:*@[[User:Stephen|Stephen]] As I understand it, this is the first communications satellite where the owner won't charge other users for use—instead it's a gift from India to its neighbors/an effort to force India's neighbors into a dependant relationship (delete to taste). If the notion of "communications infrastructure as a public good" goes on to become A Thing, this may be hailed as a defining moment by future generations, but that's very much crystal-balling at present. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
:*@[[User:Stephen|Stephen]] As I understand it, this is the first communications satellite where the owner won't charge other users for use—instead it's a gift from India to its neighbors/an effort to force India's neighbors into a dependant relationship (delete to taste). If the notion of "communications infrastructure as a public good" goes on to become A Thing, this may be hailed as a defining moment by future generations, but that's very much crystal-balling at present. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - From the "gift" viewpoint [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - From the "gift" viewpoint [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', in case my comments above didn't make it obvious. India alone has launched well over a hundred satellites this year alone, and there's nothing obviously significant about this one. While it's the first ''communications'' satellite not to charge for use, it's certainly not the first provider of free satellite services—GPS and GLONASS have both been operational for decades, for instance. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Pope Francis criticizes naming the U.S. military's biggest non-nuclear explosive as the Mother of All Bombs, saying that the word "mother" should not be used in reference to a deadly weapon. (Reuters)
Nigerian officials report, as a result of negotiations, Boko Haram has released an estimated 82 schoolgirls who were among about 220 kidnapped from a secondary school in Chibok in Borno State in April 2014. (Reuters)
As many as 30 people, mostly children, are killed after a school bus plunges off a road into a steep ravine in the Arusha Region of northern Tanzania. (BBC)
France's electoral commission orders French media not to publish contents of Emmanuel Macron's leaked campaign emails to avoid influencing the presidential election, warning journalists could face criminal charges for publishing the material. (The Independent)
Russia, Iran and Turkey reach an agreement, effective this midnight, to establish four "safe zones" in Syria over which all military aircraft, including Turkish, Russian, and American aircraft, will be barred from flying. (Reuters)(Fox News)
The United Nations welcomed the long discussed safe zones, although they have been rejected by Syrian rebels and the Kurdish PYD. (Reuters)(Fox News)(Reuters)
Nominator's comments: I'm surprised that it took this long for this news item to be nominated for inclusion into the ITN section. Blagamaga (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen As I understand it, this is the first communications satellite where the owner won't charge other users for use—instead it's a gift from India to its neighbors/an effort to force India's neighbors into a dependant relationship (delete to taste). If the notion of "communications infrastructure as a public good" goes on to become A Thing, this may be hailed as a defining moment by future generations, but that's very much crystal-balling at present. ‑ Iridescent07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in case my comments above didn't make it obvious. India alone has launched well over a hundred satellites this year alone, and there's nothing obviously significant about this one. While it's the first communications satellite not to charge for use, it's certainly not the first provider of free satellite services—GPS and GLONASS have both been operational for decades, for instance. ‑ Iridescent09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: "These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects." Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Reliable 3rd-party source coverage needs to be demonstrated. ITN typically doesn't post wonky scientific studies unless they've received media coverage to demonstrate significance and notability.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the abstract from The Lancet also says, "Moreover, some patients with SAMS might be able to tolerate a lower dose than the dose that leads to SAMS, longer dose intervals, or an alternative statin." In other words, statins do cause muscle pain, and the nocebo effect is only one factors of many. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Primary source research. Even if covered in media, not a review. And I'm sure Pfizer, Servier and Leo Pharma, who funded the research, would love to have more people on statins. SpencerT♦C04:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Great decision by Indian court: India's Supreme Court has upheld the death sentences of four men convicted of the gang rape and murder of a student in Delhi. --> Sherenk1 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Granted, this was a high-profile case, but "court upholds sentence for murder conviction" is utterly routine. Besides, the source you cite states that The four men still have the right to file a review petition in the Supreme Court, so this is just one stage in the sentencing process, not a final sentencing. ‑ Iridescent11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait death sentences my be common, but stories as notorious as this are not. How many executions in the US make headlines in non-English language papers in India? This horrific crime and its aftermath were news around the world for days. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Comac C919
