joseph2302 (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: Died 14 October, article is up-to-date, albeit quite short. We've published similarly sized articles to RD in the past Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is stale; the oldest RD on the current main page is from the 16th. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (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) Not exercising is worse than smokingEdit

Winter is coming. Brandmeistertalk 15:15, 20 October 2018 (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: Exercise (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Not exercising is worse than smoking
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Truly shocking result, e.g.: "Comparing those with a sedentary lifestyle to the top exercise performers, he said, the risk associated with death is "500% higher."" and ""People who do not perform very well on a treadmill test," Jaber said, "have almost double the risk of people with kidney failure on dialysis."" Count Iblis (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose everybody already knew that not exercising was bad for you. I don't believe CNN is not a reliable source for this type of coverage; they will reliably over-promote minor results of this type. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • CNN is reporting the publication of a report in JAMA (this one, I beleive which I believe would fall within WP:MEDRS. We do expect any scientific or medical advance story to have some mainstream coverage to show the journal topic is "in the news", but obviously we're using the journal article for the accuracy, not the mainstream media. --Masem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not groundbreaking, and also for something like this, we should probably be using medical standard reliable sources, which CNN definitely isn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITN material. And there has been no update to the target article so there is nothing to link to in the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not a major revelation. Non-exercise and smoking are both bad, just their relative "badness" was not objectively determined before. It would have been much more shocking if exercising was considered worse than smoking, for example. --Masem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on merits. However I am not sure the target article has been adequately updated for this blurb. Otherwise I would note that the target article is in very good shape. As someone who does not get even remotely adequate exercise, and who also enjoys cigars... this was a bit disturbing. I should probably do something. Maybe update my will. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course you could also simply ignore it, on the basis that worrying about it may cause you health-damaging stress, which might be a lot better for the finances of the so-called 'health' industry than for your health.   Tlhslobus (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Apart from all the other objections above, this seems like the usual quasi-POV scare story based on undiscussed questionable stats supporting an established orthodoxy that inevitably also supports plenty of vested interests (many of them part of a 'health' industry that makes more money out of us when more of us are sick, but still expects us to unquestionably accept its advice about how to avoid getting sick). And so far it's just a single study that has not yet been criticized (or at least not in this CNN article), let alone replicated. But we are told: "Researchers retrospectively studied 122,007 patients who underwent exercise treadmill testing at Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2014 to measure all-cause mortality relating to the benefits of exercise and fitness. Those with the lowest exercise rate accounted for 12% of the participants." I've highlighted the word 'patients', which shows that all the people in the study were already sick in some way, and thus not representative of the population at large, even tho nobody (or at least nobody in this CNN article) points this out to CNN's readers. Common sense should tell you that the sicker you are the less well you will usually be able to perform on a treadmill; and, at least according to I-forget-which recent BBC programme, this wouldn't be the first time that public health has been harmed by propagandists blaming ill-health on lack of exercise instead of the other way round. And of course I have no way of knowing how many other possible flaws are not being pointed out to us. Notice also the POV CNN headline ("study reveals" instead of "study reports" or "study claims"). And all this also ignores how beneficial this kind of distracting scare story is directly to institutions like the tobacco and sugar industries (and thus also indirectly to the so-called 'health' industry thru ensuring it gets paid by more people suffering from smoking-related and sugar-related illnesses, etc). And so on. It's not part of ITN or Wikipedia's purpose to facilitate maximizing the profitability of such dubious scare stories. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Classic trivia. Better suited for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it would be such a good idea for us to publicize it thru DYK either (tho this is the wrong forum for such a discussion).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't - you'll enjoy your ciggies a lot better if you stay away from the jogging, and it will also save you from all the free radical damage that exercise (allegedly) causes to your body.  Tlhslobus (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting. Does this mean we can have a cheeky cigarette here and there as long as we get some exercise? AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2018 (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) 2018 Amritsar train accidentEdit

Article: 2018 Amritsar train accident (talk, history)
Blurb: A train runs into a crowd celebrating the Dusshera festival in Amritsar, India, killing more than 50 people and injuring 200.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Leaky.Solar (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support one of, if not the, worst rail accident in the world this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, just give the news sources a few more hours to narrow down facts and figures. No question this is ITN. --Masem (t) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question can someone tell me how a car accident which kills 20 (the worst in nearly a decade) in a country with relatively good safety and a comprehensive article gets sent to AFD and eventually closed at ITN, but a train accident in a country where transportation safety is sub-par, the article is sub par, and the accident isn't even the worst in India in the last two years get sped to the main page? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at the article for this yet, so no comment on that aspect, but the only thing comparable between this and the New York state car crash is that they both involve people dying as a result of a mode of transport. Cars crash all the time, frequently killing people while doing so. Trains do not hit crowds of people with any regularity - in fact I can only find three incidents in the past 10 years, all with significantly lower death tolls: 2008, India (16 killed); [23] 2010, Spain (12 killed); [24] 2013, India (28 killed). [25] I'm also not seeing why you think this is being "sped" to the main page? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • To me, accidents involving mass transport, which generally are public or corporate-run, are going to garner a lot of more long-term attention as there will be detailed reviews to try to determine the cause and how that can be remedied to prevent future accidents in such forms. Accidents involving private, non-mass-transport vehicles are not going to have the same rigor and follow through in terms of investigation and resolution. --Masem (t) 20:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the answer is that the car crash should have been posted as well, but that's been and gone now. This one is clearly notable, though. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
      • +1 The hasty AfD nom for the Schoharie accident, as well as a still-unresolved (shouldn't be, but no one's closed the discussion yet) move request, probably did more to kill that article's chance of making ITN than any discussion here. I'm still working on the article for DYK, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @LaserLegs: Do you realise that you're being incredibly petty and not supporting your cause at all? We posted Hurricane Michael (which killed people across Central America) only after it arrived in Florida, with a blurb which pretty much left Central America as a second thought. Your claims of anti-American bias are paranoid Trump-style bullshit with zero basis in fact. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to be adequate and I expect will be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per Ad Orientem. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support very clearly notable. This is quite possibly the worst train crash of the 21st century in terms of fatalities to non-passengers. The article is in adequate shape considering the sources presently available. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Jesus Christ... Openlydialectic (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no issues currently visible on the page, definitely ITN worth and significant. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment unanimous support and ready to go (has been for quite some time). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I know I was one of the supporters above, but there are many supporters, no opposers and it's been marked ready for about 12 hours already. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Severe flooding in Texas kills at least two people and damages dozens of houses. Weather forecasters predict that more rain will come and possibly flood hundreds more houses. (CBS News)

Science and technology

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Åke OrtmarkEdit

Article: Åke Ortmark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [26]
Nominator and updater: BabbaQ (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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support article is very weak but what's there is ref'd, so it's passable (barely). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quiet short, but looks good. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support short, but not a stub. And well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ayub BachchuEdit

Article: Ayub Bachchu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Daily Star, Times of India, Dhaka Tribune
Nominator: Nafsadh (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: One of the most prominent rock stars of Bangladesh, though C class article --nafSadh did say 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose mainly unreferenced and poorly written. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose mainly per TRM. Article needs some copy-editing and better referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Works section needs sourcing, copy-editing needed, short information on career and overall poorly written. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is poorly written and should have more inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: N. D. TiwariEdit

Article: N. D. Tiwari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose rather oddly, amongst a predominantly well-referenced article, there sits a whole section without citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man:: Odd, I swear I referenced that section. Just added sources so article should be ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Support all fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Better referenced now, but sensationalist language in the controversies section that needs fixing ("He disgraced himself and the office of Governor by involving in a sex scandal..."). This is still covered by BLP. Also contains some bad grammar. Vanamonde (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Dick SlaterEdit

Article: Dick Slater (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People[27]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (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.

 ghost 12:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support mostly very well referenced and okay presentation, a few uncited claims, but only a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment generally well-referenced, but relies on wrestling websites for the material on the stabbing and shooting in "Personal Life". Two of the three links therein are also dead. Vanamonde (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Assassination of Abdul Raziq AchakzaiEdit

