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).
An Indonesian maritime patrol boat, the KM Hiu Macan 001, intercepts five boats and arrested 55 Vietnamese crew members for allegedly poaching off Natuna Islands, but after an unexpected aggressive intervention by Vietnamese coast guards forces the Indonesian authorities to back off, release the arrested men and return to base empty handed. (The Star)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: May have posted too early. To decide on blurb and quality so that we post as soon as results are updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is like the recent story about the island covered in plastic waste. It's not really anything new and is a type of story on a slow news day to draw attention, but not a fundamental shift of anything for ITN's purposes. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - had some of the collection been lost I think this would be postable. As it is, it's a near-miss that hasn't compromised the vault. --LukeSurltc17:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not the usual ITN story, and it's of particular interest to survivalists. The withdrawal of the seeds in 2015 during the Syrian Civil War was another interesting development. Svalbard is a true multinational collaboration, but unfortunately our article doesn't have a good list on which countries' governments are contributing parties. I'll send Statsbygg an email for clarification. 171.118.54.104 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment No claim is made about any story in ITN being "top news". ITN serves to highlight articles that are about subjects in the news, which the contest was. Anyone wanting to see something posted before now could have nominated something at any time and worked to convince others of its merits. Sometimes we have slow periods, especially for scheduled events, it's just the way it is. ITN is not meant to be as responsive as a news ticker, there is a project for that. Sometimes we have to wait for something to happen in the world. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be OK when the election article is complete (only partial results so far, although the result isn't in doubt) and tidied up. Can I suggest we don't post the image (at least for a couple of days), because we've only just put Cornell there and it's not a particularly interesting image of Rouhani anyway. Black Kite (talk)09:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mug shots, by their nature, are almost never particularly interesting. Their function is to show the subject's face, period. Sca (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: As elections for head of state are on the recurring items list, as indicated in the template, discussion on the merits is not required; the discussion should focus on the quality of the article and agreeing to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted (without the image, for reasons mentioned above - I would suggest the image is rotated back to Rouhani in a couple of days if no other suitable image arises on an ITN story by then). As usual, if another admin disagrees with that feel free to change it. Black Kite (talk)13:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A huge turnout estimated at more than 40 million out of 56 million registered voters, led to the vote being extended by several hours to deal with long queues. (Al Jazeera)
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 This doesn't seem to be in the news – if you search for the keyword "antibodies", you find another story about a potential vaccine for Ebola. And, as this just seems to be a single study, it's not enough per WP:MEDDEF. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of displaced civilians from al-Khafse and nearby villages in the countryside of Manbij gather in the village of Arbaa al-Kabir to protest against the Bashar al-Assad government, demanding the removal of pro-Assad forces from their villages and calling for the intervention of the Syrian Democratic Forces after accusing regime forces of looting houses and threatening residents. (Ara News)
In a shooting incident near Huwara in the West Bank, a mob of some 200 Arabs hurl stones and rocks toward an Israeli car and try to lynch the driver. The Israeli driver fires his weapon, killing one Palestinian. (Arutz Sheva)
A car crashes into pedestrians in New York City's Times Square, killing one person and injuring several others. Police are investigating the incident as an accident. (NBC News)(CNN)(BBC)
The U.S. summons Turkish ambassador Serdar Kılıç after violence between protesters and Turkish security personnel outside the Embassy of Turkey, Washington, D.C. leaves over a dozen people injured. U.S. Senator John McCain calls on the Trump administration to expel the ambassador. (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.
