:'''Support in principle''' but the article needs significant update, at least summary of all three test matches. Note: [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2013#British and Irish Lions tour|In 2013, some editors opposed to post because they mistook the Lions tour for only exhibition and promotional event]]. [[Special:Contributions/61.245.25.3|61.245.25.3]] ([[User talk:61.245.25.3|talk]]) 15:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
:'''Support in principle''' but the article needs significant update, at least summary of all three test matches. Note: [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2013#British and Irish Lions tour|In 2013, some editors opposed to post because they mistook the Lions tour for only exhibition and promotional event]]. [[Special:Contributions/61.245.25.3|61.245.25.3]] ([[User talk:61.245.25.3|talk]]) 15:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' unprecedented result to a major rugby event. This is not an exhibition event. —[[User:SomeoneNamedDerek|SomeoneNamedDerek]] ([[User talk:SomeoneNamedDerek|talk]]) 16:39, 8 July 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 summit announces it is unable to gain agreement on climate change between the United States and the other 19 members of this international forum. (Reuters)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. announces it will be closing eight more of its namesake department stores, as well as thirty five Kmart locations in addition to the hundred and fifty stores that they had announced in January would be shuttered. (Reuters)
Severe flooding on the Japanese island of Kyushu has caused seven deaths with twenty people unaccounted for. (Reuters via ABC)
A five-story apartment block collapses in the town of Torre Annunziata near the Italian city of Naples, with six or seven people trapped inside. So far, three have been found dead. (AP)
Rioting and looting takes place in Altona, Hamburg, particularly in the Elbchaussee area, as police clash with anti-capitalist protestors in the city for a second day. At least 160 police officers are injured and 70 protesters arrested. (The Guardian)
According to the World Health Organization, antibiotic resistance is on the rise in strains of gonorrhoea. It says that there is a need to prevent the spread of these bacteria, recommending usage of condoms and an increase in research and development funding. (WHO)
Law and crime
South Korea's National Police raid the headquarters of Korean Air as part of an investigation into embezzlement and breach of trust related to misappropriated funds alleged to have been used to fund construction at the residence of Korean Air Chairman Cho Yang-ho (father of Heather Cho, instigator of the "Nut rage incident" in 2014). The company's shares continue to drop. (Reuters)
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro says voting in his upcoming election on July 30 is mandatory for all 2.8 million state employees, with employees who do not vote facing ostracisation. Opponents of the government plan to hold their own unofficial referendum on the Maduro government on July 16. (Reuters)
Thousands of supporters of Yemen's secessionists rally in the southern city of Aden, backing a new group led by former head of Aden GovernorateAidarus al-Zoubaidi that advocates for autonomy of the country's south. (AP)
South Australia finalizes a deal with Tesla, spearheaded by tweets originating from CEO of Tesla Elon Musk, to install a battery system in the state. Tesla said in a statement that upon completion by December 2017, the system would be the largest lithium-ion battery storage project in the world, overtaking an 80 megawatt-hour power station at Mira Loma in California also built using Tesla batteries. (Reuters)
Weak weak oppose Partially on the situation: only 133 member countries voted, and those that have major nuclear weapons programs (US, Russia, most NATO states, etc.) did not participate. As the treaty only affects those that sign on to it, this will not affect the major problems in the world (read: North Korea). However, it is a positive step and to this end, if the article was in better quality to make sure these distinctions are made and noting which countries did not participate, among other details to note this is more "ceremonial" in the sense that few nuclear world powers are participating, then I would think it okay to post. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me through another !vote out there: Wait until the necessary 50 member-states sign it which then actually puts it into effect and makes it legally binding. This will be starting around Sept 20 when countries can sign onto it. Reading the articles, I get the impression that if they get the 50 member-states to sign on, it might coerce the bigger players to consider stepping onto it, but all recognize NK is going to be the last country to abide by this. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, at present it is in the news - the very new content is most important! Signature is not sufficient, only after 50 ratifications the treaty will be legally binding. This can take up to two years. Then we can put the information on the start page again - for now, please don't let our readers with old news like America's cup finished on 26 June. - By the way, I just updated main arguments of the civil society against the principle of nuclear deterrence defended by the nuclear powers and their allies, as well as arguments related to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now, the article of course is not excellent (the treaty is 9 hours old!), but gives a compact overview on history, content and discussions. --Jwollbold (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to still oppose on article quality. What exactly the treaty does should be clear (it should be a section unto itself), and the body needs to really include a full list of UN member states and how they voted, because the importance stressed by other !opposes here is the lack of any participation by current nuclear states - the article presently sweeps this under the rug with the last sentence of the lede. I don't dismiss this as purely ceremonial, but this factor about non-participation is very very important to understand that this is not going to be worldwide binding and likely to do little to current tensions with NK for example. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just wanted to nominate this article too. Brandmeister was faster - which demonstrates again, together with the world-wide press echo (see 3 other recent sources above), the relevance of the news. This is what counts most - in Wikipedia, we don't have to judge if the treaty is effective or purle symbolic (it is not, but a strong impulse towards disarmament and de-escalation of international conflicts; financing of nuclear weapon research and production is hindered, see this comment). In the respective German article, I have extensively described the discussions there. I will extend the English version too, during the next days. Anyway, today the subject is in the news, and we should hint on the start page at our valuable background informations regarding the content and history of the treaty. At least, the positions of different groups of states are listed, as desired by MASEM. --Jwollbold (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Implacably opposed. Opposed to this for both objective and Wikipedia-related reasons. As far as substantive reasoning is concerned, the actual countries that have nuclear weapons are unanimous in their lack of support for their exctinction, and a majority-of-country position to the contrary is not going to change that. Those countries who have never developed nuclear weapons saying that nuclear weapons should not exist is neither new nor news.
Wikipedia-related, if we're not going to post the country far and away most likely to actually launch a nuclear strike when able, successfully testing its first ICBM, with experts based in its most likely target confirming that they consider it a long range missile, then the idea that we post any type of missile or nuclear related story short of unilateral disarmament or nuclear war is utterly absurd. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StillWaitingForConnection (even if I don't understand you well) and Ad Orientem, it seems to me that you are superordinating your personal opinion over objective criteria of world-wide relevance. Only one correction: The treaty is not about negating nuclear weapons, but about precise steps towards disarmament. In Germany, for instance, nuclear sharing is in question and disputed among the main parties in the beginning Bundestag election campaign. Hence, no idealistic statement, but a realistic instrument in political debates. Very relevant, as the immediate statement of the US, United Kindom and France demonstrates (see TASS source above). --Jwollbold (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons#First_session_of_negotiations_and_first_draft_of_a_treaty, second paragraph. Also in the Netherlands, the parliament urged the government to participate in the negotiations. Hence, the treaty is much more than a paper expressing idealistic wishes, but strengthens and explains the position of groups of the civil society and of political parties claiming destruction of the stationed weapons. A realistic perspective for the next years - we can contribute to democratic discussions by clear information. At Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance, the positive criteria help to decide if such discussions are relevant; they deal with the type of media coverage - it is high and deep, since the treaty is adopted. --Jwollbold (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is a subjective judgement that this particular news item lacks any credible claim to relevance and therefore does not merit posting on ITN. Just because something gets news coverage does not mean it gets posted here. From a diplomatic point of view it has less importance than the Kellogg–Briand Pact, which as far as I am aware the United States has never formally withdrawn from. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of my oppose is objective, and the fact that I have supplimented this with (and clearly labelled it as) personal opinion is immaterial. Zero nuclear weapons states have signed up to this treaty. This is a non-starter for any reason other than to make a political statement about nuclear weapons being an inherently bad thing (a political statement which I happen to agree with, except that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to make it).
