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).
A suicide bomber detonates a vehicle full of explosives at a military camp in Gao, Mali, killing at least 76 people and wounding scores more in Mali's deadliest terrorist attack in history. (The Guardian)
On the afternoon of 18 January 2017, a major avalanche occurred on Gran Sasso d'Italia, a mountain in Rigopiano, a tourist destination in the province of Pescara, in Southern Italy's Abruzzo region. The avalanche struck the luxury resort Hotel Rigopiano, killing twenty-nine people and injuring eleven others. The avalanche is the deadliest in Italy since the White Friday avalanches in 1916, and the deadliest avalanche in Europe since the Galtür avalanche in 1999.
At least four people are killed in a shootout between Mexican Police and unknown gunmen after the latter opened fire on the Quintana Roo state attorneys' office in Cancún. (BBC)
Thousands of British tourists are evacuated from the Gambia as West African states prepare to take military action to remove President Yahya Jammeh from power as his term ends. (BBC)
Two Israeli Bedouins and one Israeli police officer are killed in a clash during a home-demolition operation in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran. Israeli police claim to have found evidence that the Bedouins were supporters of the Islamic State. (Al Jazeera)
President Obama also commutes the sentence of Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar López Rivera who was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment for seditious conspiracy. (The Guardian)
Nominator's comments: I think this more or less speaks for itself, but in any case, Wyatt's status has been a cause for remark for quite a while, beginning from when he was the first indigenous person in the House of Representatives. Vanamonde (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article states that he is "of Aboriginal Australian, Indian, English and Irish descent", which seems rather less poignant than "first Indigenous minister". Is it really the case that this is the first person of any amount of Aboriginal descent in government? The single line under "Family" has no source and may run afoul of BLP.128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of the sources refer to him as the first indigenous [insert office here], probably because AKAIK, in Australia (as elsewhere) indigenous people identify as such even if they are partially descended from non-indigenous people, and their right to do so has legal basis. Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that dispute this point, or does the government have an official position on this? I'm all for posting this, I just have a hard time believing that a country the size and age of Australia has never had anyone with any Aboriginal parentage in government. That people can identify as whatever they wish is fine and good and certainly the tradition elsewhere (c.f. "Indians" Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchil and "Black" Czech activists in the US), but if there's ambiguity about an assertion we should specify it in the blurb so as to not diminish the accomplishments of earlier persons who were just as much (or more) Aboriginal as the subject, but for whatever reason did not identify as such. I'd suggest something like "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal...".128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every source I have read so far has not disputed it, and I think that hedging in that manner when the sources do not is not entirely appropriate. I will look for sources that disagree, though. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[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.
Oppose The apparent fact that this was accidental significantly dilutes its ITN-worthiness. It makes it only marginally more significant than a plane or boat tragedy. In my opinion these are fairly run-of-the-mill events which ITN should avoid. There are hundreds of accidental civilian casualties that occur on a weekly basis throughout the Middle East, which illustrates the relative insignificance of this event. I don't think this is comparable to the Kunduz hospital airstrike: that was committed by a foreign military and gave rise to all kinds of grave international ramifications, as the article on that tragedy explains. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unusual for such an accident to have such high casualties (52 killed, 200 injured in BBC report), including multiple international aid workers. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nigeria isn't some small, uncoordinated nation. This is a nation of 140 million with a formidable military. Things like this don't normally happen and especially not with such a high number of casualties. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chelsea Manning
Article:Chelsea Manning (talk·history·tag) Blurb: U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May. (Post) Alternative blurb: U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May, instead of the original date of 2045. Alternative blurb II: U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentences of Chelsea Manning and Oscar López Rivera, both are expected to be released in May, instead of the original dates of 2045 in the case of Manning and 2051 in the case of López Rivera. News source(s):BBCIndependent (obviously far more US sources) Credits:
Your POV is showing. Makes it hard to consider this on its merits. So I'll say oppose unless a better reason is presented that I find convincing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be, because it's effectively Obama sticking the middle finger up to Trump. Someone in Trump's cabinet (the national security adviser? I forget) said Manning should be executed, remember. Black Kite (talk)00:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet decided whether I think this should be posted, but in answer to Muboshgu's above question, neither Rivera nor Cartwright are mentioned in the cited BBC story (I haven't checked the cited Independant story). If necessary somebody could count their Google hits compared to Manning's - I haven't bothered, but I'd expect Manning to get far more hits than the other two combined. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As already pointed out by Muboshgu above (and by at least one other editor below), the nominator's POV is unfortunate and possibly thoroughly counter-productive since it may provoke editors who hate Manning into opposing the nomination. That would be a pity, as a good case can be made that those who hate Manning should also support the nomination, precisely because they think Obama's reduction of her sentence is very wicked, and should not be hidden from our readers. (Note: I don't hate Manning, but that's somewhat irrelevant.) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too minor. She was convicted of leaking classified US material to Wikileaks. That's the classified material of one country. There are also lots of people worldwide who have their sentences commuted. There are lots of more notable events with longer lasting impact, such as Theresa May's speech laying out the plans for a hard Brexit. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Theresa May's speech laying out a possible plan for a transitional arrangement for a possible hard Brexit, although that might be with a negotiated customs union agreement, and the whole thing depends on the attitude of the 27 EU members to a possible arrangement on immigration and free trade, although she's not going to commit to anything yet (oh and Parliament might get to vote on the plan, if it ever becomes a plan. Or they might not.)? Black Kite (talk)00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a big difference between an action taken in a minor affair and a speech about an action to be taken in a major one. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's comparing like with like. In any case, you could always try to nominate Brexit as an item for Ongoing, but that discussion would belong somewhere else. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the top story on Google News, New York Times, Washington Post, and my local newspapers here in Denmark. These newssources apparently judge that this is not a minor story. While there may be many leakers in the world, Manning has become symbolic, and hence notable. Thue (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "this is the top story in this, this, this and my local newspaper" argument is a dangerous one, because it is extremely vulnerable to sampling bias. This isn't front-page news in newspapers in Malaysia, Turkey and Argentina. I didn't cherry-pick these countries - I just selected them as the first countries that came to mind. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is an embarrassment to have rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage. First, even if this were a purely domestic event, the degree of international coverage is such that it transcends its locality. Second, it is not a purely domestic event: Manning's leaks were of great international significance; her release may also prove significant in and of itself if it forces Julian Assange to comply with his apparent promise to consent to extradition. In this case I think it would be correct for the blurb to mention Manning only; it is far less clear that any of the other commutations or pardons, either individually or in total, are internationally significant. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with the "rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage" part! Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The day we start posting things like Trump calling Clinton's imprisonment as a felon on the grounds that it receives significant international coverage is the day I can get behind posting this. Until then, we're stuck with our current setup behind a massive wall of precedent (see also AO's oppose). Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The leak, the circumstances with WikiLeaks, and Manning's treatment has lend the affair notability enough to feature ITN. Also Assange's promise to be extracted to the US is an interesting twist. Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The outgoing President pardoning those of federal crimes is nothing unusual. Following the supports, there are subsequent results that would become more important as a result of this action if all processes go through, but are crystal-balling their signifigance here. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will note that this did not change the previous ruling - Manning is still considered guilty, simply that the sentence was reduced to time + 4 more months. That's not changing anything from the original case. If the President decided to completely overturn the case (I don't think he has this power, but let's pretend), that might be something more, but that's just not happening. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We just said no to posting the death sentence in the case of a racist mass murderer but we are going to post this? Either we are going to post criminal justice stories or not. And for the record I do not appreciate the political editorializing in the nominating statement which is contrary to NOTFORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Manning case has a much larger international impact and coverage in reliable sources around the world. For these reasons, it is more noteworthy and significant. I'm usually opposed to posting US domestic news on the main page that we wouldn't post if it happened in another country, but this particular case has been demonstrated to be much more significant on a global scale than the usual news about death sentences from the US. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Tataral, you couldn't make this stuff up could you... Comparing Dylann Roof's sentence to Chelsea Manning's release on the basis that they are both "criminal justice stories"... That takes the cake for today. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out at the time, there was also a serious WP:CRYSTAL problem with the supposed significance of that death sentence, because the appeal process meant it was completely unclear whether and/or when the death sentence would be put into effect. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Claims that it is insignificant seem to be completely at variance with the editorial judgment of almost every 'quality' news source in the Western world. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of the 272 others received comparable coverage in reliable sources around the world? Or done anything with a comparable impact, as judged by reliable sources around the world? --Tataral (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who am I to stand in the way of a growing consensus? I've come around. It's not a "human interest story" so much as a major part of the WikiLeaks saga. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obama has commuted sentences hundreds of times, this one will be notable iff it happens. Trump will certainly have something to say about it, and if he allows it then it'll be an even bigger story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI only, pardons and commutations cannot be reversed by another president. Once done, they are done. Outgoing presidents typically do a flurry of them before they leave office(such as Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich in his last hours in office). I would add that you are correct that Obama has issued more commutations than any other US president. [1]331dot (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon revoked by the same president who issued it (and also noted as unprecedented). Not particularly relevant to your Oppose statement. Funcrunch (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That case was an example of a President announcing a pardon and then changing their mind before delivering it. The article you cite states that was the first example of such an instance, and that the legal authority to reverse an issued pardon is unclear at best. No President has reversed another President's pardon/commutation. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Presidential pardons have only been revoked a handful of times in US history. If that happened, it would arguably be a much larger story. George Bush revoked his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, and Ulysses S. Grant attempted to revoke a handful of Johnson's pardons. As far as I know, every case where a pardon was actually revoked, the decision to cancel the pardon was made before the official pardon documents were delivered and accepted by the pardonee. In one of Grant's attempted revocations, the documents had already been delivered and the subject released. The precedent at that time was that once delivered the pardon could no longer be revoked and the subject remained free. Dragons flight (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote illustrates the need for a "know what you're talking about before you say it" rule on wikipedia. That rule would see 98% of current editors get blocked, but would probably give us a better product. Of course presidents cannot revoke pardons and commutations granted by their predecessors. That would amount to the purported exercise by the executive of judicial power: re-imposing a lawfully nullified sentence. No sane legal academic would disagree. Here is just one academic noting this Captain Obvious: "Using pardons, the president of the United States has the power to lift criminal consequences from people. The president does not, however, have the power to reimpose them unilaterally, which is what a pardon revocation would do."[2] There might have been room for debate in the Toussie circumstances, which involved a pardon that had not been made fully effective at law, but there is not a shadow of doubt that Trump could not reverse Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence. This ill-conceived red-herring oppose should be discarded. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rant and the personal attack. If you actually read the oppose notes, I state that not only will Trump have something to say about this, but Obama has pardon hundreds and hundreds of individuals, and the real story will happen when Manning steps out of prison. Have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of the nominators obvious POV and Mkativerata's surprisingly combative approach I tend to agree that this is notable enough news item enough to include. Support the original blurb, but without the in May part - if that was the important why not wait until May)AIRcorn(talk)07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support any blurb. Prefer both be mentioned. Major news with international coverage. In spirit of DUE, blurb seems warranted; even if individuals here don't think it's that remarkable media coverage suggests otherwise. E.g., It's the second article listed on Le Monde's front page ([3]) EvergreenFir(talk)08:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant decisions especially in terms of the possible impact on potential people considering leaking information or using US government data for their own purposes. The commutation of the sentence for Lopez Rivera is also significant. Both poor decisions (in my opinion which counts for nothing) but significant. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And because there is nothing special about this one commute, really just one random among many, it is the top news item on nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com . Quick, someone should tell those newspapers that there is "Nothing particularly special about this one"! Thue (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing This is part of the process of the changing of the guard from one President to another and we can expect lots of news items about this this week. Perhaps there should be an entry in the Ongoing section? Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is huge news now, and all over the mainstream 'quality' media, so we should cover it now. We have no idea whether it will be big news when she is actually released, so the suggestion to postpone has a fairly strong whiff of WP:CRYSTAL about it, among other problems.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for altblurb (U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May, instead of the original date of 2045.). While we are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, her commutation is a historic victory for transgender/human rights.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) She made a mistake in her early twenties. I think we all did, though not on that scale.
2) She made this mistake because she had access to documents she shouldn't have. The USFG needs to review who can access classified documents; they need to take responsibility for their own system.
3) Members of the LGBTQ community are more likely to 'act out' in their early twenties, because they grow up without the prospect of equal rights as they try to become adults.
4) The documents she leaked were apparently republished by the mainstream press, like The New York Times, El Pais, The Washington Post, The Guardian--yet their editors-in-chief were not imprisoned.
5) To essentially end someone's life by imprisoning them for the rest of their life when she made a mistake in her early twenties made America look like a dictatorship. The sentence was meant to scare whistleblowers, which is fair enough, but Obama must have realized that this made America look bad to the rest of the world.
6) As I said, we (and the USFG I would assume) are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, but it would make American look very, very bad indeed in terms of its human rights record if she were to commit suicide in prison. I think this is a huge story and shows that Obama has more humanity in him than one might assume. It would be interesting to note if he talked about it with the president-elect, and what his views were; in any case, this is very significant and should appear on the main page as ITN, given how much international media coverage it has gotten.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that this piece of news has been receiving front-page coverage in non-US sources suggests the impact that it has been having. Comparing this to Dylan Roof is just silly. And I find the argument that such commutations are routine somewhat specious: elections happen every so often, but we do not hesitate to cover those, do we? Also, the remarkably off-topic POV arguments from both sides are rather bothersome. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Adjusting the sentence of a single convict is hardly ITN material. Whilst the original leaks by Manning had important repercussions on international affairs, the details of the length of punishment do not. Some of the support !votes above seem to be because users agreed with Manning's actions, not based on the ITN criteria. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the rights or wrongs of the leak, that's not something that should influence !votes on this ITN nomination. Modest Geniustalk12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a potential misrepresentation of news to readers. The sentence is commuted, but the conviction and record remains. In effect, the government believes that what Manning did was wrong and illegal, but have decided to be lenient after the fact. Manning in neither "in the right" nor able to live a rehabilitated life beyond imprisonment. That we need to avoid confusion in this story is apparent by the editor above who believes that this somehow has something to do with LBTG rights(?).128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Transgender rights aspect of the story is widely covered in the mainstream media, so it seems that the editor who thinks it has something to do with such rights is no more 'confused' than the mainstream media who report the matter (much as such media are presumably also similarly 'confused' when they think this is a newsworthy story). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am honestly very surprised at the quality of many of the oppose arguments, claiming this is insignificant. While I am relatively new to ITN, I cannot see how a story that is on the homepage of a very large number of major news services outside the US is not considered significant: BBC (UK), The Hindu (India), Al Jazeera (Qatar), News24 (South Africa), ABC.net (Australia) and Le Monde (France). I mean, seriously? This is getting more coverage than any story we have up on the main page right now. Vanamonde (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close? I voted Support, and I still support it in principle, but I make it 14 Support, 12 Oppose, so is it getting near the time when some admin should close this item per WP:SNOW, on grounds that there seems to be little or no prospect of a genuine consensus for posting, and leaving the matter open will thus simply tend to distract editors away from doing more product work? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I know this will be a very controversial vote, but I think this is not notable, not because of the topic at hand but rather the nation itself. The population of The Gambia is about 2 million and it's only about 4,200^2 miles. Let's put it into comparison. Connecticut is about 3.4 million and 5,500^2 miles. If the governor of Connecticut refused to step down, it wouldn't warrant an ITN notification. Also, The Gambia is an extremely poor third world country that relies on UN aid for survival. If Barack Obama refuses to step down on Friday, maybe it'll be a different story. But for now, I say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Luke 1021 (talk • contribs) 14:28, January 17, 2017 (UTC)
Connecticut is not a nation; The Gambia is a nation. Leaders of other nearby nations are attempting to intervene, and the UN and governments around the world have weighed in. This is in the news and notable. I would add that arbitrary population cutoffs to limit which nations are posted have been proposed and failed in the past. Only systemic bias would prevent this from being posted. Small nations deserve attention too. We also have a good article to post. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's comments like these that give Americans a bad name here. The success or failure of a democracy in a sovereign nation is a major international news story regardless of the land mass or population of the country in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I also think a blurb is better than ongoing, since there are not so many day-to-day updates in the article at the moment. --Tone19:36, 17 January 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.
Weak oppose This seems more like a whimper that the search is being ended (And I'll bet there's others like me that thought they closed the search down months ago). I'd also add that there's still a chance private companies might pick up the search, just that any gov't sponsored search is now over. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a "suspension" rather than a "termination". If further new evidence came to light, such as perhaps a large amount of new debris, one assumes a search might be re-started. That said, such new findings do seem very unlikely and it does sound like the authorities have "given up". The cost is a major factor and could be usefully part of a blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. But the statement ends: "We remain hopeful that new information will come to light and that at some point in the future the aircraft will be located." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was always a search which was unlikely to be successful. Surprise surprise, they didn't find the aircraft. It's not ITN-level news if a long shot fails. The ongoing media obsession with this flight is frankly weird. Modest Geniustalk16:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We featured the airliner's disappearance and we should feature the results of the search. The airliner was a hot news topic from the day it went missing to the day it was suspended. All in all, newsworthy, 100%. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify, the search after the crash really hasn't been in the news lately, a few odd bits of plane found on a beach somewhere, but really it's not news, and therefore the decision to suspend such an unfruitful search isn't really remarkable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This has kind of petered out in terms of interest. If significant wreckage washes up somewhere, or is found by private searchers, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[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.
ISIL's third attack against the Syrian government's forces in the city of Deir ez-Zor reportedly splits the government held area in two. An estimated 14,000 ISIL fighters are participating in the attack according to the government. (Al Masdar News)
Oppose - this is a regional election. A quick Google search turns up things like [4], which are comparable. I do not see why this is worth posting, unless it's because we have a good article on it, in which case it's a sign of bias. Banedon (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially while a 'regional' election, the situation in N.Ireland is a lot more complex due to the power-sharing agreement and political/religious voting involved. The link you have provided is in no way comparable. It would take too long to explain the 'whys' here, the short version is this is much bigger deal than the usual sub-national election so I support its inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a regional/subnational election, but it isn't that simple- though I won't regurgitate what was said below. What's the bias here? The usual criticism is that we have a US bias. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see things, we have a US and UK bias. For example, Iridescent supported this below (and lots of people agreed with him / her) because Northern Ireland is sui generis as with Hong Kong, Greenland, North Cyprus, etc. This sounds reasonable until you look at [5], when AO opposes a piece of Hong Kong news because Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and "The idea that Hong Kong enjoys any true autonomy ... has never been anything other than pure fantasy". I am not implying that Iridescent's arguments are invalid, but that we are at least as pro-UK biased as we are pro-US. Banedon (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you didn't understand the importance of this nomination when it was originally posted, and when it was explained to you, you still didn't understand it? Black Kite (talk)23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did before; this is a significant development that potentially destabilizes the region(more so than it is already given Brexit). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, theoretically this is "a regional election" as NI is nominally still part of the UK on paper, but as with Hong Kong, Greenland, North Cyprus and other post-colonial anomalies NI is sui generis. Since the result of this election will be either "executive collapses and Britain reimposes direct rule thus reigniting the armed conflict" or "stable government elected, the crisis is averted, and Brexit goes ahead", this will receive a much greater degree of international coverage than would be normal for an election in a country of less than 2 million people. ‑ Iridescent15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing improvements There's a few paragraphs in both target articles lacking sources as well as a bare direct quote without a source in the scandal article. Should be easily fixable, and this is a notable development to post. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one minor change This is major news, and I would suggest the removal of '/called' because the election will not be called immediately. The Executive will fall at 5pm today. st170e16:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: The government has collapsed, the British and Irish governments have to intervene. Power sharing has effectively collapsed - is that not worthy of ITN? st170e17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. I acknowledge as someone who doesn't live in a parliamentary system that I don't know everything about snap elections. When they're usually called, the government in place typically remains as is until the election? Is there any precedent for this? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do get what you mean, but Northern Ireland is unique. The government has completely collapsed and control of NI is now with the British government. This happened last in 2003 (if I remember correctly); NI is effectively destabilised. This is especially important because NI was a war-torn region until 1998. st170e17:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, the closest equivalent in the US model would be if Puerto Rico or Guam—nominally part of the US but de facto self-governing except in foreign affairs—suffered a breakdown in government so complete that nothing was functional and the Federal government had to impose direct rule. Northern Ireland has an almost-unique system in which the government is constitutionally obliged to include members of multiple parties, so if the parties refuse to co-operate then a government literally can't be formed; thus, NI is de facto being administered as a British colony until new elections are held and produce a viable government, a state of affairs which pleases neither the Unionists (who no longer have control of the country they've run for the last 20 years), the Nationalists (who hate the idea of being ruled by a foreign power) or the British government (who are in the midst of delicate negotiations around Britain's future relations with Europe and Ireland and have better things to do than mediate someone else's conflict). ‑ Iridescent17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support largely per Iridescent. It must be weeks now since ITN posted a serious news story. It seems that most editors here have been scared of posting serious things which with a serious encyclopaedia would deal, like Russian interference in the US election. Instead the ITN feed has been littered with fatal accidents of various kinds, as well as deaths of actors and the like. Kind of like a CNN news feed, but dumbed down, if that were possible, and much slower. The item suggested here is proper news. It should be posted. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this seems to be ready to be posted. I see many people here are well familiar with the situation, just let me know if the proposed blurb is fine. --Tone19:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting. As a minor point of wording, I don't see the word "snap" in the article and while I can infer what is meant, it might be worth adding a sentence or two of clarification in the article, and/or a minor rewording of the hook, whatever those more familiar with the subject-matter think would be better. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you Iridescent for the background. Given the gravity of the situation, I would support this nomination, but the details given by Iridescent are not in either of the target articles. The elections article reads like a standard elections article and includes nothing to indicate that it is anything but. It needs to be made more clear this election is more than just an election, and more than your standard snap election at that. Without these changes, I could only support this after the election takes place on 2 March.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Turkish Airlines Flight 6491
Article:Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Turkish Airlines cargo jet crashes in Kyrgyzstan, at least 35 people are dead (Post) Alternative blurb: Turkish cargo Boeing 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan, killing 35 Alternative blurb II: A Turkish Airlines cargo Boeing 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan, killing the 4 crew members as well as 33 people on the ground. News source(s):Reuters, Aljazeera, BBC Credits:
Comment Give time for this to develop, but I do suggest the blurb note that the bulk of the casualties were on the ground from the village near the airport where the crash happened. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, encyclopedic value and impact. It's a stub. Even if it were not a stub, what is the encyclopedic value of this? Impact is lessened by the relatively low number of deaths (as such because it was a cargo plane), and this list shows that these things are actually pretty common.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support my suggested blurb, mentioning the ground casualties. It is unusual for that many people on the ground to be killed in an aircraft crash(I would agree that just the cargo plane crashing would not be notable enough without that). 331dot (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here, THY claims they have no connection with ACT crew/aircraft. Maybe we can change blurb into Turkish ACT Airlines cargo jet crashes in Kyrgyzstan, at least 35 people are dead.--Joseph (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's already a thread at the article Talk Page. Suggest you copy your comment there. It may require a change to the article name, not just a change to any blurb here (if and when it ever gets posted). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we should post this until this issue is clarified in the article (and if necessary in its title) -- at least that the responsibility for the flight is disputed, with references. Who has legal responsibility for a crash that caused 33 deaths on the ground is not a small issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With all due respect to the deceased and their families, this is a dime-a-dozen accident so far as plane tragedies go on a global scale. I can't believe we still post this kind of thing. Not that Espresso Addict had any choice: the wrong-headed consensus had clearly been formed. Chelsea Manning? No. Russian interference in the US election? No. Minor plane accident? Yes. Well done, wikipedia. As embarrassing as ever. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Most of the accidents linked by the ip involve small planes and minor accidents. A crash with 38 dead is a significant death toll, according to the list only about four similar accidents occurred last year. AIRcorn(talk)08:07, 18 January 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.
Comment Books should be at least linked to their ISBN or equivalent # to validate authorship. I don't necessary see anything glaring in this area, but I would recommend other editors give a quick read for neutrality since part of this guy's notability was involvement in a couple cases. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More than 50% of this article refers to "controversies"; someone expert in this area should look the article over before we put it on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not an expert on evangelists, but had a go at reducing the sections to make them more WP:due. Don't think I left anything out that was needed and the general message is the same (reduced some quotes and irrelevant links mainly). AIRcorn(talk)08:19, 17 January 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.
Weak Support Just a few more sources to be posted on the page, but other than that should be a good to go.Strong Support: Great improvements and perfect newly added sources. Article looks good to go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still needs some more cites, especially where it claims he is the first, second or third to achieve something notable and for his honours. Post NASA section is pretty much completely prose-line and the in popular culture section is poor. AIRcorn(talk)07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is good enough and the RD is certainly notable enough. If there's an issue with unreferenced claims on the page they could be removed for now with a talk page post being made so that the parts can be readded with refs later. --Fixuture (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still a lot of uncited facts and even paragraphs. Maintenance tag on (surprise surprise!) the "In popular culture" section, which is messy. Not ready for main page viewing yet. Support when issues have been fixed. Black Kite (talk)23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full stop. He was the last man to walk on the Moon. It's crazy that we are even debating the historical significance. Not only should this be in recent deaths, it should be In The News. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the above Opposes are based on historical significance (which in any case is no longer a valid ground for opposing RD) - all are based on article quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A summit begins in Paris, France, to restart peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine in an effort to discuss a possible two-state solution to the conflict. However, neither Israel nor Palestine sent representatives to the summit, casting doubts on a breakthrough. (Al Jazeera)
Bahrain executes three people for their alleged involvement in a bombing that killed three police officers in 2014, the first executions in the country since 2010. (The Guardian)
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.
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.
Oppose we have the occasional "X announces it will close" and usually they're bounced out of ITN as "wait until it happens". Same applies here, let's post the last performance, not the announcement. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as a notable announcement, this doesn't happen every day. Normally I would say that usually it is the announcement that gets more attention than the actual closing, however in this case I think there will be coverage of their last show, so I would understand not posting it now. I think we should do now or then, but not both. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I am going to think we can hedge our bets that the last show will get significant coverage, but without prejudice that if that last show does happen and there's only a whimper of news, we can still have it renominated pointing back to this discussion that we (tentatively) all agreed the last show would be the proper point of posting. This is definitely a bit more crystal-ball situation compared to business deals, so I'm willing to have this leeway. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose purely on article quality. There are a few gaps in referencing but not so many that it will require a major effort to fix. I have no issue with the nomination on its merits. A 146 year old world famous entertainment closing is a big deal and sadly the decision does sound pretty firm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness. A legacy of animal exploitation has come to an end. Oppose per TRM and Masem; we will probably see significant coverage of the last show and at that point we should make the posting.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for last show, as one never knows. About a third of our business story announcements never end up coming true. This isn't a doomed merger that "we just gotta, gotta, post!" But a white knight might still arrive. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 16 January 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.
President-elect Adama Barrow travels to the Malian capital of Bamako to meet with world leaders after yesterday's failed attempts at persuading incumbent president Yahya Jammeh to step down at the end of his term. (Al Jazeera)
The Turkish Parliament approves two constitutional amendments which expand the powers of the president to appoint new legislation and select the cabinet. (RT)
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: A British writer and university professor. He was a cultural critic who worked primarily in the essay format. Fisher was also a noted blogger who used the name k-punk. His wiki page is a short article, but it touches on the important and relevant facts, and lists his 4 major book publications. It seems to be decently sourced. Fisher died on 13 January 2017 by his own hand. His publisher is reporting the death over the weekend, so it's reasonable to list this nomination under 14 January, when the first reliable obits began appearing. Christian Roess (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to express concern on the source selection of this article (which affects the sourcing which initially appears okay). Two are obit pieces, so those are okay if they are augmenting other works. But when you look at the other sources, taking out the references to his own books, there only seems to be one that is really of any type of significance (the interview). Some sources that might help: [7][8][9][10]. There's more out there, so he's definitely notable, but the source choices leave a lot to be desired. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are saying, there is only really one secondary source in the article, the other sources are just mirroring that. The exception is the interview which is a primary source, along with the sourcing back to his book Capitalist Realism.. But since I just now saw your comment, I will make fixes when I can, unless someone can get to it first. Thanks for your input.--Christian Roess (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Masem, the sources need broadening to demonstrate Fisher's notability. More than one reference is required to support the idea that he "inspired other scholars to adopt this frame of reference". There's also some significant gaps in the biographical material eg place of birth/date, date of marriage &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on general notability. Yes, he is deserves an article notable. There is no evidence his passing is making the mainstream press. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I would give it a few more hours to see if more details can be added (region and general media coverage in area may make this difficult). --MASEM (t) 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is not yet sufficiently developed to post. I'm also not 100% convinced that such events are sufficiently rare; for example, BBC news this evening has a completely different drowning incident involving ~100 migrants in the Mediterranean and List of shipwrecks in 2017 highlights 23 deaths on an Indonesian ferry on the 1st. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now death toll rises to 24. Espresso Addict I think it's sufficiently developed according to news & information. Nope I will update this article as informations will come. It is rare in context to India. While Shipwrecks in Mediterranean are common now a days.--Prateek Malviya•✉•✎07:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support article is a little weak and news is ongoing so things may change, although not radically I suspect. A quick look at the maritime disasters in India category reveals that this kind of thing is reasonably rare, and while the BBC has been reporting on yet another boatful of migrants drowning, that hasn't been nominated (nor, I believe, has an article even been created on it) so we have nothing to go against. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is 11 sentences long. That of course is a very accurate reflection of the significance of this event. 11 sentences. Wikipedia: kicking goals. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:11, 18 January 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.
Comment: Extremely influential person in the development of Pinyin. He was also a Sinologist and economist. He passed away earlier today at the age of 111. WdS | Talk07:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears well referenced; more on why his achievement was notable would be good; I learned a lot more from reading the linked Guardian article. Also I don't know why the personal details has quite so much on the non-notable spouse, the length in days of their marriage, their children & other relatives (in the infobox). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - It's extremely rare for anyone to live to the age of 111, and almost unheard of for someone so influential to do so. He created a writing system that's used by 1.4 billion people (not to mention anyone who reads a China-related article on Wikipedia), and since 1982 an ISO standard. -Zanhe (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I tend to agree that he has created something extremely influential and thereby had significant impact in the world. A writing system used by 1.4 billion people is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Again, to avoid the situation at the end of December, blurbs should be reserved for people who's death has a worldwide impact like Thatcher and Mandela. Here, this is not the case; he achieved an important goal while much younger, and died by old age; clearly notable but not influential in his passing. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb the death of this individual has not one single ramification, while it's sad and all, it's just the death of a very old, notable individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. If influencing every person in China since 1958(as well as anyone learning the language) doesn't merit one a blurb, I don't know what would. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus in favour of a blurb, marking as such for trustworthy admin attention! Note: there are two images, either of which could also be used which might shake the ITN section up a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb. I would argue that for highly notable people who aren't quite sufficient for a blurb on their own, any kind of unusual circumstances around their death are sufficient: unnatural/unexpected death (the most common invocation of this), coincidental death (e.g. Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds), extremely advanced age (he was probably the oldest person in the world notable for something other than age), etc. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb given age, importance, and that not many people invent an entire semiotic system. I am sure more people use pinyin than esperanto. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A winter storm pours ice rain on the Great Plains and American Midwest, causes power outages, school closures, and a traffic fatality in Missouri. (Reuters)
President of the United StatesBarack Obama signs an order to ease sanctions against Sudan, citing the country's efforts to "reduce internal conflict, improve humanitarian access to people requiring aid and curtail terrorism". (BBC)
Law and crime
Six more people have been charged in relation to the armed robbery of American celebrity Kim Kardashian in Paris last year. (9 News)
Turkish PresidentRecep Tayyip Erdoğan vows that the Turkish Armed Forces will stay on Cyprus "in perpetuity" and that the proposal of a rotating presidency for a unified island is unacceptable, casting doubts on an eventual solution to the dispute. The remarks come as the latest round of unity talks end, with them to restart on January 18. (The Guardian)
A UCLA research team, analyzing lunar minerals brought back during the Apollo program, reports that the moon is at least 4.51 billion years old, up to 150 million years older than previous estimates.(Sci Tech Daily)(Independent)
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 article seems to be in a good shape (a GA), but the first paragraph is really strange for a biography. --Tone17:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The lead of the article doesn't even make clear why exactly this person is notable. Needs a bit of rewrite before posting I think. -- Shuddetalk18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question – How is this a good article when the ONLY content pertaining to the first 20+ years of his life is his date and place of birth? This is one of far too many examples I've seen recently showing just how low the bar really is for GAs. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources on subject matter that is missing from the article or are you speculating? And, for what it's worth, this is the GA project, so your concerns on that front are better addressed elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Grading scheme}}, which has 1,700+ transclusions, includes the following as the criteria for B-Class: "does not contain obvious omissions". Uh, lack of mention of over twenty years of a person's life isn't an obvious omission? Furthermore, this suggests that B-Class articles should not contain obvious omissions, but it's okay for GAs to contain obvious omissions so long as the reviewer doesn't know any better. This reminds me of seeing Corno (artist) on the front page recently, a "biography" consisting of an excessively detailed retelling of few particular aspects of this person's life, with a bare minimum of biographical details tacked on to either end. As for your argument, it begs the question of whether our ultimate purpose is to offer information or to collect sources (there is a difference, as far too many articles point out). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I have looked around to see if anyone has info on his first 21 years, and there's nothing. No one has any real idea where he came from, only that suddenly at 21 he was getting involved in the music scene. While that might be considered an omission in quality, the fact there's no sources to build this period from is something we have to recognize as just being absent from any biography of him, and thus appropriate to not have described. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that this person was born in Occupied Greece, and would have been 9 or 10 by the time the Civil War ended and the reestablishment of central control over the whole of the country. It's likely that there are no records of his early life because people were a little preoccupied with other things at the time. Further, he worked in the security industry and so his personal and early life might have been sealed away as a condition of his employment (to prevent blackmail, hide previous political sympathies, etc.). Either is likely and the latter is common. Omissions like this are understandable from the subject's perspective, but I do find it inappropriate for a GA.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 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.
Support: Award-winning and influential writer and screenwriter who wrote a well-known novel that became one of the most acclaimed films of all time. Article needs some work but for RD seems fine. κατάσταση23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Katastasi: Just FYI, as this is an RD nomination, discussion on the merits is not required as anyone with an article now is presumed to merit posting; we only need the article evaluated for quality. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This needs a lot more work -- multiple bits with direct quotations lack references and all the awards need citing; a couple of the uncited paragraphs read like copyvios; some of the existing refs look like fan sites; the lead needs rewriting outside the first paragraph; personal details are lacking. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marking Ready - I just fixed up some of the book list sourcing to give ISBN or equivalent numbers for those otherwise not directly cited for sourcing purposes, all is ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 14 January 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: The article is not ready for the front page yet - but the article is being very actively worked on so the citations will likely appear soon. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready - Much of "First Marriage" is unsourced, and that absolutely needs fixing before posting. I would also recommend but not required cropping his infobox image to a head/shoulders shot to use the infobox space better. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
President Barack Obama announces the end of the wet feet, dry feet policy, which previously allowed undocumented immigrants from Cuba to become permanent residents. (CNN)
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 Referenced, interesting. Perhaps one could flesh this out with more reviews of his books via JSTOR, but this is fine for the main page I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks fine now. I am happy to see that we are now following the citing standard for lists of works, awards, etc. Posting. --Tone07:50, 13 January 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.
Wait. Superficially seems to be at a reasonable starting place (his playing career was low-key so hardly surprising that there's not much in that section), but some inline cites needed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the improvements noted. There's the first para under "Wolverhampton Wanderers (1994–1995)" that lacks a source but that looks like an easy fix and nothing super contentious. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Currently, the article has major needs with regard to referencing. Statistics and honours are uncited, several potentially contentious statements have no cites, many sections have one or no cites at all. If that is fixed, this could be posted. --Jayron3215:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norway becomes the first country to start a complete switch-off of national FM radio stations. The change, from the analogue FM system to digital audio broadcasting, is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Some, such as the Norwegian Local Radio Association, are concerned about the impact on motorists and the elderly. (New Scientist)(BBC)
[Closed] 2016 United States election interference by Russia
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: Yes: I'm nominating it again. Not sure when people here will follow standard procedure for this item - quality of the updated content and significance of the developments is clearly given - it would be biased to leave it out! (Note that Wikipedia basically ignoring it is something that people will probably take note of and what will shine a bad light on the credibility of the In the news-section) For some reason until now it wasn't featured in the In the news section yet despite the certain notability, significance, article-quality and intense news-coverage around the world for over a month. While I previously primarily suggested adding it as a blurb I now suggest to add it to Ongoing. Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sure how this could ever be "ongoing", nothing is going to change, there'll never be anything other than conspiracy theories about this, posture and counter-posture, and now soon-to-be-POTUS has been caught on camera in Russia, he's going to be Putin's best buddy for a while. This is all over the press but most of it is non-encyclopedic tattle. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. And how can you say that "nothing is going to change" - that's a very strange statement given that this whole thing is developing by the day now. "Conspiracy theories" by a country's administration and its intelligence agencies? If you want to call it so please do - indeed you even may be right (which I highly doubt, especially as even Trump now admits that it was probably Russia who did the hacking) - but that's not objective, neutral and appropriate conduct here! The tattle in itself is already significant enough. Please also note that the section is called "In the news" - and, like you said, this thing is very much in the news - all over it, all over the world. Such a "tattling" if it concerns two major world superpowers, the election of a person that's often called the most powerful person of the world and warfare/foreign-influence-taking of a new type is very certainly significant. You do not need to understand this but I hope that Wikipedia collectively gets this thing's significance, because if it doesn't it'll make it look absurd and biased. --Fixuture (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking this is one of those real world news stories that doesn't work that well at ITN. There will probably be continued drips and drabs, but little is being confirmed by anybody, and it's too late to prevent it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are still working on extremely evidence that is trying to tie the Russian gov't directly to the intrusions with malicious intent, and now we have what Buzzfeed did and that some papers (but not all) by posting an unverified statement which has since been proven completely wrong that would have serious ramifications if it were true. This rings of a story the media really' wants to be true to contest the election, and until there's concrete evidence or some type of criminal arrest, this is definitely not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not weigh in on the newsworthiness, but "has not been proven false" has never, in any known human endeavour, ever been an acceptable claim about anything. Read up on the null hypothesis before you ever speak such silliness again. This is certainly a newsworthy event, and I'd have supported its inclusion, but I'll oppose it just to prevent you from winning any argument ever with such complete and utter bullshit. Good grief! Seriously, never do that again. --Jayron3223:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. "Have not been proven false" is not a standard of proof. If you continue to use it as such, you should rightly be ridiculed for it until you retract is. --Jayron3223:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem overly concerned about semantics. I was simply pointing out that it has not "since been proven completely wrong", as Masem suggested. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Far enough point (I struck that), but it's still raises serious questions about the state of the media to want to cover this without checking the facts and thus the alarmist nature of this story. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not meeting the criteria for posting to Ongoing. Unless something like a smoking gun being discovered, someone being charged with treason and put on trial, or WWIII breaking out over this, I see no reason to post anything about it. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm seeing ongoing coverage about it (a couple of headlines from the past 24 hours for example: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election", "For Russia, U.S. election meddling claims strip Trump win of luster") and the article's being frequently updated. What's not to like? Banedon (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Without concrete evidence, the claim about hacking seems to me to just be political excuse-making, probably forgotten about in a year or so.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a variety of reasons. First, there's nothing suggesting a material effect of this hacking, and most evidence is stuck trying to prove that the hacks happened at all or were directed in any way. Second, the article reads like the sort of feverish political emails I receive from my elder family. Third, nearly everyone furthering this narrative is somehow connected to the current President, who will be leaving office shortly and so I expect this will drop off the radar entirely thereafter. Lastly, the investigation into this affair hasn't exactly gone where the instigators though it would. The recounts unanimously support the original winner, and there's been some hilarious accidental discoveries along the way (such as more people voting for Clinton in certain Detroit districts than even live in those districts!). We can't post articles discussing "trolls" which make us sound like teenagers on their parents dial-up. We can't feature groundless political intrigue on the front page of a supposed encyclopedia.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 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: One of the world's largest, most modern and acoustically most advanced concert hall opened today, landmark event for the global cultural scene and classical music. Most refined acoustics at the great hall. Covered by all major media. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Referencing is needed, and the claim made by the nominator that it is "Europe's largest and most modern concert hall" isn't even in the article at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the BBC has relevancy criteria converging with those of "The Sun" these days. Bet they'll have it tomorrow with quality pictures delivered. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muboshgu. Being "one of the world's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are other comparable concert halls. Even being "Europe's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are five other comparable concert halls, one on each continent (discounting Antarctica). We do need new ITN blurbs but this feels too much like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on lack of sufficient notability, but this seems like an excellent DYK candidate considering the lack of coverage outside Germany. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 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] Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway
Article:Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Passenger service is inaugurated on the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, connecting the the capital of Ethiopia with the Red Sea and reducing travel times by 85%. (Post) Alternative blurb: The line is the first electrified standard gauge and fast railway in Africa. Alternative blurb II: The new fast railway will connect the capital of Ethiopia with the sea in 12 hours, instead of 3 days by car Alternative blurb III: The first fast electrified railway is open that connects Addis Ababa to the Red Sea, decreasing travel time by 85% News source(s):[25]
Nominator's comments: Very good news: the new fast train will connect the capital of Ethiopia with the Red Sea in just 12 hours, instead of 3 days car travelling: that will improve the quality of life for millions of ethiopian people and the economic level of the Horn of Africa --Holapaco77 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. [Edit conflict] According to the article, the railway appears to have been inaugurated on 5 October 2016? Which is a shame, because this would have been a good story. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a big deal and people are so anti-American news on here that something like this is a godsend. I actually think this is a big deal and deserves its own ITN slot, but I'm going to add a third possible blurb because I don't like the other two. Honestly, I don't expect this to pass ITN but you can always try. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting the news is here? This is a story from October—to repeat, this railway has been fully operational for freight for three months and isn't yet open for passengers (and is a replacement for an existing railway, not a new route), all that happened today was a handover ceremony. ‑ Iridescent19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's newsworthy when a massively important railway opens to the public. It would be like having a railway going from Boston, MA to New York, NY to Philadelphia, PA to Baltimore, MD and then to Fredericksburg, VA, distance wise. Besides, like the hypothetical railway I just mentioned, this railway will service millions of Ethiopians and Djiboutians who want to reach the Red Sea. Very newsworthy in my opinion.
Neither of us is commenting on notability; despite two inaugurations, one in October, the line doesn't seem to be open to the public yet. I'd be prepared to support if the date it opens to passengers could be pin-pointed & nominated. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support _I'm new around here, so I don't understand where in the rules it says that the blurb has to be timed exactly to the beginning or end of an event, especially for something like a railroad launch that takes several months to complete. Why limit posting to a fraction of the time the event is happening? In this case, I think the case can be made that the official inauguration is timely per "The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN."104.182.168.222 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - railways have a major impact both visible and less visible. That this is neither an American or European story is also good for decreasing bias, while the ongoing dispute on the talk page is hashed out. A formal opening ceremony is a natural posting point, too. Prefer original blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support once unreferenced statements have citations. A big development for African infrastructure, and a part of the world that's rarely featured in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some refs in the Route section. The two citation needed tags are for minor facts. I also rewrote the first blurb in the template. - Floydianτ¢05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, the blurb should be something like The Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, the first fully-electric (international?) railway in Africa, opens for regular traffic. If so, I support. --Tone07:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a significant transport development. The article is a bit lacking in substance, but meets the minimum standards. Exactly which moment we choose to feature this seems rather academic - now is as good a choice as any. Modest Geniustalk12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is very unclear what the 10th date represents, given that it claims that in November the full line was inaugurated too. The article needs clarity to understand why the 10th is an important date here, as well as other sourcing aspects. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[upgraded], in brief: this in an international railway connecting two different countries: Ethiopia and Djibouti. In october was opened the ethiopian side, while yesterday was inaugurated also the Djuboutian side. So, now all authorities say the railway is full completed: for this reason also the President of International Union of Railways was present at the ceremony in Djibouti yesterday. --Holapaco77 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I would recommend if someone could give this a quick copyedit, that would be good. The clarity provided by Holapaco gives good rational why this Jan 10 event is a key one (linking Ethopia to a seaport via rail). --MASEM (t) 22:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the first fast, electric, not narrow gauge railway in Africa, Ethiopia's a landlocked country of 100 million and this greatly improves the horribly slow trip to the sea (3 days to go 300 air miles?, good God! That must be some mountainous road) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a contributor to the article, someone who has followed this project closely, and all-around general rail-buff, I'm very pleased to see this make the main page. At the same time... I just don't think it's that notable. There already was a railway. Far larger projects are concluded monthly around the world. On a certain level, I feel like we are celebrating (relative) mediocrity. I also recall this making the front page of China Daily back in November when the line opened. But then again my views are not WP:NPOV—I have family there. --Varavour (talk) 16:25, 13 January 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