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 mostly well referenced and comprehensive, a few cn tags but nothing that is contentious enough to keep off the main page. --Jayron3213:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jayron; gossip around this corner of the Hudson Valley had it that his resignation last year was just as well because he was very sick, something that was never disclosed publicly, and didn't have too much longer to live anyway. Seems now like it was true. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article reads with an overly negative slant at the moment. The BLP has an irregular structure, bordering on disorganised - with one sentence paragraphs (Book, CEO of Fox News sections), coatracking Fox News issues that have barely anything to do with Ailes, links back to the same article (both in Criticism section) and proseline (Sexual harassment allegations and resignation section). That's not to say we should remove it entirely, but instead the issues in the centre of the body should ideally be merged together and rewritten to provide an overview. Fuebaey (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support for RD and maybe a blurbThere is an unsourced paragraph in the political consulting section that needs sources before this can be posted. Concerns over political bias, unless it's really gross probably should be addressed on the article talk page. I am not wild about the article but I think that once the CNs are fixed this should be good enough. Beyond which Ailes was arguably the most powerful man in the television news industry for decades. That may be enough to justify a blurb. He was certainly a far more consequential figure than Carrie Fischer or Debbie Reynolds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support once citation tags are fixed. It seems balanced to me. A Roger Ailes bio without due focus on sexual harassment would be like an OJ Simpson bio without due focus on Nicole Brown. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? He was the principal architect of the largest media/news empire in the United States. The right leaning coverage, which he directed, almost certainly was a significant contributing factor in the impeachment of one president and the election of two others. The impact of this man's work has been absolutely massive and will likely continue to be for years, if not decades to come. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for RD. Article quality may be improved (like any article on Wikipedia), but he was definitely notable (not just in America, but also internationally) and it would be a mistake not to post it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - He was significant in his field, and his death came not long after a major scandal that erupted last year, but I don't think Ailes is a culturally significant enough figure to warrant a full blurb. That being said, an RD entry is a no-brainer for me. Kurtis(talk)01:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. BLP was in good order yesterday (tense excepted), and still is. Oppose blurb, for the reason that he was an old, retired man dying of natural causes. Is there anything any article quality reason that this hasn't at least gotten to RD? As to the "slant" in the article; I personally have a negative view of Ailes, and reading his article yesterday softened that somewhat, especially the details about his family life and disease. Could this not be posted to RD and then as a blurb (if consensus developes)?128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD on article quality - there are 6 explicit [citation needed] tags and at least a couple of other claims missing citations and I didn't look in great detail. Oppose blurb per the IP immediately above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD There are a few citation needed tags, but the vast majority of content is cited and we do not require articles to be perfect. Mamyles (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require perfection, but we do require sources for the biographies of the recently deceased featured on the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is a WP:BLP and it has over a dozen [citation needed] tags. We're not German or French Wikipedia, we have standards. Please uphold those before supporting a really poorly referenced article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose struck, though I'm still not massively happy about that enormous sexual harassment section, which could surely be trimmed a bit. Black Kite (talk)09:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Comment I spot check about a half-dozen paragraphs without an inline sources sprinkled throughout the article. That's the only thing that stands out. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support admittedly without reading the full article, but what I did read was in great shape. Seminal figure in prototypical American artistic movement, suddenly dies while still performing and in the midst of an active (if not quite at-peak) career. I think this is a stronger case for a blurb than George Michael or Carrie Fisher et al.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a blurb - Given sudden unexpected nature. As mentioned above, Cornell completely overshadows the (IMO) rather minor contributions of George Michael. He is the principal songwriter of a band that launched an genre of music that dominated the rock music scene throughout the 1990s and 2000s. - Floydianτ¢20:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a blurb given that we have confirmation his death was by suicide (making it comparable to Robin Williams), rather than from a health complication. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb unexpected death, middle of NA tour, hugely influential still-active front man for three megabands. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - A very significant figure in contemporary music for almost three full decades. Soundgarden alone was among the most popular music acts of the 1990s. Kurtis(talk)22:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if we take Bowie as the level for a blurb we'll probably hardly ever post another musician again. I can only think of a couple of living musicians on that level. Black Kite (talk)23:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is where thinking about the blurb as a news story (which is gaining legs now that preliminary ruling of his death was by suicide, while he was in the middle of a tour, making it a tragic story), rather than a simple obit, might help, instead of just asking how important the person was. In contrast to something like Thatcher or Mandala where it wasn't so much that their death by natural causes was the news but that figures that made a stark impact on the world and that millions came out to pay respects to their passing; our posting of those blurbs (before RD was established) was more reflective of that news-ness rather than just mere importance. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is this death important then? Then we get into important to whom. Then we get into Americans vs non-Americans. LordAtlas (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is, after all, "In The News". You effectively have two "levels" for blurbs - people whose importance is such that their deaths are automatically worldwide news (i.e. Mandela), and those on the next level of notability down whose unexpected or sensational deaths produce extensive headlines. Cornell is an edge case, I think; every single worthwhile news service has this story as a major one, it's whether that pushes the story into blurb territory. (Edit: US bias is irrelevant here; Cornell's fame was worldwide, not parochial). Black Kite (talk)23:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney would be very obvious blurbs as opposed to simple RD entries; the enormity of their influence on popular culture cannot be overstated. However, I would not personally use them as benchmarks for deciding if an artist's death merits a full blurb. My view is that although Chris Cornell is decidedly not on the same level as David Bowie or Prince, I do think he is notable enough as an artist and a cultural icon to warrant more than an RD. His impact on the burgeoning grunge movement in the 1980s was almost genre-defining, and it resulted in a countercultural movement that essentially ruled the charts for at least half of the following decade. Kurtis(talk)01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question why do so many musicians make ITN? Prince, Bowie, Bob Dylan & Paul McCartney referred to by Kurtis above, etc - if we care so much about music, what about artists, scientists, authors, and so on? Banedon (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't so much about righting great wrongs as it is about bias. For example, you mention Stephen Hawking. Why Stephen Hawking, instead of: Ivar Giaever, who won a Nobel Prize which Hawking has never won; Martin Rees, who holds a public science office; Juan Maldacena, who wrote one of the most highly-cited papers in all science as recently as 1998; or Alan Guth, one of the initiators of the field of cosmic inflation? All these blurbs with musicians seem to be at their core "I have heard of ____", which is a sign of bias. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's just how the world works, isn't it? Why are you so hurt if they don't appear. They aren't high profile. The news might not care about them. Wikipedia is not your pet project to showcase your personal values. You just should your bias against musicians in favour of who you think is important. Good luck with all that. LordAtlas (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then: oppose blurb - no demonstrated blurb-worthy impact. To change my mind: cite some objective measures by which we can indeed say he's a great musician, and demonstrate that other musicians do not satisfy those measures. Banedon (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are under the impression that I disagree with you. I don't think he deserves a blurb either. Since you asked a question instead of voting like you were supposed to, I felt obligated to reply. You chose to be pointy. LordAtlas (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - His name is neither Mandela nor Thatcher, and I don't think suicide should be considered a blurbworthy criterion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just because he committed suicide, but that he committed suicide while he was still a leading member of these bands and while on tour. It was the suddenness of it, similar to Robin Williams. It makes the death unusual which has been a factor in death blurbs in the past. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment should be enshrined and thrust in the face of anyone who dares assert that there is no U.S. systemic bias on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right I've gone massively IAR here, and this is what I've done; there's a decent number of people here who think Cornell needs a blurb; I don't necesarily agree with that, but what I do agree with is that he's clearly more important than the (barely notable) winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, so I've replaced the image. I realise this is going out on a limb, so any admin who thinks I'm being a dick is welcome to revert me. Let's face it, sometimes the ITN image might better come from RD - that would certainly have been the case recently when people were complaining about Sergio Garcia's mug being on the main page for two weeks! I hope that this is a good way of negotiating between a "blurb-that-almost-got-consensus" and an "image of someone almost non-notable" - let's face it, the Eurovision blurb is still there. Black Kite (talk)00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: - that's brilliant and a really nice touch. Thank you. And a massive thanks to everyone and anyone who's been working on his article in the last two days. To say I'm shocked and saddened by what has happened is a massive understatement. Thanks again. LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. User:Black Kite does not get to make up rules unilaterally. ITN rules are carefully negotiated between all kinds of sometimes-opposing parties. WP:MP/E has been scrubbed, and then refilled with error reports. Address them please. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what was "wrong" by me saying "that's brilliant and a really nice touch". Don't come here with a chip on your shoulder, which is evident from your other comments in this section. LugnutsFire Walk with Me09:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! a great compromise solution, we should do this more often. The picture will let readers who only look at the blurbs realize there is some coverage and will find the name. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting an image of a recent death entry certainly caught my eye. That face staring at me made me think his death had a blurb, of course. Tricky, tricky. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD image placement. A savvy move indeed, and it showed sound judgement. Also, this move could be a good alternative & compromise option to consider in the future. Nice job. Christian Roess (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image. This discussion is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Mr. Cornell does not belong in the featured position and Mr. Rouhani clearly does. I think you've gone crazy. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Mr. Cornell does not belong in the featured position," but you don't present your reasons why he doesn't belong there. Until you do so, your "oppose" image vote cannot be taken seriously. Christian Roess (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Susan, your reaction, as if Black Kite broke Wikipedia is overwrought, and your "embarrassment to wikipedia" and "I think you've gone crazy" are clearly not called for. Also, at the time the question was, was it reasonable to replace the Eurovision contest winner with Cornell. Clearly it was, and there was support for it outweighing yours and Sca's objection. But framing this as Rouhani vs. Cornell was absurd, since at the time of Black Kite's action, there was no blurb for Rouhani yet. Are we now not going to post any images at all, since 'in the future they will be replaced? μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: I'm sorry for every little thing I say, but you guys appear to have been out of control as evidenced by no corrections to your comments above. A photo of Mr. Cornell was up for five hours. The last two of those hours he should have been replaced. Congratulations to Mr. Rouhani on his election. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: "You guys"? (Me and the Russians?) "Out of control"? What, did I post in ALL CAPS in the wrong section? Please stick to facts, and leave me out of any imagined conspiracies. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: "You guys" referred to you, User:MZMcBride and User:Christian Roess, because you are the people who were discussing how "tricky" and "brilliant" and "savvy" you found the image of Mr. Cornell to be. My mistake, Mr. Cornell was pictured for closer to 15 hours. Your comments of approval were made long before I read them (I saw them after a Rouhani item had been added), and that might explain our difference of opinion--I found three or four people who appeared to be going rogue. Several other people reported this as a main page error. A rule change is under discussion, as it should be. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to 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: In some sense this is internal to the US. In another, it involves at least two countries (the US & Russia), and likely a third (Israel). Per AFP [1], "The story grabbed the front pages of every major Israeli newspaper, with the exception of the pro-Netanyahu freesheet Israel Hayom." It's also led to constant follow-up pieces in the media. I'm nominating this as ongoing since a blurb would be hard to word and the event itself happened a week ago. Banedon (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait So far most of Trump's gaffes don't, of themselves, seem to merit mentioning yet. Wait until impeachment or something like that. --Jayron3202:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a endpoint here of this story, the potential about impeachment, but until that's reached, this is all political mudslinging. We avoid that at ITN, and per RECENTISM should not be writing much about it. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It's only a speculation with no official confirmation from the White House. We are here to discuss something that really happened and not political campaigning launched by the media. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More mudslinging. It's also a logical fallacy as the President has broad authority over handling and disseminating information. Namely he can reclassify or authorize disclosure at his discretion. President Obama shared similar data with russia to combat ISIS. It's not a novel act. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Four militants attack a state television building in Jalalabad, killing at least six people. The militants are also killed after engaging with Afghan police. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack. (BBC)
Article needs updating 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: Former First Minister of Wales. Article only partly updated, but mostly in good shape. A few extra references needed but nothing really contentious and they shouldn't be too hard to find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. intelligence officials had warned Israel not to share sensitive information with President Trump, out of fear that it could be leaked to Russia, and then from Russia to Iran. (Newsweek)