No consensus to post an assassination at that level. Stephen 22:54, 21 October 2018 (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: Abdul Raziq Achakzai (talk, history) and Zalmai Wesa (talk, history)
Blurb: Kandahar police chief Abdul Raziq Achakzai is killed in a Taliban attack.
Alternative blurb: Kandahar police chief Abdul Raziq Achakzai and governor Zalmai Wesa are killed in a Taliban attack.
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Conflicting reports whether the latter was killed or injured, but in either case this is a major attack on notable officials. EternalNomad (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only I don't see where this exceeds BAU for the ongoing conflict. If the attack itself was significant, or the target particularly well known or high-ranking (federal Minister, leader of parliament), a case could be made. ghost 11:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local police chief doesn't rise to the level we usually expect for a death blurb, even in this particular manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well, this may qualify as the first honest day's work the Taliban have done, but as far as officialdom goes, I don't see Raziq as being sufficiently notable to qualify; although the article's not in bad shape, considering it's such a recent event. ——SerialNumber54129 11:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose these articles specifically, would support an article on the attack itself if it were of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but fine for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Zalmai Wesa is too short for RD: Abdul Raziq Achakzai is okay for length but is dominated by negative material. It could still be okay, but it needs more scrutiny; there has been insufficient discussion of article quality above. Vanamonde (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. We normally discuss significance first, and then quality second. Keep up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (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) US Leaves Postal UnionEdit

No consensus to post this; it may be posted when and if it actually occurs. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2018 (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: Universal Postal Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US withdraws from the Universal Postal Union
Alternative blurb: ​The United States announces its intention to withdraw from the Universal Postal Union
News source(s): [28]

Nominator's comments: Seems like an interesting note, the US leaves a treaty union after well over 100 years due to concerns that they are subsidizing cheaper imports from "developing" countries.
Oppose Blurb is misleading. Trump has proposed a renegotiation of terms, after which the U.S. may pull out. This will begin a one-year withdrawal process, as set forth in the UPU Constitution. During this period, the Department of State will seek to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements that resolve the problems discussed in the Presidential Memorandum. If negotiations are successful, the Administration is prepared to rescind the notice of withdrawal and remain in the UPU. It's a notification of an intent to maybe pull out after January 1, 2020. --Jayron32 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. This is similar to Brexit. The US announced it's leaving. It's possible that they rescind that if they get good terms, but the fact is that they started the one year mandated process to leave. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron.--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above and we can safely close this. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait What is certainly 100% factual and true is that the United States is filing notice that it will withdraw from the UPU, but I suggest waiting until it actually happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per LaserLegs and Jayron --DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. If/when the US leaves it might be worth posting. Starting the leaving process is just the first step. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2018 (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: Lisbeth PalmeEdit

Article: Lisbeth Palme (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (TT via Aftonbladet)
Nominator: Bruzaholm (talk • give credit)
Updater: BabbaQ (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: Psycologist, former chairman of the Swedish UNICEF committee, and widow of late Swedish Prime Minsister Olof Palme, survived the 1986 Assassination of Olof Palme. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment: No doubt notable enough, but the article is short and in rather bad shape. It needs to be fixed before posted. --cart-Talk 12:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose take out the tangentially related shooting info (which is unsourced) and you have a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. The article lacks depth in covering enough of her life story. --Jayron32 16:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Weak support following expansion shown below. Just a question, why the italics in her name in the lead paragraph? That seems non-standard formatting for Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a stub-class article that has a section that lacks inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - after improvements and expansion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks better now. Now the focus of the article is on her, as it should be. cart-Talk 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 18:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ara GülerEdit

Article: Ara Güler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Spiegel Sabah
Nominator: ----Yerevantsi (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: Renowned photographer ----Երևանցի talk 14:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support he appears quite notable. I've fixed up the reference issues. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article still needs work on referencing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article's "philosophy of photography" section needs more inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 17
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Geoff ScottEdit

Article: Geoff Scott (footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: English footballer (Stoke and Leicester), article is short but appears adequate - Dumelow (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attackEdit

Article: 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Russia kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​An attack on a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb III: ​A school shooting in a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
News source(s): TASS, UNIAN, AP , BBC, dpa
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Many deaths. The region has been recently on the news and multiple scholars suggest a hot war there can start any day now, some might even suggest this here is a provocation to get a casus belli for a full-scale war Openlydialectic (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the nomination, but if it does get posted the blurb should say 'Kirch, Crimea' without specifying that it is in either Russia or Ukraine. The Russian annexation has not been internationally recognised and Crimea is still claimed by Ukraine. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Also Crimea is much more informative for the reader. I've added 2 altblurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, using altblurb 2 until it becomes clearer whether this is political terrorism, or just a US-style non-political mass shooting by a suicidal person, of the kind that we frequently hear from elsewhere, especially from the USA (I leave others to judge target article quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Please consider striking "US-style" in the interest of CIV. ghost 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, failing that, consider making it "U.S.-style" in conformance with U.S.-English usage. Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL, Sca, you wicked U.S. cultural imperialist.  Tlhslobus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it should be fairly obvious to most editors that I was not intending to be uncivil in any way, but the fact remains that at least most non-Americans (and I suspect most Americans too, incidentally) tend to hear such stories coming mainly from America, so it seemed (and still seems) a short and relevant way to make more understandable what I was trying to say in a somewhat delicate area (what is and is not described as terrorism is often a political and civility minefield, quite possibly also in this case). I have now struck the allegedly-offending phrase as requested, and have instead said roughly the same thing at much greater length (along with this even longer explanation), and consequently with slightly more accuracy (and thus perhaps also slightly more 'sensitivity'/'civility'). But I hope I am not unwisely setting an unfortunate precedent in which fear of getting accused of possible incivility by those concerned for the sensitivities of the possibly hyper-sensitive (but not unduly concerned about the effect of such accusations on editors at the receiving end, and the consequent damage to things like ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain productive editors) ends up greatly increasing the difficulty of saying perfectly reasonable things here, as well as further damaging ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain editors, contrary to the aims of WP:WER. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If I thought you intended to be uncivil, I would never have asked you to strike it (if a certain other editor had said it, I wouldn't have wasted my breath). Stereotypes come from a grain of truth, but they're still hurtful. As this shows, nasty stuff happens everywhere. The U.S. can do bad all by itself; citing us in an event elsewhere seems like piling on. ghost 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's just forget about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm also striking 'especially from the USA', as it no longer matters whether people understand what I'm talking about or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – "Terrorist" may be mistaken. AP and BBC quote Russian officials as saying the attack was perpetrated by an 18-year-old student, one Vladislav Roslyakov, acting alone. Sca (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: "A polytechnic" won't be understood by many Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest "a technical school" or "a vocational school." Sca (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, some of us older UK editors remember polytechnics, before they were all turned into universities overnight.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In Canada, any child old enough to watch television is officially refreshed on the École Polytechnique massacre at least once a year. Some might not wonder what those words mean the first time, or even the second. But eventually, we all speak the same language. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-2 - certainly in the news, but it's better to err on the side of caution and simply label it as an attack, as the motivation is not fully clear at this time. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Since we have two mainstream RSs quoting officials, perhaps we could make it "An attack by a student...." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notable evet, this is not an often thing in Russia. 46.70.144.68 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Now dpa quotes investigators saying "an attack at a college in Crimea is no longer being treated as a terrorist incident" but rather as a lone-shooter rampage. Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I omitted "terrorist" from the blurb, and made a few other tweaks for clarity. --Jayron32 16:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada marijuana legalizationEdit

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: Legality of cannabis (talk, history)
Blurb: Canada becomes the second nation to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana.
News source(s): BBC News, CBC News
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

 NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posted back in June when the legislation was passed. -Masem (t) 07:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw My bad. Personally posting it now would've made more sense in my opinion, but what's done is done. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2018 (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.