Article:Comac C919 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The maiden flight of the Chinese Comac C919 airliner takes place. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Chinese-designed and built airliner, the Comac C919, makes its first flight. News source(s):Flight Global Credits:
Support The C919 first flight is a major event in aviation. flightglobal's paper was only announcing the date, it did not take place at this time but 1 hour ago: [1]. It isn't china 1st airliner since the Y-10, the Comac ARJ21 was. It took the sky but hadn't landed yet [2] --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (note : flightglobal ref updated)[reply]
Support this is significant because China wants geopolitical influence in the air transit infrastructure of other countries - the article on the earlier Comac ARJ21 has possible operators in Laos, Myanmar and Congo. -- Callinus (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There seems to be some debate about how "Chinese" it really is. Guardian notes that "the C919 features German landing gear, Franco-American engines and an Austrian interior." Perhaps "claimed as" should be in the blurb? Sca (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Chinese" insofar as it was designed in China by the Chinese, and assembled in China by the Chinese. No major aircraft manufacturer uses parts only from one country. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only six Comac ARJ21 regional jets have been built, whereas according to Reuters the much larger C919 has 570 orders from 23 customers. NYT calls the C919 "the first Chinese-built passenger jetliner," which may not be entirely accurate, but it seems to be the first one aimed at the global market. CNN terms it "China's first big passenger jet," and says "with the C919, China is aiming to become one of the world's top makers of large commercial aircraft." How about inserting "large" in the altblurb? Sca (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Everything looks great, except the entirely uncited 'Major publications' and 'Positions and awards' sections. This should not be posted until the sections are sourced or removed. Mamyles (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close of good faith nom, strong opposition to posting, and as noted, we normally only post signed-into-law legislation. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major U.S. news as the GOP clears a significant legislative hurdle to overturn a highly significant bit of legislation which affects millions of Americans. WaltCip (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. First we don't generally do domestic political posts for any country other than the ITNR stuff. But this has only passed the House of Representatives. It hasn't even been discussed in the Senate. I doubt I would support it even if it passes the Senate in its current form, but this is like nominating the World Series after the second game. Come on! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The House bill is already dead, as the Senate has said they are not going to take it up [3] and will write their own bill instead. Also, this sort of domestic political/policy matter would not be posted if it were from almost any other nation. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose' as insufficiently updated. As far as I can tell, there has been only two sentences of update in this long article, one each at end of the lead and the end of the last section, both simply saying "this happened". While there is a lot of background, anyone wanting to know more about the bankruptcy itself will not be educated by the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Extensively" and "sufficiently" are not synonyms. It does not contain the material that I would be looking for if I came to the article from an ITN blurb - specifically what the effect of declaring bankruptcy is and what it means for PR, its government and population in any of the immediate, short, medium and long term. There is plenty of background on the long term reasons why it has happened, that part is fine, but the article tells me nothing more about the current news story than the blurb does. Why was it declared today? What difference does it make? It doesn't even tell me whether it has any immediate implications for people living there, let alone what they are (if there are any)? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't reading ITN during 2010, but if I get the article you link correctly, there was also an independence referendum in the Netherland Antilles. That makes it fundamentally different from this nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without prejudice unless the situation develops. Per my comments a couple of months ago regarding the Renewable Heat scandal bringing down the Northern Irish government, if this escalates to the level at which the Puerto Rican government becomes so dysfunctional that the US is forced to impose direct rule and administer PR as a de facto colony just to keep the lights on, that would be a significant enough development that it would be perverse not to post it regardless of its only affecting one country, especially since that one country houses 40% of en-wiki's readers. However, things don't appear to have reached that stage yet. ‑ Iridescent12:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent; I don't think this is postable yet, but it could be if the situation deteriorates further, as Iridescent suggests. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, purely on article quality. There are orange maintenance tags that have to be resolved before this could be posted. This is the largest, by far, government bankruptcy in the United States. The previous record was $18 billion (Detroit). PR owes over $70 billion in actual bond debt and an addition $50 billion in unfunded obligations. The effects of this are likely to be enormous and are certain to send shock waves through the bond markets. The fact that this primarily involves the United States is not a valid reason for opposing (see "Please do not..." above this section). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my above rational. The maintenance tags have been removed and the article appears to be in good shape. (There is a single CN tag but that's not enough for me to withhold support.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all of the orange maintenance tags because there was no explanation on the article's talk page, and it is unclear what content those tags were challenging. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm satisfied with the article quality. While this week's update is just a few sentences, there is a sizable section dedicated to 2017 developments that adds sufficient background. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of what is said in the article is months of lead up through 2017 and then a few sentences of the news in recent days. Also, it seems like this news is more directed towards the US audience, reading in one article where people were more concerned about other states being affected and the retirement plans of Americans being ruined. However, no one really seemed to care about Puerto Rico specifically. Kinda sad.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Newsworthy, which is why the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal put the story on their front-pages today. This was the significant event in the crisis. It was proceeded by a long series of small events and it will be succeeded by a long series of small events. Regarding future escalation to "direct rule", the federal Oversight Board already has been given ultimate control over PR's budget and bankruptcy filings, which many readers may first learn from the article. The Blurb is accurate, although the defaulted bond value is $74B, PR's total obligations are $123B. The bond markets are international, and the bankruptcy will have international consequences. While the article is far from perfect, it could use more eyeballs, and the time is now. Lord Monboddo (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NYT and WSJ are also US newspapers, no? Given that the event is internal to the US, it's not surprising that they're front-page on US newspapers. If it's front page on, say, a Venezuela newspaper, then that's something. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the blue section near the top of this page... Please don't 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. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence has never made sense to me. If I oppose something because it is internal to the US, I'm effectively also opposing it because it lacks international significance. It is the same argument, worded differently. But if I phrase it in the first way, I get people citing this sentence at me, while nobody does if I phrase it in the second way. Go figure. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revise posted blurb. Puerto Rico is by law not allowed to declare bankruptcy. Yes, it's totally bankruptcy in all but name, but officially it's debt restructuring under PROMESA. Suggest "Puerto Rico undergoes a debt restructuring similar to bankruptcy" instead. (See this NY Times article as a source: "The coming court proceedings will not be formally called a bankruptcy, since Puerto Rico remains legally barred from using Chapter 9, the bankruptcy route normally taken by insolvent local governments. Instead, Mr. Rosselló petitioned for relief under Title III of the Promesa law") SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a fair point which I had considered yesterday. The problem is that almost all of the reliable sources are using the word bankruptcy to describe this while throwing in a line or two as a sort of disclaimer regarding the technical language of the law. Perhaps we could add "de facto" before the word bankruptcy.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. The first part of the article is fairly well-referenced. "Filmography" lacks any references, but I'm sure a lot of the movie titles with articles will be referenced enough to show she was featured in them. 118.81.59.238 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Death of a notable personage in unclear circumstances that is likely to affect the general political situation in Somalia. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this for RD, however there are some uncited statements in the 'Personal life' section. BBC says that 'Mr Abas studied at Kenya's prestigious Nairobi University', which doesn't match up with our article. Mamyles (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose blurb since he was "just" a member of the government. There are thousands upon thousands of members of governments throughout the world, and deaths aren't that rare. Deaths in a violent incident are rarer, but I still hesitate to say it's at ITN level. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Had this been an opponent of the government assassinating him in a targeted attack I would support the blurb, but this is in effect more of an accident than a murder and likely won't have large ramifications. EternalNomad (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've put in a couple of more inline citations along with an additional reference. As to the confusion over his degree, the University of Nairobi has long had a connection with Moi University, dating right back to the latter's foundation. I'm still trying to nail down the exact affiliation/accreditation relationship between the two though. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. The first paragraph of the personal life section is tagged as needing a better source (it's currently cited to the German Wikipedia), but I don't see this as being particularly contentious and although the German article doesn't have inline citations it does have three book sources which might cover this. It wouldn't pass muster for GA but for RD it's OK imho. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest a blurb and explain why these should be posted? Merely being in the news is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this: President Maduro has issued a presidential decree creating a 500-member "constituent assembly" to rewrite the constitution despite staged demonstrations demanding elections. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for both ongoing and any potential blurb right now. this small infobox update is the only addition to the article in the last week, without a substantive prose addition to the text describing a recent development, there's nothing to post on the main page; ongoing is doubly not appropriate as there are not continuous, ongoing additions being made. The last major development added to the article happened April 23. If we were to post this to ongoing, we'd need to see frequent (every day or few days) additions of events which happened over same timescale. If we were to post this as a blurb, we'd need to see one substantive addition within the past few days. I see none of that here. If this is happening in the news, then please add to the article before asking us to assess said article. --Jayron3211:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you just wrote is 100% true. It is also irrelevant to my objection. I never said anything about the BBC front page. --Jayron3213:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ongoing. Massive protests, every-day newscoverage and Venezuela also accounced it will leave the Organization of American States because the international organization criticized its government BBC. Over 30 deaths in the protests so far. The last time this was in ITN (archive), it was pulled out because there was an error in the blurb and not re-added despite overwhelming support. --Pudeo (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ongoing – Protests which have occurred for over a month are still large and casualties are increasing. Proposals for a new constitution have been made. Rumors are being made of Leopoldo Lopez's health.1 Most information about this is updated in the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests since we learned in previous articles that the timeline sections of main articles can grow quickly. The article's body does need an update, though.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this event has been ongoing for quite a while and is clearly dominating local news. It has also made international waves as well with items like Venezuela leaving the OAS. Something on this topic should be on ITN, be it as a blurb or as ongoing.
It's pointless supporting for blurb or ongoing when the article hasn't been updated, because it won't be posted without it. Jayron noted yesterday that there had been no changes to the article, bar a small infobox change, for a week, and that is still the case. BencherliteTalk09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea vows to accelerate its nuclear weapons programme to "maximum pace" and test a nuclear device "at any time" in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's aggressive stance towards the regime. (The Guardian)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: While there is no specific article (im generally off WP most days now, as one can see through my contribs), this is notable and a first casualty just reported. Akin to NI days even. Its in the news, for sure. Lihaas (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even oppose because there's nothing to decide if it needs opposing. What text am I supposed to judge the quality of? How am I supposed to assess if a Wikipedia article is worth posting on the main page if you can't even point me to text that is supposed to be assessed? There's no point in assessing non-existent text! --Jayron3221:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this is notable. Prisoners committing suicide is not a rarity, as far as I know. Note that the source cited, Press TV, is an Iranian state-run propaganda instrument and is generally not a reliable source (see WP:Potentially unreliable sources). Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support. ITNR, and prose for final is fine. As an aside, discussion for the newest blurb currently on ITN will be archived in 18 hours. The discussion for the oldest was archived nearly ten days ago. So let's get on with it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is telling when it takes only 3 votes and 8 hours to post a billiards championship that nobody cares about, but an actual newsworthy story about Turkey blocking Wikipedia gets hung up for nearly a week with a ridiculous back-and-forth about "notability". ITN should be dismantled as no longer being relevant.128.227.204.31 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a "billiards championship that nobody cares about", it's an ITNR item so it's just the quality that needs to be assessed. It's not ITN that needs to be dismantled, it's the community consensus you dislike so much I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saeed Karimian, the founder and director of GEM TV, a Persian language network based in Dubai, is shot dead in Istanbul, Turkey, along with his Kuwaiti business partner. Karimian had previously been tried in absentia by a Tehran court and sentenced to six years in prison for spreading propaganda against Iran. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Claimed to have been the world's oldest person, with a residency card containing a birthdate of December 1870. 171.118.58.253 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — The article looks alright and is completely properly sourced, but it is very short. Surely, some more details of Sodimejo's long life could be added, or some more information on his age. There's a decent chance that this man was indeed the oldest man alive for a while, even if he was born thirty years later than he claims. It would be nice if there were some sections in this article, naturally expanding it and turning it into a C-class article. I still have difficulty grasping what level of quality is needed for RD, so I stay neutral on this for now. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article will need a one-paragraph section on his death (climbing accident). Also the "Climbing achievements" section is inconsistently referenced. There's no clear criteria which climbs make it to this list, and the best course of action would be to restructure this as "notable climbs" and remove many entries from this. Worth considering that Steck's own website lists only 16 climbs in its "acheivements" list, the earliest of which was in 2005. LukeSurltc15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the bold step of removing the "Climbing achievements" section entirely (copied and pasted it to talk for reference), meaning that there shouldn't be any unreferenced statements in the article now and it should be ready to post. Stuck's major achievements are already discussed in prose in the career section. --LukeSurltc01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This was suggested by multiple users in the section below so I am nominating it, seeing as the ongoing section is lacking at the moment. Over 130,000 public servants and judges have been sacked and/or imprisoned so far, and over 3,000 schools and charities closed. The story is making international press, and is bound to increase now that the referendum was passed. Laurdecltalk04:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the purpose of Ongoing, we link to an article, and let that do the talking. I believe the Wikipedia block is mentioned in there, but the Ongoing aspect means it just links the article, not specific aspects of it therein. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is properly sourced and open to any suggestions to improve it. Notable university and high school coach with rewarding career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tentatively oppose unless this is really something major. First, it's navel-gazing (Turkey has blocked other social media sites before, no reason to single out WP); second, it seems like following the cases of previous social media blocks that there's information on WP that isn't favorable to Turkey's government, and so they have blocked it to prevent its citizens from seeing it. Which is a minor event on the larger scale of the Turkey situation. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, I do wonder if this is because of our current blurb about the last election result. No we should not react by changing it, just an observation. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Big news in Wikipedia circles, but not generally – although it's received fairly extensive coverage today (Saturday). If the Erdoğan regime were to somehow block Wiki permanently, that could be a blurb. Sca (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until at least we have an official response from Turkish opposition. This seems to be different from past transient bans of social networks (e.g. after arrest of MPs) and the statements I have been reading are reminiscent of the long-term YouTube ban unfortunately, and as such could potentially be notable. --GGT (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-opened this, since (1) the AfD has no delete votes, but an obvious consensus to move or merge, which means a target link will still exist, and (2) Since AfD's normally take a week at least, closing an ITN nomination for that reason amounts to an automatic veto, since the item will be stale/aged off during that period. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the article cannot be linked on the main page while it's at AfD. If it is closed early we can re-open the discussion. If you want to propose an alt blurb targeting a different article we can discuss that, but until the AfD is closed the current discussion is moot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is one of the top half-dozen visited websites worldwide, and a source of independent information being blocked by a newly empowered autocrat, who apparently sees access to the wensite as a threat. Some may object this is navelgazing, but wikipedia's popularity is objectively measurable, and the action here is by a government, not an in-house wikipedia initiative.
This is above the fold news in many aggregators and worldwide:
Turkey blocks access to Wikipedia Reuters-5 hours ago
Turkey blocks Wikipedia for not removing content Aljazeera.com-2 hours ago
Turkey blocks Wikipedia without court order or explanation The Independent-8 hours ago
Turkey blocks Wikipedia under law designed to protect national ... The Guardian-5 hours ago
Turkey blocks access to Wikipedia, alleging "smear campaign" CBS News-3 hours ago
Turkish authorities block Wikipedia without giving reason Highly Cited-BBC News-6 hours ago
Oppose, I don't remember us posting blurbs when some countries blocked the Internet period. This is a big deal for us Wikipedians, sure, but to the rest of the world? Not really. --AmaryllisGardenertalk17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support although I think Internet regulation in Turkey might be a more suitable article. Blocking social media is one thing, but if the Turkish regime starts blocking encyclopedias that contain "unfavourable" information, I think it's newsworthy. I don't think they'll be able to keep the ban in place for long, but that's another topic. Juliussasar (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is big news, although it's not yet clear how long the block will last. I changed the article to point to the target where the AfD seems to be leaning on merging. I think we have posted section links to ITN before? --hydrox (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that we have not posted stories of censorship before does not mean that we should never start posting stories of censorship. If there is a precedent in which such a story was rejected, I would be more than happy to learn about it. This incident deprives a nation of 80 million people of its principal online source of knowledge, one of the websites with the highest traffic in the country, and has been covered by a multitude of international news outlets, as documented by Medeis. With a court order now in place, this could be a long-standing block. --GGT (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Turkey's government have prevented their population from the DYK section of the main page. Other governments should act accordingly. In all seriousness, this is a niche aspect to the Turkey story, just because "je suis Wikipedia", it doesn't mean undue weight should be given by this vessel to its own ban. It would be navel-gazing and bias and undue weight in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant development, major news coverage, it would not be undue weight. This is not "just big news for Wikipedians" but for all Internet users worldwide as well as Turkish citizens. --Fixuture (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if they'd blocked Google, or YouTube, or Twitter, or something else which actually contains accurate and to-the-point communications with others, perhaps. So people in Turkey won't get to learn that on this day, in 1862, Union forces under David Farragut captured New Orleans, securing access into the Mississippi River. I'm not sure this is really important in the big scheme of things. Would it be the same if the Turkish Govt had blocked Britannica? If not, why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Turkish-language online equivalent of Britannica. There is simply no other website except for Wikipedia that delivers (ideally) sourced information on a broad range of topics, barring those that mirror Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean by the "grand scheme of things". Is it a requirement that everything we post should be of geopolitical importance or something? This is important news globally in terms of internet freedom, a topic worthy of consideration on its own. It matters when the access of an entire people to a key website and a key source of knowledge is inhibited, whether that knowledge is the capture of New Orleans, the symptoms and management of pancreatic cancer, an unbiased presentation of modern-day Turkish politics, or whatever. It is not navel gazing IMHO, as I would be all for the posting of a ban on YouTube or another major website in a major country. --GGT (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting Wikipedia contains no significant information or has no significant uses for Turkish Internet users. I do not agree. --Fixuture (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not compared with Google, Twitter or YouTube. We can agree to disagree. It's pretty lame in any case, VPNs are designed for this, and the BBC confirmed earlier that it was simple enough to access Wikipedia that way, just like some people access Netflix illegally. I was banned from accessing my Amazon Prime library when I was in the United States, but it wasn't a big deal. Just like this. And in fact, as noted, there are shedloads of Wikipedia mirrors, so if the Turkish Govt really thought they'd be stopping people accessing the information that "only Wikipedia hosts" (and actually, there should be nothing on Wikipedia that isn't available and verifiable by reliable third-party sources!) then they're stupidly mistaken. This is a "in-name only" block. Pointless, stupid, vindictive, yes, but ITN-worthy? Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is NAVEL gazing over a relatively trivial event in the grand history of state censorship. I seriously doubt this will see anything resembling SUSTAINED coverage. There have been numerous other incidents involving government censorship, some far more egregious, and to the best of my recollection we have never posted any of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree and also just because there has been history of state censorship doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover current notable instances of such. And if it's the case that "there have been numerous other incidents involving government censorship" that we didn't cover we probably should have posted them as well hence this is no reason to not include this one. Also as a sidenote it would be ridicolous to include all sorts of trivial sports events and alike but not developments such as this one. --Fixuture (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support link to Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey. Generating a lot of news coverage and reports in other countries. In a way, it signals that Turkey has crossed a bright red line, and they are now on the same level as China and NK. I do not believe including this this is NAVEL, although I did !vote to merge the article. We can allow a little self-ref, every now and then. We're talking about information being censored from millions of people not being notable, yet obviously the London Marathon is. Laurdecltalk23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is part of wide-ranging censorship and political repression by the Turkish Government. We shouldn't single out Wikipedia just because this is Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This being "part of wide-ranging censorship and political repression" is imo no reason to not include this event: instead we should have included other events as well instead of all the trivial sports events. These are the events of significance. --Fixuture (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE This is clearly in the news. But far more importantly, if we are not prepared to use the weapon of publicity to defend ourselves when we are being censored, why should anybody else bother to try to defend us? By failing to use that weapon we will be encouraging further censorship of Wikipedia, and of other sources of relatively unbiased information. One of our main policies is Wikipedia is not censored - it is strange to see this in effect changed to "Wikipedia should stay silent when it is censored". At the risk of being criticized for violating Godwin's Law (all too often a dangerous absurdity in my view, but let's not go into that here), let me add that there's a well-known saying protesting against this kind of silence that goes 'First they came for the X, Y and Z, but I did not speak out because I was NOT an X, Y, or Z...' - but it now seems that some people here rather strangely seem to think that 'When they come for the X, Y and Z, it would be wicked NAVEL-GAZING and therefore WRONG of me to speak out if I am an X, Y, or Z (and all other X, Y and Z should similarly shut up too)'. As far as I am concerned that kind of 'logic' is simply and unnecessarily and outrageously offering practical support for every enemy of liberty on this planet.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this was perhaps the US gov't censoring Wikipedia (as a US-based company) to the point that WP content can't go past its servers, you may be right. But this is a gov't that has zero control over WP, and so they've just put blocks on their part of the Internet. This is not as grand a scope as this suggests. And WP is not the place to right great wrongs that is outside the country the system operates within. (SOPA is one thing that legitmiately threatened WP's ability to operate, this does not.) --MASEM (t) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) Defending yourself when you are attacked is not some kind of quixotic attempt to 'right great wrongs' in general (just as it is not Navel-gazing either). Failure to defend yourself when attacked can often be a form of near-suicidal insanity. WP is the logical place for WP to defend itself when it is attacked.
2) The Turkish government is NOT a government that has zero control over WP, it has fairly full control over all WP editors and readers in its country, and a huge proportion of humankind are in a similar position vis-a-vis their own fully or partly dictatorial governments (and indeed 'democratic-but-authoritarian' governments), and many have reason to fear that some day this may happen to them too, especially if this dangerous precedent remains inadequately challenged. It would be a grotesque example of WP:BIAS to behave in practice as if these huge numbers of mostly non-Westerners somehow didn't really matter.
3) The Turkish government has specifically targeted WP rather than the Internet in general. (It also has some other targets, and our blurb can and should be amended to mention that).
4) One of the most effective things WP and WMF can do to fight this is to give it as much publicity as possible, and that means putting it on our front page as part of our headlines.
5) Many of our readers are understandably and rightly likely to want to see how we react to this attack on us. I fail to see how depriving them of this improves the encyclopedia (as we are supposed to try to do, per WP:IAR).
(Unfortunately life is too short to answer the infinite number of arguments that can be put forward for not properly defending yourself when attacked, etc, so I am probably going to have to fail to respond to any future such arguments - this failure does not mean that I think such arguments are sound).Tlhslobus (talk)
The WMF has already defended itself: it refused to take any action to remove the "offending" material. Second, the Turkish gov't has no control over the WMF, which is the only key entity related to Wikipedia's ownership. Editors and readers are not part of that. Third, as our articles have pointed out, Turkey's gov't has repeated temporarily blocked social media and other websites due to content they don't agree with or that they want the Turkish people to see. This is just one more event in that string of events. There are many many political problems around the Turkey situation that is much larger than their temporarily blockage of WP, this story is the quintessential example of sensational news on a slow news day that fails the WP:NOT#NEWS test, suffers from navel gazing (putting WP's interest on a pedestal), and really is being blown out of proportion. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As far as I can recall, we've never posted to ITN when Turkey has blocked Twitter or Facebook or Youtube, etc. Given that context, I do think it feels like NAVEL to choose to post about Wikipedia being blocked. To avoid the appearance of bias, stories about Wikipedia should be held to a very high threshold of significance, and I don't think we have that here. That said, I support the efforts of the WMF to speak out against this and fight against it, if possible. Dragons flight (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because in practice we can't defend everybody else is no reason why we shouldn't defend ourselves. Defending yourself when you are attacked is NOT Navel-gazing. Claiming that it is, looks remarkably like Wikilawyering, and like failing to ignore rules that prevent you from improving the encyclopedia (in this case by preventing you from properly defending it when it is attacked by a semi-dictatorship) as required by WP:IAR, which implements one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia (Wikipedia has no firm rules. However unwittingly, in practice it also gives comfort and support to the attackers, and to those who may wish to imitate them in future. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should defend ourselves, as the WMF is apparently planning to do in Turkish courts, and as various people have already done via the press. However, there are appropriate ways to protest and challenge censorship and there are inappropriate ways to do so. To my way of thinking, ITN is not an appropriate venue for this kind of thing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is a wider story here of the ongoing purge in Turkey, of which internet restrictions are a sub-story. Case in point, the BBC story today leads with the sacking of 4,000 officials, and the blocking of Wikipedia is given secondary status in that article. Perhaps 2016–17 Turkish purges should be nominated as an ongoing item?