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: Notable global news. Significant recent discovery, very significant global issue and much news reporting. (Please create altblurbs if you don't like the one I suggested.) Fixuture (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose certainly interesting, but more from a DYK perspective. The story begins and ends with a load of junk on an uninhabited island. If the consequences are that we stop using plastic, stop discarding it overboard ships etc, then we have a news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a point, however you only describe one kind of news story. This is also a story that's in the news right now. And where does it say that stories such as this one can't be featured in the section (why)? Also: there will probably never be such news as that happens gradually and such incidents and findings are the only ones getting into the news. Wikipedia has a unique opportunity and responsibility to feature exactly such truly significant news which is relevant to the entire Earth population which, despite of that, is still relatively unaware of it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alright - but that wasn't my main point here. For the guideline: I think that it applies less for the selection of In the news items than any other Wikipedia content mainly as there are many, many things in the news. Also the responsibility I was speaking of here is to not "leave out" important candidates which could be featured as they meet the criteria of having significant reporting etc. --Fixuture (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but my personal oppose applies still, this is a "sad-but-true" story that has no real relevance other than to be "interesting" in a kind of DYK manner. If the story was "After 37 billion tons of plastic was discovered on Henderson Island, the world stopped using plastic" then I'd buy in, but right now it's just "lots of trash found on island, sad face". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on same points at TRM. It is not like the island suddenly had millions of pieces of plastic trash on it, it was just a report that fixed an estimated value at some point. The problem still exists, and the fact that news are picking up on it now (a month after the journal article was published, begging if this is a stale story) makes it feel like a human interest story rather than breaking news. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose This is just another, it depends where you look story. For example, the Antarctic Ozone Hole was found--wait for it--the year we first launched a satellite capable of detecting it. It might very well have existed for a billion years. Same goes with this island? Have we surveyed every island in the world for plastic waste? Was there some event associated with this? Or is it just that someone has published a paper? DYK is even a stretch, since there's no proof that no island has worse garbage. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least read ozone hole before believing the bullshit that the ozone hole might've always been that way since 1 billion BC. It says "G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when springtime ozone levels in the Antarctic over Halley Bay were first measured in 1956, he was surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, or about 150 DU below spring Arctic levels of ~450 DU. These were at that time the only known Antarctic ozone values available. What Dobson describes is essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the 150–100 DU range." Satellites of course weren't even invented yet in 1956. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the blurb could be changed appropriately if you don't like the highest density part. It could also be made clearer that it's only the highest density of what has been found so far. This is simply news on a report that showed the graveness of plastic pollution. It's a major issue and there aren't many such news so I don't know why it shouldn't be featured even though it's not a candidate that's as obvious to get featured as some others (but it's still more notable than sport events). --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support we have stuff like discovery of new elements on ITNR, even though discovering those is "just" a matter of having powerful-enough equipment. In the same way discovering a new Solar System planet, a new hominid, etc, would all be worth featuring. Why not this? Especially given the abundance of coverage. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "we didn't know this existed, but now we do", then no. If instead you mean "we didn't know the extent of this, but now we do", then yes. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the scientific paper that was published in April, there were already similar studies done on two neighborning islands in 1991 (all part of a group of islands far enough away from any type of human habitation that all debris accumulation can be attributed to what is carried by ocean currents), and this only showed an exponential trend from there. So there is nothing new here, in both discover and extent. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at the paper as well. It says there's an increase of 200–2,000×. That should still be significant - 25 years ought to be sufficient for the original trend to fail, as it eventually must, since otherwise plastic would eventually cover the entire Earth's surface. Banedon (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The topic is in the news and there was also another recent story about the contamination of sea salt. But note also that Boyan Slat's Ocean Cleanup project is also in the news, having attracted good funding – see the Weather Network, for example. So, we can report not just that there's a problem but that someone is doing something about it. This would be better than running stale schlock and same-old sports like the Eurovision Song Contest and Kentucky Derby. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Only editing activity on the article in the past week has been a to-and-fro about POV edits. The purges have not been making the global news significantly for at least a week. LukeSurltc12:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Ongoing is expected to have near-daily news stories of large interest, that's just not happening here. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An Akron, Ohio fire kills seven people, including five children and two adults. (Fox News 8)