October 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 16
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Berthold LeibingerEdit

Article: Berthold Leibinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): photonics.com
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (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 inventive engineer who made a small company big, wrote a dissertation at age 84, was a patron of many things, received many awards, including the tolerance prize from the Jewish Museum in Berlin. - I found the article with one ref, that for his death, and 3 maintenance tags. I did what I could. Many details and awards could be added, some from the German WP, some from the many obituaries (I picked one in English), if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ismail AmatEdit

Article: Ismail Amat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Daily, CGTN
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (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: One of the highest ranking Muslim and Uyghur politicians in China. Article is full sourced. Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, no question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this one looks like it's been ready for about 30 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian KiernanEdit

Article: Ian Kiernan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support Meets minimum standards, but there's about the same amount of content regarding his sailing career (3 sentences) as his DUI (2 sentences): would like to see more about his career sailing. SpencerT•C 23:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced but needs more work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready for RD, so post. But needs more work overall to not risk AfD nom in future.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Dee HuddlestonEdit

Article: Walter Dee Huddleston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but very well sourced. No visible issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) India guru Rampal sentencedEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:52, 21 October 2018 (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: Rampal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for murdering five women and an 18-month-old baby in 2014.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of five women and an 18-month infant in 2014.
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Elton-Rodrigues (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: May have referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have added blurb 2. The article is fully referenced with in-line references from RS. This is a big news. --DBigXray 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All I'm seeing is a local murder case with no major impacts. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. We post convictions, not sentencing. That said, would this be like a Catholic Bishop being convicted of murder? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think the gurus were that organized, this may be more like David Karesh. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Conviction was 10/11, FWIW, but we can post whenever we damn well please. The right time may vary by the nature of the case and the local judicial system, and there's no need to let precedent prevent us from improving WP. For my part, I think the initial arrest (and rioting) might have been blurbable. I'm sorta meh here, but I won't oppose. ghost 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We posted the Larry Nassar sentencing; I'm sure there are other examples.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally ITN has required at least a conviction. That doesn't preclude posting at later stages if that's when it's in the news. Modest Genius talk 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We posted nearly every update in the Oscar Pistorius saga. The time to post is when the item is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Reply/Comment): Not really like a Catholic Bishop, as he's his own boss. And not exactly like David Koresh, due far fewer killings but far more followers. BBC says India has tens of thousands of gurus, and this one has tens of thousands of followers, which suggests he's slightly more popular than the average guru, but not particularly special. The BBC adds he'd be unknown to most Indians were it not for the murder charge. To me at least, it looks a bit like an Indian version of the OJ Simpson celeb murder trial, except that OJ was an A-lister before the murders, whereas this guy was a Z-lister, but one with some followers prepared to do a bit of fighting in his defence. I'm not sure whether any of this gives it encyclopedic value or not, so when in doubt stay neutral, which is what I'm currently planning to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Feedback withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article needs refs and a copyedit. It's interesting, he was convicted of murder for deaths that occurred during clashes between followers and his police -- but the article has no details on that incident. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    A little context. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    The worlds leading search engine returns relevant content about a specified search term? TRM I'm shocked, I had no idea that was a thing. Thank you so much! --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No need to be a smart arse - you said "not seeing this in the news", turns out it is. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I look to the aggregators bing and google news to see if it pops up in the feed (I browse in-private so there is no bias to my previous activity). I didn't see this conviction. Then I read the article, it says he was convicted of murder and provides no details of the murder. An oppose double-whammy for me. --LaserLegs (talk)
Over-trumped your pointy bollocks. Shame, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Again, obviously you didn't look very far as numerous articles, such as this one from the BBC, give details of the conviction. AusLondonder (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The answer, LaserLegs, is that you listen when people tell you it is in the news, and especially you LOOK at their sources. Merely because you aren't looking in the news sources covering this, like the two noted in the template, doesn't mean it is. The world is a big place. Sometimes people who aren't you know different things. Your own lack of knowledge is not justification for making decisions. Your own refusal to accept knowledge people are directing you to is also not hopeful for your ability to contribute. If you want people to take your opinion into consideration, you need to make it clear you are basing it on knowledge and not deliberate, willful ignorance. So long as you continue to make it clear that you intend to vote based on your own refusal to look at sources people are showing you, that vote will be given zero weight in the final assessment. I am only telling you this because you appear to want your opinion to count. It will not if you keep down this path. --Jayron32 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tlhslobus is correct. He came in the news only because his followers started firing at the police who had come to his ashram to arrest him (it took police a few days to enter his ashram). Before this event, most Indians didn't know about him. --ASF23 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (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.

October 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 15
Armed attacks and conflicts

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) European floods & Hurricane LeslieEdit

Articles: 2018 European floods (talk, history) and Hurricane Leslie (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, amid a series of floods responsible for more than 30 deaths in Western Europe.
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, causing 15 deaths and injuring almost 30 more.
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Leslie makes rare landfall in Portugal, it also brings flash flooding to southern France causing at least 13 deaths.
News source(s): (AFP)(AFP)(The Standard)(BBC)
Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This event is significant for a number of reasons. First, Leslie is the first hurricane to make landfall in Portugal as an extratropical storm so close to hurricane strength. Second, the floods which have killed 13 in France and 12 in Mallorca (Spain) are significant in their own right. More details on the flash floods in France and Hurricane Leslie are available from Dr. Jeff Masters' meteorological blog. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:681D:8AA9:61D6:7201 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Tentative Support on importance; the article could use some cleanup/expansion before posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Updated article, but concerned that there are three weather patterns causing floods that just happened to occur at similar times, rather than a coherent period of flooding. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Hurricane Leslie, but Oppose European floods. I agree with nom that the Hurricane Leslie article is significant. It is also well referenced, detailed, and even contains relevant images. The European floods article, on the other hand, has a few problems: potential original research, a third (3/9) of the references aren't in English, and is merely a list of floods that may not even be related (see the talk page). Accordingly, I would support the current blurb IF the link to the European floods page was not bolded (and thus not a main article) but just linked to. (I didn't make an alt-blurb given how minor this change is). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There are not any European floods! There are some unrelated local events, but nothing on continental scale. (We pray for rain in Central Europe!) That beeing said. Article about Hurricane Leslie is in good shape and describe very unusual (once per 100 years) and sadly also deadly metorogical event. So I support only its nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jenda H.: I have created altblurb one that reflect my comment above, and I believe that it also reflects your comment here. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This is better. But majority of casualties in France was due to record flooding. So it is not just about wind as blurb suggest. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb per Jenda H. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Hurricane only. --Jayron32 18:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sears files for bankruptcyEdit

With significant opposition based on both quality and importance, this is not going to be posted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 17 October 2018 (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: Sears Holdings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for insolvency
Alternative blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
News source(s): Dallas News, CNN, NYT
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Specter Koen (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: It's an iconic company, been around more than 100 years. Banedon (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Its used to be a huge company and force in american retail, so its collapse is significant --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is dreadful. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not yet the end of Sears, only a mechanism to allow debt restructuring from which it will emerge. Not the first or last brick and mortar store that failed to adapt digitally. Stephen 04:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements -- 2607:FEA8:A2DF:F1B2:AD67:243C:4AAB:7508 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principal, oppose due quality. As to timing, It's hard to see another more significant moment emerging later. There's might be some zombification for a year or so, but the company is dead now. Not the first or the last to go this way, but the most significant. Sears was the most important retailer in America for generations. ghost 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in a dreadful state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the merits. Sears (and Kmart, which has the same owner, too) has been in a slow death for several years now. This is just the latest step. If they go out of business totally, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is too poor for the main page (and rather embarrassing given the likely influx of pageviews now). Also, particularly in the U.S., bankruptcy appears to be a way to restructure you business and escape debt liabilities. It does not mean the business will close. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Bankruptcy does not mean closure.--WaltCip (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being. If/when the company goes Chapter 7, then it would be the right time. I also agree with everyone above in stating that the article needs major improvements. Since I started editing the article (which was fairly recently), I've spent my time mostly just keeping it up-to-date. Hopefully while the proceedings are tied up in court I'll have the chance to actually start restructuring it. Specter Koen (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability, per Stephen above. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (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: Paul AllenEdit

Article: Paul Allen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KING5 Seattle, CNBC
Nominator: Power~enwiki (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: Looks good at a quick glance; heavy editing right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Power beat me to it by a few minutes. Article is well-sourced and has no issues aside of the died template. pbp 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose a few CN tags (added by me) but none of the statements are outrageous. Allen touched so many lives who'll never know his name. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't handle the volume of edit conflicts; if they're still there in an hour I can fix them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
weak support blurb Pretty darn big as the co-founder of the once largest company in the worldLihaas (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. He co-founded Microsoft and gave away his money wisely. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Reasons? ITNC is not a vote.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No reasons needed for an RD listing. Stephen 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Influential businessman and philanthropist, technology pioneer, article looks good (only problems I see, that may get fixed soon given the huge flood of edits, are: citations needed, and 2 small sections that may need to be rewritten) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Has citations needed tag with two citations needed (by my quick reckoning) and an apparently problematic Honors and Awards section ( it is referenced though) Other than that, referencing is good. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have addressed the cn tags. The awards and recognition section could do with some work but it does not seem to be a showstopper. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Tags about his cancer need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just casually checked the article and added some more (citation tags). Sorry. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no need to apologize. I have addressed those tags also. Problems are much easier to fix when they are tagged. Looking further through the article there may be other hidden citation problems, but nothing immediately stands out. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) ROC–Constantinople PatriarchateEdit

