:::I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. [[User:Mamyles|Mamyles]] ([[User talk:Mamyles|talk]]) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:::I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. [[User:Mamyles|Mamyles]] ([[User talk:Mamyles|talk]]) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Fake news! '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Fake news! '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' After reading the other comments here and watching the press briefing and the justifications of the firing I really don't see the legitimacy of the conspiracy that would make this event worth posting.[[Special:Contributions/75.73.150.255|75.73.150.255]] ([[User talk:75.73.150.255|talk]]) 18:34, 10 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).
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.
Nominator's comments: More than just the routine change in leadership given the controversy involving Clinton email and Russian involvement in 2016 US election. Of international interest, top story in many UK newspapers for example. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless Trump is impeached over this matter. The head of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President and the official reason isn't nefarious(even if the timing and unsaid reasons might be). I've nevertheless suggested a blurb with "fired" as that's the typical American term. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's big news because of all the conspiracy theories. This is an encyclopedia so I think we should avoid promoting this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is a very minor event, magnified by the sensationalist media. We are not USApedia. Someone lost their job, but who cares? If something significant comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post something about it, but it is too early to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and additionally because this is unsurprising. This guy was on thin ice with every player in the 2016 election; with Clinton for going public about classified emails on her personal server and failing to pass on espionage cases against Trump to the prosecutor, and with Trump for failing to pass on cases for the former and for making ambiguous statements regarding the latter. It's almost like he wanted to get fired.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is currently the lead story on the major English-language news websites outside the US, with unusual levels of coverage (eg, banner headlines, multiple follow up stories, etc). I'd usually not support an item like this given the risk of being US-centric, but the level of coverage is very significant. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the international interest as noted by nomninator and Nick-D (not that this has any chance of being posted as any story with a connection to US politics is shot down by the "USApedia" crowd.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel this way. Please assume good faith. We do post US stories when they seem significant, which does not appear to be the case here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Every analysis agrees this is saber-rattling, and certainly not a "final" result of the prior Russian hacking claims and the Hillary Clinton email controversy alongside other partisan politics. At the same time, while we can factually report on the firing, there is no way under RECENTISM we can write a neutral article on this (everyone is throwing a zillion reasons for the firing into the ring), which is why we are exactly not a newspaper for this very reason, and why we have to look past "its front page headlines in every newspaper" for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the wording on the blurb ("sacked") or the alternative blurb ("fired") could easily be understood if that person reads English as a secondary, or even tertiary language. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And added another as while I don't think this should be posted, a significant part of this story is that this was Trump's decision. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Justice Department's recommendation. There's too much nuance to just attribute this firing to Trump's whim.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be clear that this came from the executive branch; as I understand it, Congress through checks & balances can also impeach/remove the FBI director. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been the lead story on the television (local & national) news, & has been widely considered not only to be a surprise but to have ominous timing as this firing came as Comey was leading an investigation into Trump/Russian connections. (Note how the letter firing Comey mentions the former head of the FBI denied Trump did anything wrong three times. The lady protesteth too much.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The latest in the endless series of "Trump did..." nominations. And again, we don't post ordinary political stories from any country other than elections. If he is impeached I think that would have to be posted, but as of right now there is not even a credible claim that he has done anything illegal. I would point out that we avoided posts about the former South Korean President's troubles until she was actually impeached. What we have here is a media firestorm, largely manufactured by a nakedly hostile press. And I say that as someone who detests Donald Trump and (almost) everything he represents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you are downplaying the significance of this. The FBI director being fired whilst actively investigating the US President is unprecedented. It is not an ordinary political story, nor is it manufactured by the media.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This event is getting widespread coverage, but it doesn't pack the significance requisite for ITN, and outside the U.S. this story will fade quickly. (For some Americans of a certain age, it does smack of 'Trick' Nixon's infamous firing of Archibald Cox (1973), which led to his downfall, but the circumstances are quite different.) Suggest close. Sca (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest we WP:SNOW close this. It's an internal political post with no major international consequences. Yes it's making headlines, but we can't go posting blurbs for every comparable post around the world. Modest Geniustalk16:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is obviously a pivotal moment in the Trump story, reminiscent of Nixons Saturday Night Massacre. This is the top story of my local non-US media. I have sympathy for the people who say we should not post *everything* from internal US politics, but this is the make-or-break point, and we should post this. Thue (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To draw comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre is pure partisanship. For one thing, it's not even the same thing. An FBI director firing is not unprecedented; Bill Clinton did this in 1992.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is not under investigation now, per the letter. Or are you suggesting Trump lied? Can't imagine. *snicker*--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ITN is becoming one of the worst WP:IDLI and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS venues on the encyclopedia these days. I hear the thing about us not being a celebrity news ticker, and the value in covering less well known stories from around the world, but when something hits the headlines of all the major outlets around the world, and is new and unexpected, we should generally always be posting it. — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't usually post government managers being fired. This is not even a cabinet-level post, so I do not believe it reaches the significance level required for an ITN blurb. We would, of course, post a successful impeachment if it comes to that. Mamyles (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose seems unconsidered. This is Trump firing the person investigating Trump, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Yout "oppose" only cites "government managers being fired", which suggests you are entirely missing the point. Thue (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a disingenuous objection. Were the head of MI6 or the Russian Federal Security Service fired without warning in the middle of investigating a high-level government official, that would make international news, even here in the rather insular USA. And last time a high-level official was fired during a similar investigation was during Watergate, which led the impeachment & resignation of the US President. This is a significant step towards that event. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. Mamyles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reading the other comments here and watching the press briefing and the justifications of the firing I really don't see the legitimacy of the conspiracy that would make this event worth posting.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