Health and medicine
A small study shows that two known carcinogens, o-toluidine and 2-naphthylamine, were found in greater amounts in the urine of e-cigarette users than in nonusers. Previous studies of traditional cigarette smokers have identified o-toluidine and 2-naphthylamine as the two most carcinogenic molecules for the bladder. (Medscape Medical News)
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. Very short article - not much more than a stub. Absolutely no information on his life from graduating from college until 2003. I would like to see this fleshed out more before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted as RD] Ian Brady dies at 79
This has significant consensus to post, albeit IAR, to RD. Any meta-discussions should take place at the ITN talk page, or people should work on formulating an RFC if they really see an issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. "Terminally-ill man dies of old age" is the very embodiment of "inappropriate for a blurb". Unless you're seriously claiming that he passes the "comparable to Mandela in terms of importance" test? ‑ Iridescent21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I'm a little surprised that he doesn't have his own article, surely GNG enough? An RD listing would be sufficient for this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support for RD only. He doesn't have a standalone article, but there is no question that this is going to be in the news in the UK. He is one of the most infamous man in Britain. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent plus no stand-alone article. No importance outside of being a murderer so I don't think a standalone article is warranted... not entirely familiar with WP:BIO guidelines, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A while back I did propose invoking WP:IAR and creating separate biographies for Brady (and Hindley) to make the Moors murders article more about the crime and less dominated by his biography, but the discussion fizzled out, and this is such a sensitive topic it couldn't be done in fast-time. ‑ Iridescent21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both blurb and RD. The article itself is not news (it happened in the 1960s), and he is not sufficiently notable to have his own article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but given we have standalone stubs about college basketball coaches, I'm perplexed as to why Brady doesn't warrant his own article by now (Hindley too) given the vast amount of coverage independent to the murders. It's somewhat anomalous that the UK news websites are all leading with Brady's death (and his refusal to expose the location of the last victim), yet Wikipedia doesn't deem him notable enough to have his own article or even note his death as one of the most notorious murderers in British history. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change over time. Would suggest that if anybody wants to turn both redirects into full articles there should be a prior RFC, widely publicised to gain concensus. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the comment above. This individual is responsible for the death of at least five children. I'm perplexed as to why there's no article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to bait me with that "college basketball coaches" crack again, aren't you? AfD said merge, so no notability, no RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb A despicable creature, yes, but hardly a major world leader in his "field". That being said, given the amount of coverage he got over the past several years, I think he does deserve a standalone article, so an RD is fine if the article is of decent quality. EternalNomad (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was closed at this point by Newyorkbrad with the comment "Closing. No support at all for a blurb. Not eligible for RD as there is no standalone article. Let's not spend more time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" BencherliteTalk23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-close Support for RD per IAR. This is an obvious case of someone who more than merits their own article but for pragmatic reasons had the bio folded into the main story of the murders. Further this is an FA article, which I would think we would want to promote on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening given that there are three calls on WT:ITN for an IAR exception to any apparent need for a separate article (given the circumstances in which the individual article about Brady was folded into an FA-standard article about his crimes) and that half an hour of discussion is insufficient in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD, consensus that this individual should only have his biography within a larger (in this case Featured) article does not preclude it from being posted as a recent death. We don't need to legislate for such unusual cases. Stephen23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support That's a brave decision, and one I agree with - I have long been astonished that Brady and Hindley do not have individual articles - they are probably more notable than 99% of