This nomination is now stale. Apologies to the many editors who helped work on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2018 (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: Russian Orthodox Church (talk, history) and Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople over the latter's endorsement of Ukrainian Church's request for autocephaly.
Alternative blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.
News source(s): RFERL
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Although the related nomination was problematic, this stage of the conflict looks definitive enough. The ROC article has been updated. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We need a standalone article on this, IMHO. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess the blurb means to say "severs"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if there were a stand-alone article, I might support ongoing; if this is going to continue until the two sides are fully separated there will be multiple further events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • With no other ideas on how to name this, perhaps Schism of 2018 is a sufficiently descriptive interim name for a stand-alone article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe the articles will be of sufficient quality by the time the Tomos of Autocephaly officially is issued in November (or, if the planned announcement is scrapped). I think it's unlikely to happen before this announcement goes stale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage on this, including leading up to the actual event, to support. Banedon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
support was gonna nominate it too. This'd be like WP existing during the west-east schism,but just east-east schism. Eastern Christianity schism? Would be wary of uppercase S in schism just yet.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There have certainly been other Eastern schisms, though; the Bulgarian schism would likely count. I've created this as Schism of 2018; please feel free to move (but don't move-war). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm done with that article for the night. Hopefully enough of an outline that others can contribute to it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I have added some links to sources on the talk page and, for the first time in all my years here, I have put out an off wiki appeal for help with this. We just don't have enough editors who are familiar with Orthodox Christianity and the complexities of this particular situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Should it not be Muscovite schism since that's where the breakage came from? Never mind the background.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this Russian wikipedia article can give some guidance on how to form this new article: Предоставление автокефалии православной церкви на Украине — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Support on the merits. (I have added an alt blurb.) I am saddened to admit this, but none of the relevant Orthodox Church related articles are even remotely close to acceptable condition for promotion on the main page. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb does not explain the impact or implications to non-Catholics. A 150m person organisations sheds ~5m members. So what? Stephen 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The blurb cannot be expected to explain the details to the non-Orthodox (incidentally this is NOT about Catholics as usually understood in the West, where the term tends to be understood as meaning Roman Catholics). The article (or at least the section related to the split if we don't go for a stand-alone article) should try to make that understandable. Also it's not about "150 million loses 5 million", but more like "300 million seems to be splitting into two or more sides (pro and anti-Moscow/Putin sides, and perhaps some neutrals too), tho the precise numbers on each side are still unclear, but pro and anti sides each have far more than just 5 million".Tlhslobus (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And Vladimir Putin doesn't seem to think it's trivial (for details, see my reply/comment to Laserlegs below). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. It should also be useful for our readers to get an article that corrects some misinformation out there, such as that the EP has already recognised an independent Ukrainian Church (when the EP has merely decided to do so in future, presumably when the two independent Ukrainian churches have been merged). But I'll leave it to others to decide when adequate article quality has been reached.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article, altho written from an anti-Russian perspective, and probably suffering from a lot of wishful thinking as regards the future, seems to offer a reasonably clear explanation of what has actually happened so far, and may be a useful citation in relevant articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (if can get an article thats good) Currently, there is no tomos of autocephaly. There are three major churches in Ukraine. One is under Moscow, and is in communion with the rest of the churches, and they do not want autocephaly. There is also two schismatic churches, which is not in communion with any other church. They desire autocephaly, and desire to be recognized as a canonical church after creating a schism. The EP has decided to open communion with one of these schismatic churches, while the rest of the other Orthodox Churches still consider them schismatic and are not in communion with them. Further, the EP has stated they desire to grant this newly formed "church" a tomos of autocephaly "later". According to the Church in Russia and Church in Ukraine (non schismatic) what the EP has done is uncanonical. Other churches, such as Serbia, has denounced it as well, but has not taken any official action as of yet. Some churches, such as Antioch has called that a council should be called to discuss the issue.2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, once the bolded article is in adequate shape. An interesting and unusual news story, probably with significant future ramifications. Either the original blurb or the alt blurb seem OK to me although the original blurb looks a bit better. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question could someone explain this in laymans terms? It's my (poor?) understanding that there are 14 "jurisdictions" in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), the one in Constantinople recognized Ukrainian (church) independence from Moscow, and as a result the ROC unfriended them. So the other 12 are still just doing their thing right? This isn't a fracturing of the EOC, or even the ROC unilaterally removing itself, it's just two partner churches bickering? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its two local churches bickering. But they are bickering over hugely consequential issues. And the two churches are the most important in the broader Orthodox Church. The Russian Church is by far the largest with a little over 1/3 of all the world's Orthodox Christian belonging to it. And the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds the canonical first place of honor within the Church. So yeah, this is a very serious situation within Eastern Christianity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Reply/Comment: It's also 'bickering' seemingly with potential geostrategic consequences for the war in Ukraine and the wider conflict between Russia and the West that involves the world's two nuclear superpowers. "Telling of the Orthodox Church’s role in Russian geopolitics, on 12 October Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an extraordinary meeting of the National Security and Defense Council, where the “situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine” was discussed." Who are we to decide that we are better judges than Putin as to what is and is not important in geopolitics? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to !vote yet, especially given there seem to be some factual disputes over what has/hasn't happened yet. This blurb is at least a lot more intelligible and significant-sounding than the previous nomination. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Stephen. Larger significance not readily apparent Sca (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Incomprehensible blurb, lacks significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a rare and unusual event, the Russian Orthodox Church is perhaps the most important force in Orthodox Christianity. Article on schism has been created which should form part of the blurb. AusLondonder (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable and interesting story, and I'm indeed seeing this in the news. However, the ROC article is not fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is sound and Schism of 2018 is passable as a target article. Teemu08 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a second alt blurb, identical to the first alt blurb but with schism of 2018 as the bolded link. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
My problem with the first blurb and by extension the newest alt blurb is that there are three churches in Ukraine each claiming to be the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And the one that is recognized by every canonical Orthodox Church except for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has made no such request for independence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: In the light of your point, I've added altblurb 3, which is altblurb2 with Church replaced by Churches (tho I'm not sure this is entirely necessary). (Incidentally, the Euromaidan Press article already mentioned above by me says that 10 of the 90 bishops of the (pro-Moscow) UOC MP had also signed the appeal to Constantinople for autocephaly, which suggests there will also be some kind of split in the UOC MP, tho I'm not sure how significant that is.) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am not really sure that source is particularly trustworthy. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right that it probably isn't trustworthy on some points (as incidentally is also true with all other so-called Reliable Sources, as the likes of Noam Chomsky and others have been documenting for decades, even if Chomsky and his kind aren't always particularly trustworthy either), but I'm pretty sure it's trustworthy on that particular point, since despite being anti-Moscow it admits that it's only 10 out of 90 UOC MP bishops who are pro-Ukrainian autocephaly (the conclusion that there's likely to be a split is mine, not its own). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment+Question re quality: Including Ad Orientem (who was opposed on quality but supporting on significance), I currently make it 10-3 support on significance (11-3 if we include the nom), which is normally a comfortable consensus, with at least one editor deeming the target passable on quality over 12 hours ago. I'd like to mark it Ready, but I don't normally trust myself as a judge on quality. Might some editor such as Ad Orientem now please have a look at quality, and let us know whether they now deem it ready to post, or indicate what more seems required.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Schism of 2018 looks of suitable a standard to me, with sufficient length (except the lead) and good referencing. However I can still barely understand a word of it, as it's full of unexplained jargon and seems to expect a knowledge of Orthodox churches that most of our readers don't have. Could we get a bit more context for general readers, before directing thousands of people there from the home page? Modest Genius talk 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added some definitions and clarifications that I think will help in the understanding of the topic. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Either Alt blurb II or III. The new target needs a little expansion, especially regards reaction from the rest of the Orthodox world, but I think it is adequate. Marking this as Ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The lead of the target article is inadequate as does not explain the subject to a general reader. I do not think this is ready to link to the main page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen and others. The concerns raised have not been addressed, so I'm not sure why this is marked as "Ready". The blurb is essentially meaningless for someone not familiar with the situation, and not a good fit for an ITN story.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support on merit, but weak oppose due to article quality. Article is pretty close, but it's not quite there yet, as there's one completely unreferenced paragraph. When all paragraphs are appropriately sourced, please assume that my vote is a strong support. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Ready Marking as ready, as the various quality issues raised above now seem to have been addressed as far as reasonably practicable.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Removing Ready - Somebody added an orange flag some time after I had marked this as 'Ready' (which actually seems somewhat amusing and/or ironic (at least to me, if not necessarily to anybody else), for reasons which I've mentioned on the article's Talk page). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I am the "somebody" mentioned by Tlhslobus. His edits of today have alleviated my initial reservations. We should proceed. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this specific announcement is stale. We could consider ongoing, or the new article Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018) will hopefully be ready for the next announcement (probably the Tomos issuance in November, and possibly mutual excommunications afterwards). power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really stale - a number of its citations are news items dated 20th October.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ready: Marking as ready after Tlhslobus's 20 oct. contributions which have alleviated my neutrality concerns. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Adelsheim. Incidentally, when flagging as Ready it's best to add (Ready) to the Section Name of the nomination too, to get it noticed, which I've now done. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (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) Royal Baby - first child of Meghan, Duchess of SussexEdit