You are accusing me of ignoring objective criteria, and therefore I would simply like to make the point that "nuclear weapons state successfully tests ICBM" – a story which I supported – is in my judgement an objective milestone with greater relevance than "treaty between non-nuclear states to ban nuclear weapons" (which I don't deny is also an objective milestone). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The countries that actually need to sign onto this treaty, aren't signing onto it. Quasi-symbolic feel-good garbage.--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is fairly straightforward as all treaties carry some legal weight, and the arguments for oppose seem to be based on things like personal POV that it doesn't count unless such and such country signs it. Seraphim System(talk)03:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The characterisation is laughable. In a treaty which involves prohibition of nuclear weapons, the lack of anyone who has ever possessed nuclear weapons signing up constitutes more than a bit of a gap. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one's signing up yet (not open for signature until Sept.), but that technicality aside, South Africa was among the countries voting in favour of adoption. Kazakhstan voted for adoption, too (inherited 1400 warheads after the collapse of the USSR). So, "lack of anyone" is a bit of an overstatement. Iran voting in favour of adoption struck me as interesting: remains to be seen whether they ratify, of course. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't find these arguments persuasive. This doesn't mean a persuasive argument couldn't be made, but so far I haven't seen any. A treaty can certainly have broader effects. For example, one might not be able to travel to the nations that have adopted it. This would be hugely significant, as it seems many nations have signed it. I don't really think these off-the-cuff predictions about international law are credible. Seraphim System(talk)05:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The question is whether it is news, not whether we think it is going to rapidly result in permanent world abandonment of nuclear weapons. It's an agreement endorsed to some degree by more than 120 countries (122 countries in favour, 1 opposed, 1 abstention – of course not counting the countries who were not present) to prohibit nuclear weapons. That's news. (Grammatically, I suggest it should be "The United Nationsadopts ...", since the UN is a single organization.) I'll certainly take this over the current ITN main page news of a yacht race and the explosion of an oil truck. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the trivialization of other items, as it has little relevance to your support here. And, given that the "yacht race" has community consensus given its listing at ITN/R, and the "oil explosion" resulted in over 200 fatalities. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem and WaltCip: Exactly, due to what you have mentioned, this issue should be added to the first page. Please, Imagine the non-slavery states have banned slavery and the slavery ones have opposed them. Do you think it is better to promote the non-slavery position or neglect it?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue of boycott by nuclear powers could be resolved by stating how many countries joined, which the altblurb does. Alas one can't reasonably expect that the US or Russia would disarm themselves altogether, especially unilaterally. This has been a problem for decades and reflects their mindsets. Maybe under new future governments this will change, but what's there is there. Brandmeistertalk07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it seems to be a notable international treaty among many nations(even if a lot of them haven't or won't join it) 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pure procedure. Having a treaty about nukes where none of the nuclear nations attend is rather pointless. It would be like if us Wikipedians held a conference condemning rogue admins - it is utterly irrelevant if none of the admins in question attend or heed any of our statements. Also agree with User:StillWaitingForConnection that this is the second most important nuclear-related story on ITN/C (and I opposed the first). Stormy clouds (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction, I added three sentences clarifying the relation to the disarmament obligation of the NPT as well as the specific prohibitions. You can see: The treaty has massive impact for signing states, also if they don't possess nuclear weapons themselves, e.g. for transport or assistance like financing or common maneuvers, even more for nuclear sharing as mentioned. Hence, it has also effects on nuclear armed states by inhibiting, e.g., their weapon production or deployment. That is well explained in the last third of an interview for the German television ZDF - I apologize for the translation making it difficult to understand the English original. --Jwollbold (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if, against my better judgement, a consensus were to emerge for posting this (there certainly isn't one yet), surely the appopriate time to post would be when countries actually sign the treaty? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:03, 8 July 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.
Ongoing We don't know what the biggest news story is from this conference yet, but it's already significant news. We can make it a blurb once we agree on a blurb. Article is almost ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing. Yes it's ITN/R, but "important people meet" isn't much of a blurb, and the posting of such a blurb will only invite blurb creep without appropriate discussion when something happens that might or might not be worthy of mentioning in the blurb (be that protests, comments by a certain leader, a particular type of agreement, and so forth). Quality wise, I'm aware of the orange tags, but they're indicative of an OCD approach to article development, rather than allowing the article to develop organically. Article content absolutely fine.
As this is ITNR, the consensus is indeed that "some people have a meeting" is news. For not being news it is certainly in a lot of news outlets. If you don't believe this should be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the biggest story seems to be the Trump-Putin meeting, but even if not, this should just be posted as a blurb and not ongoing. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current blurb, oppose ongoing. This is way too short an event for ongoing, and the current blurb doesn't say anything about why these people meeting is important, why they are meeting or anything else about why it is newsworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicate above, the occurrence of this meeting of 20 heads of state is considered noteworthy itself, as it is present on the ITNR list(where the linked to discussion that added this got unanimous support in 2011). 331dot (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition is to the blurb, that gives no indication of why this is important, not opposition to the event's importance. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least two are killed and power supply is interrupted in Eastern Visayas and Bohol when a 6.5 magnitude earthquake hits the province of Leyte in the Philippines. (InterAksyon)
Despite an ongoing stand-off between China and India over the Doklam tri-junction which is claimed by both China and Bhutan, China claims that there has been a "basic consensus" with Bhutan over the past 24 months that Doklam belongs to China and that there is no dispute between the two countries. (The Economic Times)
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.
Very weak oppose. I'd rather see the career section fleshed out so that it is more in depth than the section about her marriage, but there are no obvious gaps in what is there and, apart from the very last sentence in the marriage section it's all sourced (and that missing citation shouldn't be difficult to find). Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:Comment: But Mrs. Lee was known for being the spouse of Stan Lee rather than her small voice roles. Her career is rather limited because she only voiced characters is very few episodes of Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and Iron Man in the 1990s. Her marriage should be larger than her career because there should be more info on her marriage since she was known for her marriage with Lee rather than her career. I'll try expanding the career section but it may not match her marriage section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A police shooting occurs in the Bronx, New York, killing one police officer and injuring a bystander. Two officers confront the suspect and shoot him dead. (The New York Times)
Three people are shot and killed by a gunman in separate incidents in Madison, Maine. A fourth victim is wounded. Sheriffs deputies then shot and killed the suspect. (CBS News)(The Boston Globe)
A group of people are arrested in the Peruvian village of Muqui, located in the Andes, after they painted a wall with allusive symbols and messages to the far-left terrorist organization, Shining Path, responsible for crimes against humanity in Peru from 1980 to 1992. Police later clarified that the true intentions of the arrested, some of them students of a technical training institute, were to make a short film. (La República)(Diario Correo)
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. There are a few unsourced statements in the Early life and Bishop sections. Cite or remove those and it'll be ready. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobby Lobby pays $3 Million dollar settlement for artifacts smuggling
Nominator's comments: Hobby Lobby is a well known Christian firm that has been involved in high-profile litigation in the past, this is the latest news about them. The article has already been updated by multiple editors. Seraphim System(talk)02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I can't remember another occasion since the Iraq War started where 5,500 stolen cuneiform tablets have been returned. Stolen artifacts are an important issue for many people, and have been since the outbreak of the conflict. Good faith nomination implies I've made some kind of good faith mistake, but that doesn't really make up for the fact that the statement "run of the mill" is patently false (or that you destroyed the subheading with your revert, making this a separate section. I added New because other editors added it to my first posts.) (I see you've fixed the subheading.) Seraphim System(talk)02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who put the [New] in any earlier nomination. If it were at or near the bottom of the page I could understand it but it's not normally done. In any event I am not going to get into a snit over it. Run of the mill is pretty much what this is IMO, which is no more, or less, valid than your interpretation. A $3 million fine for trafficking in smuggled artifacts is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, certainly from a global perspective. I note that it currently has all of one paragraph and an additional sentence in the main article about the company. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me some of these other routine examples of 5,500 artifacts being seized by the United States government? Is there some kind of criteria for how long an update has to be, like the 5x expansion for DYK? Is this some arbitrary rule that we cover terrorist attacks in ITN, but we don't cover artifact seizures because artifact seizures are "too run of the mill." It's unfortunate that more editors aren't involved in these discussions, because it seems like there is a lot of arbitrary POV guiding these decisions of what is suitable for ITN inclusion, like whether a settlement figure is high enough (even though the settlement figure is really not the point here.) Seraphim System(talk)02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone has nominated something like this before. When I am labeling it run of the mill I mean it's a corporate crime story. Corps do worse things almost every day. As for length criteria, as far as I know there is none in writing which leaves it to the judgement of the editors participating in the discussion. I can state that in my experience articles that are nominated that are stub length and relevant updates to larger articles that if they were a stand alone article would be classed as a stub, are rarely posted at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "corporate crime" story, it is a story about a seizure of artifacts, in this case a very large one. Usually, this is considered an international crime issue. This is not a common occurrence, though it does happen, and large seizures are a big deal every time they happen. Many scholars and researchers are interested in the outcome of these investigations. In particular, artifacts smuggled from Iraq and Syria have been a point of interest in recent years, and a seizure of thousands (in this case 5,500) is incredibly significant. I'm not sure that a longer add (about the owners and other details from recent news stories) would be appropriate to add to Hobby Lobby, so common sense should prevail here. I will consider this for future nominations since our Antiquities trade article is not in good enough shape to serve as the second article. Seraphim System(talk)03:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a slap on the wrist. If there were actual executives from Hobby Lobby going to jail over this, indicating the severity of the situation, that might be something, but that's not here. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel this is sufficiently in the news to merit posting(no sources seem to be offered here either) aside from the other issues raised. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not convinced that this story is important enough for ITN, as it seems to be a mere slap on the wrist (and a small one at that). Also surprised that Jesus didn't give them a dig-out in this case. You would think that discriminating against homosexuals would buy you enough brownie points for some legal aid. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amid a stand-off between China and India over the Doklam tri-junction, China tells India that former Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the Convention of Calcutta which China is using to support its territorial claims. Tensions have been rising between China and India and Bhutan over Doklam since China began constructing a road in the disputed territory in mid-June. (News18)
As part of an investigation into the recent cyberattacks, the servers of Ukraine's most popular accounting software company, M.E.Doc, are seized by Ukrainian police. (NBC News)
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: Simple but sufficient article about a Scottish footballer. Appears to be well-referenced. Apologies for the non-English reference. LukeSurltc13:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure where I stand at the moment, still checking the references. The problem here is that there's hardly anything here. This article is in some kind of limbo between "stub"↑→ and ←↓"start"- class, without being either one, or the other. Maybe we need to start an RfC about the "class" of article for RD nominations, or something. Christian Roess (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it looks like there may be some inaccuracies which can be fixed: it looks like he made 52 appearances with Dumbarton (not 28, as stated in the infobox). So maybe the infobox needs some citation, too. But I don't follow this sport, so I'm unsure if I'm reading the stats correctly after going thru the references. Also, I would suggest a citation is needed after the sentence that states "during his Partick Thistle career he helped the side to three League Cup finals, in 1953, 1956 and 1959, but they lost on each occasion." But even with these fixes, some expansion of the article is needed before I can cast my "support" vote. Christian Roess (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the accuarcy issues noted above (but no, we definitely do not need to discuss article classes, they have no governance and are frankly pointless between "stub" and "GA"). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 6 July 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.
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.
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: ICW 7/4/2017 Current Event item. Expect thorough article will be uploaded shortly. This is an early alert. .... This ICBM test is a threat to the United States (reach Alaska claim), on America's biggest holiday (Fourth of July/Independence Day); few days before G20 meeting; push back against series of United Nations condemnations. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose – Sabre-rattling. While a missile did in fact launch, the claim that it could hit Alaska is only a theory, as North Korea rarely, if not ever seems to fire its missiles at maximum range. Keep in mind that some experts exaggerate their claims. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind in the alt blurb: NK says they can hit anywhere in the world, experts think it could reach Alaska, and the actual missile only went about 675 miles. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the first successful demonstration of the capability to hit the US mainland. Trump had previously said that he would not allow that to happen under his watch and yet it has happened. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Supreme Leader is the best at everything, and he can supremely dominate any country in the world with his enormous arsenal of missiles. This is not news. Bae = All-powerful. Everyone knows that. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Opposers fail to convince. This remains headline news across the board. U.S. and South Korean response is notable. Should be posted at once. Jusdafax17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is the same old bluster, and the same old story, we've been hearing from N. Korea since...well, forever. And frankly, it"s the same-old-same-old we've been hearing from the United States, too. Hey, I used to live in Seoul, so I know. I mean, talk about your "fake news." Alas, this nomination needs to go the way of all flesh. For real. Christian Roess (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which appears to have happened after every NK successful test launch such as in Feb and Aug of 2016. Again, this is standard reaction all around. (And I'd call this more sensationalist news rather than fake news - it's overblowing the immediate danger by focusing on the prediction a missile could hit the US, where this has actually yet to be shown and that it can carry a payload that survives re-entry). --MASEM (t) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about "after every NK successful test launch." But your word "re-entry" puts this test into perspective. The "Entry Interface" for NASA's Space Shuttle, for re-entry calculations was 76 miles. But this rocket test reached an altitude of 1,741 miles. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, likely not after every test, but they are frequent enough that just because the UN calls an emergency session shouldn't make this specific test more important than any other test. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid so Martinevans123. In my opinion, "fake news" is just the latest "catch-phrase" for what has gone by other names in the past: like, "propaganda," or "spectacle," for instance. And in my opinion that kind of falls under the umbrella of "manufacturing consent"... or the "engineering of consent"...yep, so in that sense: "fake news". No two ways around it. But maybe Masem is showing more discernment here. And so I'll agree that this news is "sensationalist." Christian Roess (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hear you, and it's a relentless media blitzkrieg, who has time to sort it all out, fake, real? But I think we can all agree that, when it comes to N. Korea and the U.S., both of their leaders have lousy haircuts. Christian Roess (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is a worrisome technological development, but until something happens as a result it's all bluster politically. U.S. options are few. What are they going to do, nuke Pyongyang, 90 miles from China? I don't think so. Thus, in effect it's just more hot air from Kim Jong-un as he plays Godzilla of the Demi-Despots. Sca (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seriously? We're using the response to the test as a baseline for notability? Nothing's going to be done. Nothing ever has been done. What are they going to do; sanction them? Because that worked so well in the past, didn't it?--WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unmoved by the opposition here. A first ICBM by a confirmed nuclear state - whilst acknowledging that there is no suggestion that they are yet capable of launching a nuclear strike - and over a period of decades North Korea has been considered one of the only countries on earth likely to launch a first strike attack outside of wartime. The question of whether it could hit New York, Washington D.C. or Los Angeles is an (understandably followed) red herring. ICBM is an objective measurement of a missile's minimum range, and a missile considered capable of hitting Anchorage from Pyongyang passes that measurement. All too frequently there is a temptation to post about North Korea, but on an objective basis I believe this is the time where that temptation is justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a slightly pithy though not totally irrelevant aside, our last blurb update to ITN was in June. The nomination for that story is no longer visible on ITNC as it was made more than a week ago. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support about a thousand times more significant than MOAB which gained a lot of support. It seems very easy to deny the fact that North Korea are now able to strike Alaska, but add this technological step forward to the nuclear testing then we're not far away from that reality. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This event is referenced once, in a paragraph to be found 3,165 words into a 7,000-word article. Not what one would classify as user-friendly. Sca (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - this is a genuine question which will shape my opinion on this piece greatly. Even if (and I would still consider it to be an if) the DPRK is capable of hitting Alaska with an ICBM, does this really constitute an escalation. As far as I am concerned, nowhere in Alaska would be a strategic target for North Korea, so they will not waste one of their (relatively few) nuclear weapons on it. Russia also have ICBM's capable of hitting Alaska, but their development was not newsworthy as they would never use one on the state. Is this scenario similar? Stormy clouds (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is this the first time that American territory is in range of North Korean nukes? I ask considering it is almost twice as far as the crow flies from Anchorage to Pyongyang as it is to Guam. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: In answer to the original question, Alaska is a point of convenience for the media, as Anchorage simply happens to closely align with the distance from North Korea at which a missile is considered an ICBM (>5500km). By contrast, Russia theoretically had the ability to hit Alaska with a nuke years before the first ICBM was launched in 1957, purely due to geography.
The reason I support this particular escalation is not so much the practical significance, as much as the fact that it is the only objective opportunity I can envisage (other than a war going hot) at which to post a story on the North Korea situation. I fail to see how it would be in keeping with NPOV to not post North Korea successfully testing an ICBM, but then subsequently post that they have a missile with the range to hit either the capitol or simply somewhere in the US mainland. I make this point because this seems to be the general tone of the opposition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect some editors might be reluctant to support this in case it lends any credence to the NK regime's propaganda machine. Imagine how much more impact this would have had if there had been no euphoric July-4th-gift-to-Uncle-Sam announcement, and the news had just leaked out via Reuters from Japanese and Chinese monitoring agencies? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sabre rattling by a country with a half century history of this kind of behavior is not something that warrants attention from ITN. The details may be different but the underlying story is the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the first ever successful test of an ICBM by North Korea. This is a major game changer as it allows NK to directly attack the US. To those dismissing this as mere saber rattling or that this has been going on for a half-century, this is different. NK has never had an ICBM capable of directly attacking the US homeland. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to upload it, we should at least change the headline so that it is not misleading. Saying that the"ICBM" "can" reach Alaska is often interpreted by most readers as meaning it "will" reach Alaska, and thus would potentially cause another Red Scare like what happened back in the 1950s and 60s. We should say something more accurate like it "may be able to" instead. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This nomination is getting really out of hand, I oppose this not because this is saber-rattling (which it is Supporters, get over it.). But also because you all are acting like Pessimists, thinking that "Oh, it IS going to hit Alaska" or "America is doomed". The thing you supporters need to know is that while I don't disagree that this may have been an ICBM, it's standard trajectory was not tested, only estimated and thus is technically still unknown. While North Korea should not be underestimated, they should not be overestimated either, because their failures outweigh their successes, and they only recently began to succeed in using missile technology. Martian, I do agree that North Korea "isn't in the 50s", but neither are they "in the present/2010s" either, and you need to realize it too. Their technology is largely outdated from the rest of the world, including their "allies" in China (not the quotation marks), and it is often said that North Korea's missiles' accuracy is nothing special. I'm against this nomination because of the fighting you users are already doing right now over just one nomination, you all should be ashamed of what you have gotten yourselves into. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to be ashamed of, and I don't think America is doomed. I just think this is a major story in which our readers would be interested. You should stop trying to second-guess other editors reasons for supporting. And I know what pessimism is, thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 7 July 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.
(re-opening) @Spencer: As a non-admin in good standing I'm reopening this.
With a neutral hat on, clearly this is more likely to not be posted than to be posted on the basis that I'm sure significant weight is being given to the opposition. With a non-neutral hat on I question the strength of the oppose votes, which in the main amount to "yes it sounds big, but this is North Korea we're talking about".
Regardless, the decision to close was a needless one. The debate was not bad-natured – it was not descending into personal attacks, mud-slinging, motive questioning, and furthermore was not being disrupted by a particular side. Where loaded comments were made in either the support or oppose column, the bait was not being bitten by those replying other than to disagree and explain why. Furthermore, the trend of later comments was materially different to earlier ones, suggesting a slight possibility of a consensus to post emerging. This is particularly relevant given that if posted it would have been (and at the current time, would still be) the most recent story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert this since I am INVOLVED, but for the record I disagree with it. The close was good and it was an ADMIN action. Acknowledging NOTAVOTE there is no reasonable likelihood of a consensus coming out of this. You would have to have one or a combination of a massive shift by opposing editors to support and or an avalanche of new support votes with no new oppose votes. Aint happening. Strong support speedy reclose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed There is no chance of consensus to post this emerging before it becomes stale, so there is no point in the discussion remaining open as it takes editors' time and energy away from newer stories and articles that need attention. This is standard practice for ITN nominations where discussions are time sensitive, getting consensus is important, ensuring quality is even more important and eyes are relatively few. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 8 July 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.
Three female ISIL suicide bombers kill 15 people and injure five in three separate incidents over the last two days as the fight for Mosul winds down. (AP via CBS News)
At least one person is killed and six others are injured in a shooting in the French city of Toulouse. (News Corp Australia)
Floods in South China kill at least 15 people over the last few days with tens of thousands more being relocated. More rain is forecast in future days. (Reuters)
Eighteen people are dead after a bus collides with a truck in the German state of Bavaria. (BBC)
Amid growing tensions between China and India and Bhutan over the Doklam tri-junction, a spokesman on behalf of Bhutan via India Today urges India and China to "de-escalate the situation at the border and bring back normalcy". India and China have been locked in a military stand-off at the Doklam tri-junction since late June. (India Today)
Article:2017 China floods (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Floods in South China kill at least thirty three people over the last few days with thousands being relocated. (Post) Alternative blurb: Over 48 people are killed in southern and central China following severe flooding. News source(s):Reuters Credits:
Weak oppose unless it gets worse(which is possible); as the Reuters piece states, "Floods kill dozens of people every year in China during the summer rainy season" so this is not unusual. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose At this stage, deaths from flooding in China at this time of year is not unexpected, similar to deaths from torandoes in the US or from hurricanes/typhoons. It's sad news, but also something that does happen regularly. If the floods worsen, then that might be valid to post. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I think we should let this one play out before making a decision. At the moment, the article is not of a sufficient quality irrespective of opinions about news-worthiness. Currently 48 are reported dead, and at this level, I would oppose. However, if this death toll rises to triple figures (which it may well) and the article receives significant improvements which I lack the expertise to implement, then I would unabashedly support. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - neither of these criteria have materialised, and I am beginning to doubt the long-term international impacts of this, so I'll oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom announces it is withdrawing from the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, which allows several European countries to fish within 6 to 12 nautical miles of each other's coastlines. (BBC)
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 after removing an uncited and POV comment in the lead about him making "unique contributions", I think this is good to go. BencherliteTalk10:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italian rock singer Vasco Rossi broke the world record of biggest ticketed concert with 220,000 paying guests hosted at Enzo Ferrari Park in Modena, Italy. (Previous record belonged to a-Ha with 198,000 paying guests, set in 1991 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (Venues Today)
Arguments that lead to an exchange of gunfire at a concert at the Power Ultra Lounge in Little Rock, Arkansas, result in at least 28 people injured, one hospitalized in stable condition. (news.com.au)
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: I know that this is on ITN/R. However, I feel that an ongoing listing would be superior to a blurb at the race's conclusion. If the article receives frequent updates (and it is not an invocation of WP:CBALL to assume that it will be), then ongoing will work. Significant media attention is being directed to the race. It would also render the currently barren ongoing list more useful. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nom's rationale is that ongoing would be superior to a blurb at conclusion. I happen to agree with that for this particular event, given the anti-climax that is the final stage, compared to the drama that happens in the mountains and stages that have a major crash in them. Such as today's. But all that said, are we really going to refrain from posting the yellow jersey? Because if not then ongoing + blurb would be the start of a new fad. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neither of the opposes seem to have reasoning other than "this isn't what we've done before". The nominator's rationale is solid - this is an ongoing event that is in the news with stage-by-stage updates in the articles. The "cost" of using the ongoing section here is slim, this space is literally blank right now. Replacing the ongoing item with the blurb once the Tour finishes seems perfectly fine to me. --LukeSurltc16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the Tour de France is that there is only one effective winner, despite there being many segments. It's an extremely long event for all purpose. Contrast with the Olympics where there are numerous events and winners every day, or with FIFA World Cup where there's elimination matches every single day so there's significant complete events to discuss. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those events are listed on ITN/R, and they lack the significant international attention and prestige of the Tour de France, so no. They are not news-worthy enough for ITN in general unless something extremely unusual occurs (which would result in a blurb nomination). Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see what would conceptually distinguish the Tour de France from other multi-day single sport competitions such as FIFA World Cup, America's Cup, Wimbledon, MLB, NBA, or NHL finals, etc. Once you go down this road, it would seem like there are way too many multi-day competitions that one might similarly argue in favor of putting in ongoing. For that reason, my preference is to stick with just using a blurb at the end. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reservations. However, precedence is not binding, and the daily staging of the Tour (which is a solitary event with one winner) demarcates it as unique. I would not necessarily propose the nomination of many of the other events which you have listed as they are often too disparate, and do not receive the same type of media attention as the Tour. Most media treats it as an ongoing affair, and it would also conveniently fill the ongoing slot which is currently vacant. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For those of us who like the process of WP as much as the result, I love the nom, because I want to see where everyone comes down on this in re: the various norms and policies. But this does not meet the qualifications for ongoing UNLESS there is someone who is going to own it; and post ITN-worthy updates daily. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not because it is a sporting event, but because the updates will be just filling in the table of who's ahead by which stage. This is not like other ongoing where articles are getting regular prose updates. Abductive (reasoning) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Cuz it's a gol-dang bicycle race, gol-dang-it! (And this user goes bicycling almost every day.) Sca (talk) 21:03, 2 July 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.
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.jpg)