all of our biographical articles. If they were recent murderers of such ridiculous notoriety as these two, the articles would have been created in a flash. For those outside the UK that are not familiar with the case, I would point you towards this - at the time their crimes were seen as so heinous that they were world news, not just in the UK. And this is a Featured Article - we need more stuff like this on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk)00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support for RD As I note in the separate talk page discussion, the RD criteria are not meant to be exclusionary, just a guarantee of RD posting if they are met. That gives consensus-driven or WP:IAR-type room for notable cases like this when some but not all criteria are met, where we have other policies in place like BLPCRIME that are meant to avoid the glamorizing of serial killers, but yet still would be a notable name and clearly appearing in the news to qualify for a mention on the RD line. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support of RD - much as I dislike giving this heinous individual publicity, the fact remains that his death is in the news and widely reported. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can all individuals opposing on notability grounds just put a sock in it? You know absolutely nothing about this mans evil legacy, by the looks of things. Stop skim-reading articles and making snap judgments - don't have enough info or insight to vote? Then don't vote. "Doesn't have an article" is not a valid argument. "He was an old man" is not a valid argument. Stop it.--81.153.7.114 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Evil legacy' hyperbole much? He murdered 5 people. Not even particularly notable within his field (of murdering). Mass shooters in the US seem to manage that on a monthly basis. Its obviously a big news item in the UK, but its hardly of worldwide general interest. 'Old murderer dies in prison'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe the choice of children as a target, the sadistic details (which I will leave you to read about) and half a century as a high-profile prisoner count for more than body count. If we're playing death count Top Trumps here, then that makes Brady five times as notable as Lee Harvey Oswald, which is clearly not a well-supported opinion. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. A high profile individual, although not for the right reasons of course. But it's headline news nonetheless. I predict that he will get the "death to funeral" front page coverage that we usually apply as an indicator of blurb-worthiness, at least in the UK. (Though perhaps it is of less worldwide significance, I grant you that). — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only - Brady's death has received a moderate amount of news coverage and it is reasonable to assume that linking to the section of the Moors murders article that discusses Brady in the recent deaths line will "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". However the bar for a posting blurbs for individual deaths is high—especially for deaths from natural causes of elderly persons—and Brady does not meet that level. --LukeSurltc09:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD By posting this, we are automatically violating the rule that requires a person considered for the RD section to have Wikipedia article. Furthermore, a deletion request concluded with a consensus that the person did not merit a separate article and it was eventually merged to Moors murders.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that requires a person considered for the RD section to have Wikipedia article. The only rule is that someone who has one is automatically eligible. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-write WP:ITNRD then, because it currently says "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is" and "Regardless of a blurb or a "recent death" listing, the article on the person in question must still comply with article requirements". All the wording clearly indicates they should have a stand-alone article. You can argue its not required that they have an article, but the above certainly reads that they should. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those guidelines are only to guarantee automatic inclusion, and they do not exclude RDs that do not fit those three criteria. That's why we still have consensus-driven discussions that can evoke IAR for a case like this where there's agreement the death is ITN, but we don't have a standalone article for other policy reasons. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the relevant section of ITN that defines what a RD should have. If there is another page somewhere that has different criteria for what a RD requires, feel free to link to it. But WP:ITNRD as written states a RD subject should have an article in quite clear writing. If you want to IAR it, then you are a)accepting it is a rule that you believe should be ignored, b)you need to make a credible argument that by ignoring the rule the encyclopedia is improved. If Ian Brady is featured on the main page or not has no bearing on the quality of the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, ITNRD does not say that. It says that a recently-deceased person may have an RD if conditions X, Y, and Z are met. It does not say that RD will only include persons that have met X, Y, and Z. These are sufficient but not necessary conditions for an RD posting. I do agree that we really want to avoid posting RD when these are not met, but that's why we have consensus building and applicability of IAR in a case like this. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull – Dying in hospital at 79 of "a lung and chest condition" (Guardian) isn't big news, even if the deceased did murder children half a century ago. Sca (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted as a RD, not a blurb. Since when has the age and cause of death of an RD subject been relevant?--[ure[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not getting pulled. When the death of someone is the top story in a major country (and it's still getting stories now - BBC[11][12]) as well as being news elsewhere (Fox NewsIrelandSwitzerland) then I think we can safely say that this person is more notable than the vast majority of people we feature at RD. Black Kite (talk)17:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Although it's been updated recently, it looks like the most recent timeline event took place a week ago. Is this still really an "ongoing" event? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those events added to the article? If the answer is "no" my vote will be to remove until such time as you have added them to the article in question. --Jayron3201:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested one way or the other. Since YOU want to see it kept on the main page, it's YOUR responsibility. I'm not trying to keep it on the main page, so I have no interest in updating it. If you don't want to update it, don't be surprised if it is removed. I'd be quite happy for it to stay if it were updated, but it also doesn't bother me to see it removed. --Jayron3212:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested one way or the other either. However, YOU claim to have our readers' interests at heart. But YOU also refuse to update this, even though it's already on the main page, and instead YOU are here lecturing me instead of pushing this through FAC. Some altruistic Wikipedian YOU are. Keep this up and we'll see each other at ANI. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is required reading here. You're asking Jayron here (for example) to read up and get to speed about a topic that others clearly have already done, when Jayron might feel their volunteer time is better spent elsewhere. You might have a point if it was a simple update (for example, sourcing one floating CN in a RD candidate), but as ongoing, we're talking a continued commitment to improve, and that is absolutely not required nor expected of an editor. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTCOMPULSORY applies to me, too. If you replace "Jayron" in what you wrote with "Banedon", your comment could have easily been pointed at him. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the person who voted 'keep' without updating accusing another person of shirking duties? You want it to stay? Update it. Simple. I'm just going to call out this SJW mentality of "I don't like this / I want this so do it for me" style of commenting. Enough of Banedon's seem to follow this pattern. LordAtlas (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I'm not particularly interested one way or the other. You are acting under the assumption that I really want it to stay, which is incorrect. You want to remove it? Do it, what are you waiting for? Banedon (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why vote for it to stay if you aren't interested? As a non-admin, I fail to see how I could do that and as someone who doesn't care I've not chosen to vote. LordAtlas (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think it staying would have been helpful to the main page, and because TRM's original rationale for removal is demonstrably incorrect. As for why I would do this without really caring - well, I hope you've learned something new today. I'd go further and say that most people who vote at ITN don't really care. Objections happen but are uncommon, e.g. you don't see Medeis or Sherenk1 complaining about how the 2017 Mastung suicide bombing was posted. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY does apply to you; no one is saying you're required to do anything. Just that unless and until the updates are made (by someone) this will be removed from the main page. You don't have to do anything, it's going to be removed. And that's fine. --Jayron3213:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The only actual update to the article (as opposed to formatting and layout changes) since the 13th has been to add "During another national sit-in on 15 May, two were shot dead in Táchira; 17-year-old Luis Alviarez and 32-year-old Diego Hernández." with a citation. Whether the events are ongoing or not the article is not being updated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shortly after the attack began a researcher found an effective kill switch, which prevented many new infections, and allowed time to patch systems. This greatly slowed the spread. Cyber security authorities discover new versions that lack the kill switch. (The Hacker News)(Der Spiegel)(Tech Crunch)
U.S. and South Korean officials confirm that North Korea launched a test missile from the west coast city of Kusong. The projectile travelled to the east for 30 minutes and 435 miles (700 km) reaching an altitude of more than 1,245 miles (2,004 km) before landing in the Sea of Japan, 60 miles (97 km) south of the Russian city of Vladivostok. (CBS via MSN)(BBC)(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support in principle but needs referencing for the awards won (both in the table and the text), and for the list of movies released during his tenure, before it can be posted. ‑ Iridescent21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's verbal shorthand for "only a minor issue that needs addressing not a complete rewrite"; the awards are all high-profile so they shouldn't be difficult to source. (The "movies released during his time in charge" section being unreferenced is less of an issue, given that the dates in question are sourced and we know when each of these moves came out.) ‑ Iridescent22:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating 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.
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