closed per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 11:06, 15 October 2018 (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: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (talk, history)
Blurb: HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex is pregnant with her first child. The child, due in the spring, will become seventh in line to the throne, after his father.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45861683
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It’s a royal baby announcement, that’s it. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't believe we do announcements of pregnancies, do we? The actual birth would certainly be much more newsworthy. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even sure the birth of the 7th in line is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for delivery and suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (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.
p.s. did I say "the next week or so"? Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Óscar RomeroEdit

Strong consensus against posting, also stale. Vanamonde (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2018 (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: Óscar Romero (talk, history)
Blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is one of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb II: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, and Pope Paul VI, are two of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45853434
Nominator: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Big deal in Central America; article seems exhaustive and reasonably well referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose canonisation is a routing occurrence (~50 in the last 5 years), nothing extraordinary here. Stephen 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Canonization maybe routine, but this was a major part of the civil war. Notable by the fact that it was Romero.Not to mention indicative of the direction the Church is mioving.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
"Was", not "is". We don't deal in yesterday's news. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, by the "direction the Church IS moving". WE do post todays news.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is it referenced that this is canonisation is a movement in a new direction? Stephen 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A footnote to R.C. church history. Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihaas. This is not just a routine canonisation, it represents a paradigm shift. It's a story of notable worldwide general interest which ITN promotes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihass and Amakuru. In the news and the article looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Church canonises people regularly. I am not seeing a paradigm shift either, he was your average conservative cleric from a conservative country in South America who though more progressive priests and denounced liberation theology, but when the rightist repression brought his country to the brink of a civil war he - stressing that those exist on both sides - denounced people who kill thousands of innocents, he was killed by right-wing militias.
    Tell me please, how is this important? I am open to voting for an ITN nom when they canonise someone like Câmara, but in this case? It's not even funny. Also, the article itself is just amasingly POV, apparently it was cleansed of all critical assessments of Romero a while ago, now that it doesn't even mention his early fights in the late 60-s with the majority of the clergy that was more progressive, his participation in conservative organisations and his enduring support for the government that only ended by the mid 70-s when the civil war already began... God Dammit, what happened to Wikipedia? Why is literally everything so POV here... Openlydialectic (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the very useful info, Openlydialectic. A short answer to your question would be that I suspect that everything is POV because knowledge is power, and organization and determination beat disorganized amateurism, so once Wikipedia became important its rules and practices quickly became made mainly by ideologies and other vested interests for ideologies and other vested interests, much like almost everything else in this world. But unfortunately my suspicions are inherently unprovable, and in any case this is the wrong forum for discussing this topic.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are enough gaps in referencing to preclude posting until they are fixed. Also I have to agree with Openlydialectic's complaint that the article appears to be extremely lopsided in its presentation of the subject who was, and remains a highly controversial figure. If/when these are corrected I will Support on significance. Whether or not one agrees with his far left theology (I don't), Romero was one of the most significant figures of the post Vatican II Catholic Church and is a giant in the social and political history of Latin America. Also Pope Paul VI who oversaw most of the reforms of Vatican II, some of them controversial, was canonized at the same ceremony. I have not had a chance to look at his article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that you say that you disagree with 'his far-left theology', Ad Orientem, given that Openlydialectic seems to have been saying that he was actually anything but far left, but that his conservatism has been suppressed by POV-pushers. Could either or both of you clarify this, please? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canonization requires first the literal "intercession of the Blessed after his death." Needless to say, the intercession of the dead into the world of the living is not verifiable (at best). ghost 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So its supporters claim, but that seems irrelevant - the fact that he has been canonized is easily verifiable, even if the claimed reasons for this are not. Being Pope requires believing in a God whose existence is unverifiable, but that doesn't mean we should therefore refrain from posting the election of a new Pope (and much the same can probably be said for many other actually or allegedly unverifiable things claimed in connection with many subjects that have articles in Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support from the source this looks like a long-running historical issue that still leaves undercurrents and is still important in El Salvador (e.g. from the 60k audience listening to the pope). Banedon (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - canonisation is near routine at this stage, and not worthy of posting at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
True of canonisations in general, but not necessarily true of this particular one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another saint in a religion which has thousands of them. I'm struggling to think of any situation in which we should post canonisations. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A little imagination can easily come up with examples which would at least deserve serious consideration - if they were to canonize a non-Catholic (e.g Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Mandela), or some extremely controversial figure (for instance some quasi-genocidal crusade-preacher), and so on. And I'm still trying to decide whether Romero qualifies or not (tho my initial feeling was no, and it hasn't really changed yet, despite being underwhelmed by some of the NO arguments). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added 2 possible altblurbs. These are arguably more accurate, even if they arguably also weaken the case for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Posting seems appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (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.

October 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 14
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

October 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 13
Armed attacks and conflicts
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Venezuela releases political activist Lorent Saleh due to his poor mental health, after a prolonged campaign by and talks with the Spanish Office for Latin America. Saleh had been detained for over four years by secret services in Venezuela without trial, and is being transferred to Spain. (BBC)
  • Acting on an anonymous tip, Michigan state inspectors discover the bodies of 11 badly-decomposed infants inside the ceiling of a former funeral home in Detroit. (UPI)

(Posted) RD: Jim TaylorEdit

Article: Jim Taylor (American football) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NFL
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Good article, so no issues. Death is sourced from two articles. Significant topic. pbp 22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 11:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Just pointing at the wrong Jim Taylor... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed. At least it was just the disambiguation page we reported as dead, not actually a completely different Jim Taylor. That would be embarassing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: William CoorsEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2018 (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: William Coors (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA today
Nominator: Masem (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.

 Masem (t) 17:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - when the few sentences that needs refs have been completed. should be easily done.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    So, oppose. Noted. ghost 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is poorly referenced, poorly phrased and poorly structured. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Half of the article is about accusations of racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Honestly, if an article has been tagged, then it is unworthy of being linked in In the news. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:13, 18 October 2018 (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.