You mean the seven citation needed tags and specifically marked weasel words aren't worthy of opposition? You're getting soft ;) Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment The "Registered candidates" section needs referencing and it will need some prose about the results when they are in (the polls don't close until 11:00 UTC). The "Nominations" section would benefit from improved formatting and some prose in the "Opinion polling" section would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Official results still coming in, but reported exit polls are showing that, as expected, Moon has won by a substantial margin. I've suggested a blurb. --LukeSurltc13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that each "Candidate" subsection needs expansion for this, at least a paragraph or two establishing a short BG on the candidate and the platform/party/whatever they ran under. Just supplying a picture looks like a lack of effort here. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will note again: while this is ITNR and the results are well sourced and established, there is very little about the candidates or the issues (outside of this resulting from the impeachment). Stats are great, but we need context too. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the recent international coverage of North Korean activities and the impeachment of South Korea's previous incumbent, I think this is appropriate. From what I see, the article looks substantial enough as well. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Included image is now nominated for deletion on Commons, as cropped from an image that belongs to Yonhap and is not freely licensed. Reventtalk23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral commission has confirmed the result (CNN). There are numbers in the results table in the article, but no reference for these. CNN cite their two-decimal place percentages to the National Election Commission but it doesn't look like these numbers have been published yet on the English language Electoral Commission site.
Also the article suffers from the "opinion polling bloat" (a term I've just coined) that afflicts many election articles. It contains inordinate quantities of data on opinion polls, which may have been interesting for persons trying to prognosticate the result over the past few months, but are much less interesting now the actual results are in. Much of this could be split off into a new article or even simply removed. --LukeSurltc09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is certainly notable, especially as today's e-mail newsletter from the Council on Foreign Relations suggests he is 'Open to Visiting Pyongyang,' which could change many things. But Moon Jae-in has too many "citation needed" tags for now. Feel free to ping me when they have been fixed, and I will probably support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pluses - wide international coverage, likely lasting impact thanks to the strong religious overtones. Negatives - not a head of state, and he's said he will appeal so sentence is not final. Still, given that it's in the news now, and the fact that the religious overtones are not going away, I think we should post this now. Banedon (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well-covered, encyclopedic, and an actually well-written and -referenced BLP. There's an article for November 2016 Jakarta protests. It might have a non-bold place in the blurb. That this has happened in the nominally secular Indonesia has given this a special kind of saliency.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An "appeal" is ex post facto in Indonesia. Subject is in custody and serving the sentence as of now. This isn't a case where he gets to lounge around on leave and groups of lawyers have at it; he's been sentenced and is serving that right now.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I didn't get a sense of the larger international context from reading the article on him. Also just removed some POV language, which isn't a deal breaker, but is a concern. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the lead paragraph is "Basuki is recognized to be a clean politician, with a strong stance against corruption and his straight-talking style" - sourced to ... an Australian student newspaper. Large amounts of poor English and grammar. "Awards and Achievements section" mostly unsourced. A number of other statements unsourced too. In no way fit to be linked at the Main Page. Black Kite (talk)18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this is simply an individual being found guilty of a crime which is written into law in his country. The longest sentence he could have received was five years. This is unremarkable, perhaps another DYK possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It needs some general cleanup and a little more sourcing. However this is significant news. Appeals are almost routine in major criminal cases and have never stopped us from posting convictions in the past. If the article can be brought up to scratch this should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pluses: Far reaching implications for the history of our own species, even our own DNA. Minuses: the article could use some more details on the recent findings and edits to account for the update. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fascinating discovery, and the article gives a pretty good overview. The researchers used six different methods to establish the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A state of emergency is declared in Montreal, Canada as 1,200 Canadian Forces personnel are deployed in the province of Quebec to help with rising floodwaters. 146 communities are affected and more than 1,500 residents have been evacuated from their homes. (CBC)
In Chicago, 4 are killed and 5 injured when a speeding car accidentally hit a parked car and then crashed head-on into a CTA transit bus. (NBC Chicago)
Law and crime
France bans the breeding of killer whales and dolphins in captivity and orders aquariums and water parks to expand their pools within three years following a campaign by animal rights groups. (The Independent)
In China city of Weihai, authorities eventually concluded that what appeared to be an accident was a school bus driver driving students from China and South Korea to an international school set fire to the bus in a tunnel, killing two adults and 11 children. The bus driver who died was angry that his overtime allowance had been suspended. (CTGN)(New York Post)
Macron wins the election, earning 66.1% of the vote to Le Pen's 33.9%, becoming the youngest French head of state since Napoleon. (The New York Times)(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Just created, have meant to write this for almost a year, sad occasion to get it done MPJ-DK21:07, 9 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.
Nominator's comments: Placing it from now, so that we can decide on blurb, in around 8 hours when results are announced. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of whether or not this is an ITNR item, this election is big international news, given its effect on France's ongoing membership of the European currency union. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose Sourcing is mostly complete, but uses Youtube videos directly which can be unreliable. If we can get reliable secondary sources as replacement, I would support this. EternalNomad (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the 1st YouTube link, supported the 2nd with a secondary source. No secondary source found for the third but the video confirms he performed in the PTV show. Request to reconsider vote. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment: FWIW, it being a Pletcher trained horse is kind of a big deal because he was something like 43-1 going into this Derby and so actually winning another one (while tying the record of D. Wayne Lukas for the most Derby starters) was kind of a big deal. Montanabw(talk)23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pletcher's article is a bit poor though, lots of unsourced material - wouldn't be good enough to link from the main page for RD, so best to leave it. Black Kite (talk)23:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support short but fully cited, and further details about his life might be difficult to come by (at least in English), given the part of the world we are talking about. BencherliteTalk17:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Border clash resulting in deaths, diplomats being summoned and border closure. The event makes global headlines. Passes the so-called BBC and NYT test. Now don't oppose it calling a war zone. Mfarazbaig (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article's details further with a decent selection of references, and have reconsidered my vote. The alternative blurb looks fine. Changing to support. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - from what Mar4d wrote, this incident is significantly deadlier than the last, which left 2000 people homeless but apparently didn't kill anyone. Besides, it's been three months since the last incident. This is a conflict between two nations, making it an international incident worth posting (especially since it is headline news in two countries!). Banedon (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support looks like a possible storm in a teacup (albeit with diplomatic sabre waggling) but certainly a reasonable article and certainly in the news, and certainly of interest to a large number of English language speakers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with a different blurb that avoids mentioning specific casualty numbers, seeing as each side disputes the other's figures... BencherliteTalk18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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: 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]
The reasons why the launch is special include (but is not limited to) the following:
1) it is launched by a great power
2) it is (reported to be) a landmark event in the Indian space program in terms of its:
a) domestic development ("The South Asia satellite weighs 2,230 kilograms and is carrying 12 top-of-the-line communication transponders, making it India's most significant space project since February's record-breaking launch of 104 mini satellites with a single rocket." CNN)
b) regional significance ("In a first, India's space agency launched a satellite Friday to provide communications services to its neighboring countries."CNN),
3) its geopolitical implications ("There is no doubt the country is actively trying to counter China's growing influence over its neighbours through this satellite." BBC), ("Experts say the move is also designed to counter China's growing influence in South Asia." CNN)
4) its financing in terms of its:
a) payment requirements ("This 'gift' from India has no parallels in the space-faring world. All other current regional consortia are commercial for-profit enterprises." BBC), ("...it's the first communications satellite not to charge for use," Iridescent)
b) burden distribution relative to the number of beneficiaries ("The South Asia satellite, funded entirely by India, was announced several years ago with the intention of serving all eight members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)." CNN)
5) its distinct potentiality ("The new satellite will provide telecommunications, disaster management and weather forecasting services, among others. A satellite focusing on disaster communications could be particularly beneficial to South Asia, home to about a quarter of the world's population and prone to tropical cyclones, heat waves, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and floods." CNN)
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]
Oppose. As indicated, this satellite does not seem to stand out enough to warrant posting; free satellite access is not new, nor is a country trying to influence other countries to be in its orbit of influence, or to keep up with other countries doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above especially the geopolitical aspect of it. It isn't just about India providing free stuff that is at issue here. Wingwraith (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as excellently argued by Blagamaga. I don't agree with everything - e.g. #1 is arguable as can be seen from the great power article, 2a is also arguable since it sounds like a domestic Indian achievement without international significance. But the remaining points are quite convincing. This has international implications and geopolitical importance, which is good enough. I would go with Alt 3. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Satellite launches happen all the time. If we post this, it will open a floodgate of other satellite launch nominations. Besides, there is a duplicate article (GSAT-9) apart from the target article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfarazbaig (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another satellite.... they all have reasons to exist, this one is nice, and well suited to DYK, but not ITN. I'm not seeing it major on any of the main news websites I regularly visit, so I'd argue that this isn't really even in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 8 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: "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]
Oppose Sounds like the material is too esoteric to be included...although FWIW I am sure that the study is important as it is published in the Lancet afterall. Wingwraith (talk) 19:53, 6 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 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: [5]. It isn't china 1st airliner since the Y-10, the Comac ARJ21 was. It took the sky but hadn't landed yet [6] --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 [7] 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]
Oppose as BLP. Article still lacks citations for education and for his work with the UN, amongst others. Unsuitable for either RD or ITN until these are sourced. I actually think that the circumstances here might warrant a blurb, but this will go no where without proper citations.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:03, 9 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]
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