Perhaps 2016–17 Turkish purges should be nominated as an ongoing item?
I'd support that in addition. Actually why isn't this featured already? This is very significant, gets a lot of media attention and is still ongoing. --Fixuture (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia using ITN to "defend" itself is a concept I strongly dislike, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies even when that wrong is against the Wikipedia project. While en:wiki has taken "political" action before in relation to the Protests against SOPA and PIPA, this was done after a broad and lengthy community-wide discussion, and was executed in such a way that didn't suggest the content of the encyclopedia had been adjusted for those campaigning ends. Neither of those essential criteria would be met in this case. --LukeSurltc01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not using ITN to "defend" itself. That section is supposed to cover notable topics that are in the news such as this one. I'm really perplexed by how hard people here are looking the other way for the sake of it or apparently of fear of getting accussed of "NAVAL", "RIGHTGREATWRONGS" or whatever but continue to feature entirely insignficant sports events over and over. I guess shooting yourself in the foot is a virtue now here? --Fixuture (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Viewed from a neutral, third party, "up in the sky looking down" point of view, Wikipedia could reasonably be seen as reporting on itself in a neutral, verifiable way. This particular event as risen in significance, as can be seen in multiple third party reporting sources. We also should note this in the larger context of events. Yet, it is significant in and of itself. Hires an editor (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Turkey's blocking of Wikipedia is merely a symptom of its growing totalitarianism, and in the long run is not as newsworthy as the actually substantive actions they are taking to repress its people, such as the purges. WP:ITN also is not an advocacy channel for Wikipedia. I don't care what great wrongs people feel need to be righted. There are avenues for doing this and ITN is not one of them.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A day later, this story is pretty much off the radar. We may not like a government's policies when they affect WP, but that doesn't make them significant in the Big Scheme – and the implicit criticism of Wikipedia is best ignored. (I venture to say Wiki will still be around when Mr. Erdoğan is gone.) Anyhow, it's part of the larger picture of media censorship and repression in Turkey. Sca (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No longer on AP, BBC, Guardian and Reuters. I could support including a brief mention of it in the Turkish purges article nominated for ongoing above.Sca (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if only because this is just a tiny fraction of the ongoing Turkey story. We would not include Turkey blocking any old website, so it seems a little daft to include this one. — foxj21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thslobus. A nominally democratic country, NATO member at that, and longtime EU aspirant does something only China has done so far (and AFAIK to a greater extent than China ... did they block all wikis? Or just tr and en? (China only blocks zhwiki in its entirety, and select articles from here like Falun Gong and {[1989 Tianmen Square protests]]) This cannot be compared to blocking a social network since unlike them, Wikipedia is not used to organize political action, it is used just for information. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close I think we have reached a point where an uninvolved editor could safely close this. Clearly we are not going to reach consensus one way or another on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
_2015-02-04_02.jpg)