October 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 12
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

(Closed) RD: Pik BothaEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2018 (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: Pik Botha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45833957
Nominator: Moscow Mule (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: Major figure in the years leading up to the end of apartheid in South Africa, died 12 Oct. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in good shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs several more references for uncited claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing issues appear to have been addressed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Now that the referencing issues have been resolved, the article is in good shape and is very detailed about his political career, for which he was best known. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (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: Chang Chun-YenEdit

Article: Chang Chun-Yen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Times, TVBS
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (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: Pioneer of Taiwan's semiconductor industry, President of National Chiao Tung UniversityZanhe (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Bumped up; Posted to Ongoing) Disappearance of Jamal KhashoggiEdit

Article: Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A week after his initial disappearance, Turkish Intelligence services conclude that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist was kidnapped to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, tortured and killed.
Alternative blurb: ​Turkish Intelligence services conclude that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist was kidnapped, tortured and killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Alternative blurb II: Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist, is kidnapped, brutally tortured and killed by officers of Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Alternative blurb III: ​Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the government of Saudi Arabia, is reported missing following a visit to Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
News source(s): BBC, South China Morning Post, Russia Today, Daily Sabah, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It's not certain that he is dead, but the government of Turkey has said he was murdered. I don't yet support a blurb here, but it may be an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment & support blurb I've updated it into a blurb. I think it's noteworthy, seeing the media attention everywhere. Even here in Russia it's top 2 news right now. Much more importantly, and I am emphasising this as someone who's not easily outraged: Saudi diplomats kidnapped an American resident inside their own consulate in the largest European city, then proceeded to "brutally" torture him for several days, kill him, dismember him - all inside that consulate - and dispose the remains in the city. I mean, Jesus f***ing Christ. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind that we need to assert that the beatings/murder are the claims of the Turkish intelligence, not proven out yet. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    True, but the guy did enter the consulate 10 days ago and never went back, so something did happen to him. For analogy, the initial conclusions of the British intelligence about the Skripals did make it into the ITN. And in my honest opinion, even that act wasn't as outrageous as this one. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not saying that the Turkish Intelligence are wildly throwing accusations, just that at this point, it is their word to base it on. Don't want that asserted in WP voice. --Masem (t) 18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, because it's Turkey of course that has a history of staging false-flags, and not the UK. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • support blurb - article updated and ready. BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose for now. Sorry, but we need someone with more credibility than the Turkish Government to corroborate this before we post it on the main page. I suspect it's true but Turkey's current regime does not have the same credibility the UK did when it accused the Russians of nerve agent attacks on their soil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI, unlike the UK-Russian situation, Turkey and Saudis actually have rather warm relations right now, as noted by multiple commentators, e.g. 1 Openlydialectic (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Saudi Arabia–Turkey relations article is severely outdated; after the Qatar game change (where Turkey sided with Qatar). However, Turkey owes quite a lot of money to the Saudis, usually very informed sources say that this will cost the Saudis a lot, but in the end they will walk away scot free (as they did in the horrible Saad Hariri affair last year), Huldra (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Note Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not the only countries affected by this; multiple US senators stated that, if confirmed, this would quote "break" ties between the two countries [29] (though the Saudi-US relations article is in poor shape so it shouldn't be in the blurb anyways) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Using the BBC's article, this is a developing story, since the Saudis are denying this. No body has been found, and no formal accusation has been made yet. Should that happen, that might be appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible lurid blurbs. Developing speculations full of uncertainties. This is exact kind of thing that Wikipedia should not post. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I will support RD as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose full of speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - He's much better known as a journalist, and was pro-government through most of his career till he recently fell out with Mohamed bin Salman. That's probably the first time I've seen him described as "human rights activist", to be honest. Not even the nom's sources use such words (haven't checked Daily Sabah though). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Also oppose, per others (for now). This is purely speculative, unless confirmed by reliable sources and not Turkish government officials. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above comments, this is just speculation at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the disappearance, if someone can come up with a blurb without all the hyperbole. This was big news last week. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, lets face it: if he was still alive, the Saudis would have made sure we all knew by now. But instead even Thomas Friedman is tweeting request for answers from the Saudis, (for those of you who haven't followed the issue: Friedman wrote earlier this year a panegyric article praising the Saudis, more specifically Mohammad bin Salman in the NYT.) Huldra (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not changing my vote but extra points for use of a polysyllabic word with more than six letters that I had to look up. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Eh, thanks... But seriously, that NYT article of Friedman is one of the worst I have ever seen him written (which says a lot..) He didn't find anyone critical of the rulers (funny that, in a country where even possessing literature by a opposition member, like Madawi al-Rasheed, can get you a 15 years jail sentence. No, I am not kidding.) Friedman earned the scorn of other observers link, link. Read that NYT article, and then read his latest tweets. "Pathetic" doesn't even cover it. Huldra (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Alternative blurb III: A week after his initial disappearance, Turkish Intelligence services conclude that prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was captured inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, and killed. Khashoggi is far better known as a journalist than as a human rights activist (nobody would have called him a "human rights activist" just a year or two ago.) And it is, AFAIK undisputed that this is the conclusions of the Turkish Intelligence services, (minus the hyperbole) (wether or not the Turkish Intelligence services are correct, is another matter, of course), Huldra (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With special thanks to Huldra, who made my morning with the Daffy Duck link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD (contrary to one support for RD above) until the preponderance of Reliable Sources tell us he is dead. Neutral on some blurb about his disappearance.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurbs need a serious rewrite. All of them reek of editorial hyperbole.--WaltCip (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - What we've got by now is a man with a disputed fate who is said to be tortured and cut into the pieces. We're at least sure that he has disappeared and his whereabouts is still unknown. Given the Turkey's narration of the event, the astute reader will make his own guess after reading the article. So, it's not that different to have the disappearance or the murder on. --Mhhossein talk 07:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but wait for further developments before posting (update: new reports that Turkish authorities are in fact accusing the Saudi government, disregard parts of this !vote) I couldn't bring myself to support without a caveat. It's a very quickly developing story, and the international consequences are significant, but we should wait until either 1) the representatives of either Turkey or the United States formally accuse Saudi Arabia or 2) a sufficient amount of credible sources describe it as likely rather than just speculation. The merits of this story are absolutely worth a blurb, and it has hitherto not been unheard of for ITN to post suspected murders of journalists by governments (notably when the Russian government is involved), sometimes even before they are inevitably proven to be true. We absolutely need a better blurb, but in all fairness we can't expect a blurb that doesn't sound at least somewhat shocking when the method of execution was literally dismemberment. Aside from how the methods used are exceptionally draconian (which alone isn't enough to warrant a blurb), the international impact of this story is just as significant as the assassination of Russian journalists, as three countries (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United States) are involved. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident, and per Turkish visa laws, if this murder is confirmed it violates Turkish laws as well. Turkey already briefed the US, and several members of the US legislature from both major parties have already noted that if this murder is confirmed that it would represent a "fundamental break in our relationship with Saudi Arabia" and that they "must respond strongly." If the US or Turkey accuse Saudi Arabia, or if investigative journalists eliminate the speculation surrounding the story on their own, I will remove the caveat that we should wait. If nothing happens, this nomination will go stale. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Murky - developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It's actually also a RD item, he seems to have left the consulate in a diplomatic coffin. Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in general, but we have to be careful with the blurb. The story in itself has enormous diplomatic ramifications, and thus is clearly ITN material. --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The story has attained lots of coverage. I think any of the blurbs under consideration would be fine as-is, but I have no objection if we want to wait for further developments. Davey2116 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major news with geopolitical implications. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait What we know at this point is that the guy is missing. Were the more salacious details true, Turkish police would have no knowledge of them. They seem to have been made up whole cloth. Story is blurb-worthy, but it should be something like "Turkey accuses..." or "Erdogon demands..." ghost 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Countries throwing accusations at one another isn't really ITN worthy. What we're probably about to see very soon, however, is two countries recalling their respective ambassadors or even severing relations. And I think we'd be good to go when that happens. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support would prefer to wait till confirmed, but it is continuing to generate news. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support with Banedon's reasoning. Perhaps the blurb can be adjusted to match what is known at the present, and if/when the situation changes, then we can change the blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Support - Major story with international implications. While much of the story is unclear, the known facts and widespread coverage make this a good ITN blurb, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This needs to be published now. Support is overwhelming. Where are the admins? --bender235 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wait...What? Which nom are you reading? We don't even have a blurb yet, let alone support for one, that doesn't say "SA tortured and killed a guy." Needless to say, that cannot be posted to the MP unless we're sure. We DO have consensus that this is a big enough story for the MP. ghost 11:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'll reiterate that we need an on the record accusation or demand or some such, and that will be our blurb. Also, that should be nom'ed on the day it happens. Everything we "know" so far is unattributed. ghost 11:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    The first alternative blurb is fine. It clearly refers to the Turkish authorities as the source of the allegations. --bender235 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This continues to develop; supposedly there's a tape now [30]. I'm still not sure what the blurb should be though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is time to post this. Still headline news. Plenty of reliable sources available.BabbaQ (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support lots of coverage and article is ready. This is a major incident having geopolitical implications. US and Turkish officials shared video recordings which proves Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Several news outlets and journalists drop out of Saudi conference. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I propose updating the blurb and bumping the nomination to today's date since this is a new development. --Tone 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. Still looking for the blurb though...we can't attribute to Turkish sources that which they have reported anonymously to the media. There is a way to phrase this, I just can't think of it. ghost 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Can we do something like "Amidst a growing diplomatic row, SA denies allegations they killed..."? This is on the record, and doesn't require we attribute the allegations. ghost 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Bumped up since it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. Alternatively, one may consider Ongoing. --Tone 14:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not major international news (hasn’t reached here), though that by itself could be overlooked because of a lot of countries not being friends with Turkey. Still, it means there isn’t much widespread dissemination of reliable information. It should also definitely be put on hold because it seems like the user who turned it into a blurb is very personally invested in it being posted, to the point where they created a blurb about a horrific death before it was even confirmed that someone had died. Too much uncertainty, and it is a non-notable death on a worldwide scale (this person is not known outside of a few countries, barely known outside of one, isn't a politician, etc.) – other recent attempts to transfer a RD to a blurb for people with a bigger worldwide impact or whose death created large scale debate/effects have been denied, this guy is not up to blurb standard. The suggestion of hold is to wait for reliable confirmation of death for an RD. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That is blatantly untrue. This is major news everywhere and has had continued coverage world wide since he disappeared. It is the top news on CNNtoday just to mention one source.BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @BabbaQ: Please tread gently here. News websites often display content based on geography, so not everyone sees the same news headlines. Just because you have seen it everywhere, doesn't mean everyone on the planet has. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am stating that major news sources brings this up as their top news. A Google search also provides solid facts about how this news has spread all over the world. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I just opened the News app on my phone, scrolled all the way down, and it is not there. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's his individual notability that would warrant a blurb. If proven, this goes way. way beyond what's normally posted at ordinary RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In comparison, the Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar is posted below as an RD, even though TIME reports that the Venezuelan parliament has said he was tortured and murdered whilst in police custody within his own area. Should both get blurbs, then? Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - article also claims he was dismembered in the consulate: "One anonymous police source claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 • Still way too iffy to post. Note that according to the BBC, the Turkish government "has agreed to a joint investigation with the Saudis, and a Saudi delegation arrived in Turkey on Friday to take part in talks expected over the weekend." Perhaps some solid info will come from that – but it may take a long time for any reliable confirmation of what happened appears. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb3 which I have just added. ghost 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That blurb is reliable and accurate, but does it sound like it’s worthy of an ITN to you? For me, even if all speculation turned out to be correct, it’s not groundbreaking that a repressive country tortured someone who vocally disagrees with them. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
→ Yeah, "reported missing" doesn't cut the mustard. Sca (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That blurb does not reflect what is reliably reported. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • really? I just looked at the links I can access and the only certainty is that he didn’t return from the embassy, everything else, including his death is speculation. Sometimes speculation is overwhelmingly reliable, and it wouldn’t be surprising if it were true, but the only blurbs we could use are “he’s missing” and “people say he was killed”. BLP would mean that the entire tone would have to be neutral, which means that unless you’re a significant person or in an interesting situation “sources say he was tortured and murdered” isn’t a fascinating story. Kingsif (talk)
  • To reiterate Tone's point, it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. If you agree that this should be posted, help write a blurb we can actually post. I would argue that the blurb itself does not have to "sound" ITN worthy if the underlying story is, but the blurb must be brief and accurate. ghost 17:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On further consideration, I think we have to be careful not to become the victim of sensationalism here. The fate of the subject in question is still a relative unknown, and BLP applies here just as it does everywhere else on the Wikipedia. We can't post a news story without reliable sources to back it up. Altblurb3 is not especially newsworthy-sounding either. Long story short, this doesn't fit the ethos of what would normally be posted to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This might have big consequences if it is confirmed [31]. However, WP:NOTSCANDAL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality only; the "disappearance" section suffers from major WP:proseline issues. If someone who cares about posting this could fix that up, I'd remove my opposal. Prefer altblurb3 when the prose problems are cleaned up. --Jayron32 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, altblurb 3 is relatively better than the ones before it in terms of NPOV. But, as I already mentioned earlier, Khashoggi had been close to the Saudi establishment for as long as I can remember, and supported most of its policies. So describing him as a "prominent critic" seems to fail WP:RECENTISM. Can't we just stick to "journalist"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, it's not ever day that a person gets killed and sawed up in a consulate with audiotape available. And this was done knowing full well that they'd get caught. The Saudis are sending a message. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't need to, that's what reliable secondary sources are saying. It doesn't matter if it is provable, what matters for ITN posting is the level of worldwide interest by the media in the story. This is a huge story. Abductive (reasoning) 15:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above and the problem that the linked article has issues with prose. L293D ( • ) 01:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose .......anything but a statement that this man has disappeared. Wikipedia far too often gets involved in international propaganda games. Even writing what one organisation claims would be doing just that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Abductive. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Kashogi's disappearance received massive media coverage from all across the world and we can post a journalist's disappearance in ITN but adding Turkish authorities' claim'll make it a conjecture.Amir (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this should be posted now. My earlier opposition- and that of many- was for RD which is now justified, since till now nobody is certain he's dead. Besides that, this clearly received and still is receiving wide global coverage. Many major news outlets at least run more than two stories and analyses on this; particularly UK's Guardian, CNN and AlJazeera. This is the time to post this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope. No matter how much speculative coverage erupts, "reported missing" is not ITN-worthy. As they say on crime shows, "Where's the body?" Sca (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No longer in one piece, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This template is for adding things that are in the news not things that are true and this story is "in the news" by any measure. Whether it's speculative or not that doesn't matter to Wikipedia. It's also not mere ordinary person that's missing, as you're trying to suggest, it's an influential figure, so influential that it's capable of causing this besides leading to avalanche of narratives from all mainstream media that have true wide international audience. It is when we post RD that we go wrong, because it means we come to an independent original conclusion on his status, and that's what I opposed initially.–Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. This is a major international news story with very substantial coverage and likely political repercussions. The blurb can be updated as the story develops, but Alt3 is OK for the time being. This is a far more important and "in the news" story than "Two astronauts don't die". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The preceding arguments merit consideration, but if the info currently extant is all that ever comes out, it'll never be proven. (If the Saudis were to officially declare him dead, that would be enough for ITN.) Also, IMO, the Khashoggi article exudes a somewhat POV tone, though it's muted. Sca (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: Absent from versions of ITN on French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and Russian Wikipedia. Sca (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Nonplussed. When did posting on ITNs of French, German and whatnot wikipedias become a benchmark for posting on English Wikipedia?. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Ammarpad. Of course, as is well known, the French, Germans, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes and Russians all lack intelligence and are devoid of good judgment in all things. Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Too right. Here's one of those Dutch whatnots for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The ITN sections of those Wikipedias usually provide a very good barometer of what not to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, just cheap Eurotrash. Martinevangelista123 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Rambler
In this particular instance the Rambler is right: Those Wikis' unanimous guidance is not to post the lurid, unconfirmed Khashoggi tale on ITN – at least not now. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Two astronauts don't die" was posted per ITNR. This story, provided it met quality requirements, would also be posted if ITNR said something like "Missing persons alleged to have been murdered are ITNR if they wrote columns for the Washington Post", but it doesn't (just pointing this out as "2 astronauts don't die" got mentioned above, tho I actually currently couldn't care less whether this item gets posted or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Could some uninvolved admin perhaps have a look to see whether this needs closing due to lack of realistic prospects for consensus, please? I'm neutral on whether it deserves posting. But I make it about 19 for to 15 against, so it's well short of a 2:1 supermajority (our typical consensus criterion). 3 of its 4 suggested blurbs are unusable speculation. It will be entering its 8th day in a few hours from now, and will presumably be distracting editors from more productive work for about another week if it isn't closed (assuming its bumping-up is allowed to stand). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb III looks fine to me. But relieved it would only be for another week or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb as significant story. However, chances for concensus appear distant given 20:15 ratio and most if not all of likely participants have already added their two cents worth. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Did we somehow count it differently? I just did a recount, and I've counted 23 support votes and 13 oppose votes. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This thing should have expired off, not been "bumped up". Time to die. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Not today Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, Altblurb III. A significant story that is still very much in the news and is having a significant international impact. Just today there is an article in NYT[32] about the effect of the story on the upcoming “Davos in the Desert” meeting, and on how various countries and businesses/companies are changing their approach to Saudi Arabia. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the vote tally is 23-13 in favour of posting, and that's not counting the initial wait that can now arguably be interpreted as votes in support Openlydialectic (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Some curious counting discrepancies going on here! Someone just a few post above made it 19 v 15 against...!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this should be posted as ongoing instead of a blurb. The fact that he disappeared is now stale while the political story is developing on a daily basis. --Tone 08:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, it's still on the main page of the global BBC News site and the various items of fallout are now of direct interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agree too. That's what I meant in my above comment as frankly speaking this issue have more coverage than all the extant stale stories on the ITN template. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing - OK, given the rough consensus both of the vote tally and the comments immediately above this one, I've posted to Ongoing, with the caption Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. If anyone thinks this is a misreading of the consensus, or that this is controversial, please let me know and I'll leave it for someone else to determine. (I think I annoyed enough people with my premature posting of Kavanaugh so don't want to cause any more controversy!)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Yes, Ongoing makes sense given continued peripheral and reaction stories. (Three sources added above.) Sca (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: At the barbershop Saturday morning, the top conversation topic was Khashoggi. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment we're featuring an orange tagged article which cites "anonymous sources" claiming the victim was hacked to bits? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Tons of coverage in the news. Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's patently untrue. It cites reliable sources that cited "anonymous sources". I am not aware of any Wikipedia article that cites "anonymous sources", please if you know any please show it to me and the template used since {{cite anonymous}} doesn't exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
My point is, coverage continues – AP, Guardian, Reuters Ongoing. – Sca (talk)
I'm not questioning the coverage, I'm questioning featuring an orange tagged article (removing the tag w/o resolving the issues doesn't count) with reliable sources citing anonymous sources that the alleged victim was hacked to pieces. Compare to the collective loss of shit when 100s of witnesses and actual video existed of an exploding drone attack in Caracas. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I’d recommend especially looking at that - blurb 4 there is certainly ITN worthy (8 people are injured in explosions that occurred during a Presidential speech) but because there was a lot of people reasonably saying "but if we post the news then we’re endorsing the official Maduro story, and we don’t know if that’s true" it got closed for no consensus. It’s comparable to this level of speculation and propaganda warring. And, on the topic, one politician arrested for the explosions died last week, with several countries (USA, UK, France, Spain, all of South America) saying they have reason to believe he was tortured and murdered by the Venezuelan state, which has reliable sources. Out of the two, which seems better fitting of ITN criteria? Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This story is considerably more ITN than that one, which is an important criteria. As a rule, we *trust* reliable sources, so we can repeat what they say in WP's voice. RS's are not saying he was chopped up, but RS's are saying that US/Turkish intelligence is saying that. As long as we are clear on that distinct, it's fine. The story here is not that he was murdered, but that important people are SAYING he was...people who would not benefit from saying lying about it. ghost 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"More ITN" or less or whatever I don't care, I just want stories which are "In the news" to be posted - so long as the article is good enough. Reliable sources published claims of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh and Harvey Weinstein and the loss of shit was so spectacular that it transcended space and time. This article is not very high quality, and pushes the unverified claims that this guy was hacked to bits. Hell, we refused to post the disappearance of the head of INTERPOL until he turned up as a prisoner of the CPC. Rather silly I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it "pushes" that claim. It includes it as it has been so widely reported. The source was anonymous, the article says that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing. Continuing to remain in the news, and the article is still receiving adequate updates. SpencerT•C 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev PatriarchateEdit

Closed as no consensus to post, and factually incorrect blurb, and related factually correct nom is now open above for October 15. --Tlhslobus (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2018 (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: Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate is the newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church.
Alternative blurb: Patriarch Bartholomew of the Eastern Orthodox Church grants autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and independence of the Russian Orthodox Church.
News source(s): Reuters, Atlantic
Nominator: 71.197.186.255 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Added template for Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC) LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this basically grants independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, from the Russian Orthodox Church. Prior to this, there had been two independent Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, but they were not recognized by the world Orthodox churches because Ukraine was viewed as the territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. So this move grants recognition to the two Ukrainian churches, thus repudiating the Russian Orthodox Church's claim over Ukrainian territory. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Weak oppose – Per Modest Genius. Not accessible to most non-Orthodox English-speaking readers. Could be rewritten to make it more readily intelligible. Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality - Added an article frm the Atlantic that explains this a bit more - this is all tied to the Urkaine's separation from Russia, and while maybe political boundaries were already that way, the Orthodox churches in the Ukraine were still tied to the Russia Orthodox - and any of Russia's political activities that filtered through it. The autocephaly further breaks Ukraine from Russia. Unfortunately, this stuff needs to be emphasized more in the UOC article to make it clear why this is significant news related to Russia-Ukraine relationships. --Masem (t) 14:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Both blurbs, and the article are factually inaccurate. Bart has NOT granted autocephaly to the UOCKP. What he has done is to establish sacramental communion with them (something no other canonical Orthodox church has done), assert a claim to jurisdiction over Ukraine which he claims always belonged to Constantinople and was simply on loan to Russia, and declare his intention to grant autocephaly at some point (presumably in the near future). This is all extremely complicated and very controversial. I am going to need to work on the article as there are some rather glaring factual errors. Once the tomos of autocephaly is granted, which is expected to precipitate a serious schism within the Orthodox Church, and presuming the article is up to scratch, I will support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Even after reading the article someone unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the politics of Orthodox churches will be left scratching their heads about (a) what on earth this is all about, and (b) why it is significant - and based on Ad Orientem's comments I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant ITN anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest this be closed for now as the nomination was premature. Once the tomos is actually issued, and assuming article quality is up to scratch, this will be an important story worth posting. I expect a major schism within the world's second largest Christian denomination. But for now, none of this has actually happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality; orange-level tag at top. There's a current dispute over the article text being worked out on the talk page; we need to make sure the article text is correct before posting. Once that dispute has amicably been resolved, would have no problem posting this. --Jayron32 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, schisms of this scale are one in a millennium, is spite of all the oppose notvoters here who are obviously wallowing in ignorance. Abductive (reasoning) 22:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The factual accuracy of the article is in dispute. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly on quality of article and lack of clarity as to the precise circumstances surrounding the separation. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions (especially for Ad Orientem, who seems to be an expert on such matters). Regardless of the misleading current blurbs about autocephaly (which in any case are not about a new decision but merely a 'renewed' one, and are also merely about an intention that cannot be implemented in practice just yet), and regardless of fixable article quality issues, is the rescinding of the 1686 letter that conceded the right of the Moscow Patriarch to anoint the Metropolitan of Kiev (subject to various terms and conditions) not a once-in-over-300-years notable event, and if so should that not of itself be grounds to support posting in principle, and if not, then why not? Also does the current lack of overt support from other (slightly less exalted) Patriarchs make this non-notable or merely less notable? And does the current de facto independence of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches make Bart's recognition helpful in theory but a little bit academic and non-notable in practice (except perhaps for his rescinding of their excommunication)? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, an argument could be made to that effect, especially if this were a stand alone event. But it is actually part of an ongoing slow motion train wreck within the Orthodox Church that is likely to reach the breaking point when the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) issues a document called a tomos of autocephaly to one or more hitherto non-canonical Orthodox churches in Ukraine. When that happens the Russian Orthodox Church, currently claiming about 1/3 of the world's Orthodox faithful, is all but certain to break communion with the EP. That has the potential to become the most serious schism in church history since the split between the Christian East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). In other words we are in the middle of an unfolding ecclesial disaster that is probably going to get much worse. If there was a consensus to post this development, I think it would have to be qualified by noting that the EP's claim of jurisdiction over Ukraine is not currently recognized by any other canonical church. My gut says to wait for the big event, which is coming (though it breaks my heart). I would say that the lack of support from the other canonical churches would tend to make this less important, but again, only because everyone is holding their breath waiting for the big smash up. Ultimately whether or not Bart actually has the canonical authority to do any of this is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the Orthosphere right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful clarification. I will now oppose below. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem's above clarification.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AO above, and encourage renomination for future major events. SpencerT•C 19:10, 15 October 2018 (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.

October 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 October 11
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports