:::::*If you want "politics", see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37381447 the French] who had around 78,000 on the streets last September protesting (per the norm, like protesting against Trump) and that included loads of violence. These kind of protests are in no way unusual and they have no impact beyond creating a lot of litter and costing a lot in policing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::*If you want "politics", see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37381447 the French] who had around 78,000 on the streets last September protesting (per the norm, like protesting against Trump) and that included loads of violence. These kind of protests are in no way unusual and they have no impact beyond creating a lot of litter and costing a lot in policing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Amazing what "meaningless" things these women folk get up to isn't it? Perhaps we should hope for more violence next time? Let's just count numbers from now on? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Amazing what "meaningless" things these women folk get up to isn't it? Perhaps we should hope for more violence next time? Let's just count numbers from now on? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Oops. The reports clearly state these feeble worldwide "protests" were by men '''and''' women together. And yes, there has to be some reliance on the scale of a protest in order to determine and contextualise its encyclopedic value. That's why we don't have a French protest at ITN every two weeks. Protests of this nature are ''de rigeur'' these days, unexceptional and worth perhaps a passing note in some Trump article somewhere, nothing more. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - major protest that dominates headlines worldwide. It is beyond bizarre that WP has no mention of Trump, yet there is space for a building collapse... [[User:Renata3|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata3|talk]]) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - major protest that dominates headlines worldwide. It is beyond bizarre that WP has no mention of Trump, yet there is space for a building collapse... [[User:Renata3|Renata]] ([[User talk:Renata3|talk]]) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' on the grounds that nothing has actually happened—in terms of either violence or some kind of desired result being achieved. That lots of people are unhappy with Donald Trump has been perpetually true for 18 months now. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' on the grounds that nothing has actually happened—in terms of either violence or some kind of desired result being achieved. That lots of people are unhappy with Donald Trump has been perpetually true for 18 months now. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A car bomb attack occurs in the Rakban refugee camp near the Jordanian border. Casualty counts are currently unknown and no one has yet taken credit for the attack. (Al Jazeera)
Two suicide bombers detonate their explosives during a firefight with Saudi security forces in Jeddah. (Al Jazeera)
Eight people are killed in Rafah, Egypt, after a shell lands on the home in which they were staying. (Reuters)
Brazilian police enter the Alcacuz prison outside the city of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, after a week of fighting leaves 26 inmates dead. At least 126 people have been killed in Brazil's prisons since the beginning of the year. (AP)
Marches occur across the U.S. and throughout the world, with 408 reported marches in the U.S. and 168 marches reported in other countries. (The New York Times)
Nominator's comments: I saw the previous item and see a lot of voters were against posting solely based on the inauguration itself. As stated by Thryduulf, if protests become more than peaceful then it should be re-introduced. I've seen many examples on the news regarding arrests and riots, both within the United States and around the world. In addition, the Women's March on Washington is occurring tomorrow with more than 500,000 attending. I truly believe this needs to addressed again. -- LuK3(Talk) 02:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the relevance of protests in other countries. Neutral on whether to post overall, as I'm torn between the fact that what has happened was broadly in line with expectations, and that those expectations were the exception to the norm in and of themselves. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "other countries"? Wikipedia is an international project and not written for just one country. It is irrelevant where protests take place, the only relevant factor to be considered here on ITN (in addition to the quality of the article) is the noteworthiness of the protests, as demonstrated by their coverage in reliable sources; in fact if there are protests in many countries, this means the protests in question are almost certainly of greater noteworthiness, and hence more relevant for ITN. --Tataral (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for a world leader to upset the people of other countries. It's extremely unusual for a new leader of a country to attract beyond a certain level of protest from their own people (in a democracy because people tend to respect its rules, in a dictatorship or military coup out of fear). In that context our project's international nature is irrelevant to this story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration. Also, this. WMoW can be discussed when it happens. Blythwood (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about whether to post, but the claim that "nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration" seems entirely contrary to my recollection of previous inaugurations. I suppose it's always possible that this is simply due to media bias (as implied by the above-cited Washingtonian opinion piece about the burning garbage can) and/or to faulty recollection on my part, but if we are to take the claim seriously it might be useful to see some evidence of similar 'reliable source' reports for previous inaugurations.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seeing how this has become a global event, with significant protests in many countries on most continents, and apparently escalating protests in the US across the country, I'm inclined to support this, particularly if the protests continue on saturday (which appears to be the case with several large protests planned). Protests taking place in large parts of the world are relatively rare, and thus much more significant/noteworthy. This is clearly not just a routine, fairly small-scale, local protest in Washington. For example, when did we last see protests by the thousands against the inauguration of a President of France in Washington, London, Sydney, Berlin, lots of other places, and all across France? (I don't think there were international or even comparable domestic protests of this kind against George W. Bush's inaguruation, despite the divisive nature of his election and views) --Tataral (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll oppose this right now, depending on the scale of unrest this weekend. — foxj 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 09:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as an oblique allusion to Global Whining. Sca (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just "tree huggers" who don't like him, he got 3 million fewer votes than the Electoral College-losing candidate. Polling also indicates he is one of the least popular presidents at the time he began his term. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting description of EEng you got there, Lugnuts - do you know something we don't? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until later today to decide if the protests were notable enough. The women's march today may draw a larger crowd than the inauguration itself. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all very nice for those involved but ultimately completely meaningless, particularly for those marching outside the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"completely meaningless"? Surely it means that hundreds of thousands think, like Obama, that Trump is "unfit to be President"; or like Springsteen, this he's "a moron"; or like thousands of women across the world, that he's a misogynist? But I thought we were concerned here just with newsworthiness not "meaning"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us soon may be marching out of the U.S. Sca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Lots of people hating Trump is not exactly scoop of the century. If the protests spread and are sustained, we'll revisit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These events are run of the mill for inaugurations and are unlikely to rate even a footnote in the history books. The violence was fairly small scale and the inaugural protests were far below expectations. None of these events individually, nor all of them collectively rate their own article (Protests of Donald Trump inauguration). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as notably unusual in recent times, as reflected in the coverage. Also supportLugnuts being being dipped in free-range honey, immersed in muesli and rolled in a barrel alongside the 5,000,000 women :D O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Free-range honey? That's the final straw. Did you know that honey is made between the joints of the legs of the insect? You could say it's the bees knees. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could say, 'Jeez, I can't find my knees.' – Sca (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still no idea whether item should be posted, but object to proposed waste of good honey and muesli being discussed here rather than under its own nom (suggested blurb: 'Empress of the World plans insufficiently cruel and unusual punishment for snowflake-hating Wikipedian'). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait To me, the big story would be if the Women's March draws the 500k it is expected to, and that to me seems like the bigger story here. If it does draw that many, a blurb could be "The Women's March on Washington draws over 500,000 to promote women's right among other protests against President Trump following his inauguration". The protests that are happened, again, are a continuation of protests since November, but this would highlight a more interesting story while grouping several less-ITN-worthy stories. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait – While I don't agree that these protests are typical of an inauguration, so far they seem of middling significance. They don't appear to pack the political punch of the 1963 March on Washington, or the anti-Vietnam War march six years later. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The big news is the inauguration, which was snow-closed yesterday. The protests are irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, we snow closed the inauguration because that was considered routine. I have no objection at all to this being debated as it was the element of the story which made Trump's accession out of the ordinary. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Protests are "relevant". Whether or not they're ITN/C is another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with MASEM's comment above. The only article that is possibly worthy of a mention as being "In The News" is the Women's March on Washington. In which case this nomination about Trump should be closed, and there should be a separate discussion about that one specific event. I also note that Inauguration of Donald Trump protests is subject of an Article for Deletion proposal. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Women's March article is extremely POV. Don't Melania, Ivanka, Betsy, Kellyanne, etc., count at all? It's also extremely offensive to the LGBTQ community since he is the first POTUS to support gay marriage--what on earth are these people on about? Again, very POV; definitely too POV for the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. That would be Obama, who was the first POTUS to support gay marriage. And the Trump women bit is funny, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the Women's March is that it is not only focused on the fears that Trump would weaken women's rights, but also those of immigrants and LGBTQ, so there are more marching as part of this common cause - and the march is not only limited to Wash DC but in several major cities having equivalent events for the same purpose. Just because it's titled as such doesn't mean it is restricted to that. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This understanding is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding an altblurb that can only be validated after about another.. 5-6 hrs? to get a estimate head count, in light of this and would be a blurb that I could support. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the altblurb, LGBTQ acts as an adjective, so would need to be followed by a noun such as people. And the alblurb is a bit longish. Sca (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but close because no one gets it and this will only result in more unnecessary political and US-centric arguing. Thechased (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crowd for the march in DC was expected to be five times bigger than for Trump's inauguration. The estimate is now 500,000. And that doesn't count the sister marches. The one in Chicago has 150,000; they had to cancel the march part because there's too many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - I think the WMoW is gaining more media attention than the general protests (although it is part of the overarching protests of the inauguration). I think that the march(es) need to be the main subject if it is included on ITN. -- LuK3(Talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've heard about reports all over the place now, from London (including the mayor turning up!), Australia, India and Nigeria. Even accounting for the reporting on Washington that hasn't happened yet, this is now major worldwide news. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support After considering, I think we should post a joint Inauguration/March blurb. Trump was inaugurated, and that and the marches are making major international news with sister marches across the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless something extraordinary happens (e.g. civil disobedience with high damage and casualties, changes in the voting mechanism, other major political changes etc.) and even then the news would be the resulting event but not the protests themselves (compare this to the Euromaidan as a relatively recent example). Soros-backed protests similar to these have taken place in many other countries in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Soros-backed protests"? Why does the right wing always bring out George Soros as a boogeyman? Even if he's at the DC march, there's another 499,999 there too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because the only chance for this to result in something extraordinary to merit inclusion would be thanks to George Soros. The rest may count even 4,999,999 or 49,999,999, but it'd be just a number without this 'tiny nuance'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of George Soros' involvement. And that includes the Breitbart "article" claiming this is all Soros because Soros supports Planned Parenthood, which is a ridiculous leap. They're saying 670 marches and 2.5 million attendees. That ain't Soros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim his involvement and deliberately used 'Soros-backed similar to these' instead of 'such Soros-backed protests'. It's just a sarcastic metaphor for how these protests can result into something that would merit inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the first sentence of Kiril Simeonovski's oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sister (pun not intentional) marches are happening across at least 60 countries, and on all 7 continents. [1] The total participating estimated so far is in the millions. Thus I think the focus on the marches are the key news item here. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kiril. Unless people get shot or somebody resigns this is not worth an ITN spot. Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We do not ordinarily post inaugurations, and by definition if we were to post this it would be because the protests were so exceptional as to override POV concerns about posting. They're significant, and I gave this a lot of thought, but I don't think they rise to that level. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I said when we discussed the inauguration, which was routine by itself, I would support posting something if something extraordinary happened, such as millions of people protesting. This has now happened with protests in the millions across the US and across the globe. We should disregard comments above from editors who just express their political views/support of Trump instead of discussing the noteworthiness of the protests based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy and ITN criteria. --Tataral (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Millions of people worldwide Hundred of thousands of Americans feeling angry, fearful and aggrieved. And prepared to take to the streets to shout about it. Don't see how this can be ignored or treated with "we don't normally" comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: This nomination is about protests in the United States and not about the feelings of millions people worldwide. If you think someone's fear and grief merits inclusion as news, you're encouraged to propose it as a separate item with impartial sources or, at least, propose an alternative blurb to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy to see an alternative blurb that reflects the true global scale of these protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably as many people protested in the UK as will vote for nobodies in The Voice tonight. Big news! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for raising the level of debate there. But that is an interesting political comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And all those (3) thousands in Sydney, almost as many folks went to the Wham Stadium (BAM!) today to see Accrington Stanley, who are they? draw with the mighty Carlisle. Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want "politics", see the French who had around 78,000 on the streets last September protesting (per the norm, like protesting against Trump) and that included loads of violence. These kind of protests are in no way unusual and they have no impact beyond creating a lot of litter and costing a lot in policing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing what "meaningless" things these women folk get up to isn't it? Perhaps we should hope for more violence next time? Let's just count numbers from now on? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. The reports clearly state these feeble worldwide "protests" were by men and women together. And yes, there has to be some reliance on the scale of a protest in order to determine and contextualise its encyclopedic value. That's why we don't have a French protest at ITN every two weeks. Protests of this nature are de rigeur these days, unexceptional and worth perhaps a passing note in some Trump article somewhere, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major protest that dominates headlines worldwide. It is beyond bizarre that WP has no mention of Trump, yet there is space for a building collapse... Renata (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that nothing has actually happened—in terms of either violence or some kind of desired result being achieved. That lots of people are unhappy with Donald Trump has been perpetually true for 18 months now. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An airstrike kills more than 40 Jabhat Fateh al-Sham fighters at a jihadist camp west of Aleppo. It is currently unknown whether American or Russian planes carried out the attack. (Reuters)(FOX News)
Italian emergency crews rescue 10 people, including four children, from 16½ feet of snow and wreckage from the luxury Hotel Rigopiano following yesterday's Gran Sasso mountain avalanche. Searchers find four bodies, while families of at least 16 people still missing wait for news. (CBS News)
Some protesters of the inauguration smash windows, damage cars, and clash with the police. Six police officers and at least one civilian are injured. DC police say 217 protesters have been arrested. (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.
Nominator's comments: American speechwriter and library director. Fuebaey (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems all in proper shape and ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality article, which is now all that really matters for RD. Wth 2 others agreeing on its quality, and no dissent on quality (at least so far), marking item as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Possibly the most famous cartel leader is extradited to the U.S., marking the end of his grip on the Mexican government Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is in great shape, this is being covered by all major news outlets, the man is the largest drug lord in the world, he's finally going to trial and he hasn't escaped. Perfect ITN if I've ever seen one. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am pretty sure Chapo has been on ITN at least 2 times by now. Unless he escapes Hollywood style or is executed he doesn't need to be put on ITN again. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he is convicted in a US court. We don't need to post every step in this process. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conviction in either this district or the other districts that have indicted him is assured. The surprising piece of news is that the Mexican government actually extradited him. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is certain. Someone like him or his organization could intimidate jurors; he could escape again(albeit unlikely), anything could happen. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once he's convicted in the U.S., the blurb will be opposed here on the grounds that it was expected, that he has been previously convicted, that he still needs to be sentenced, that he could appeal, that he could strike a deal to reduce his sentence, that he could escape, any number of reasons. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramaksoud2000: All I can say is that I support posting it then. I can't guarantee it will be, but I think it should be. We usually post convictions as they are a formal judgement of criminal activity- even if they are overturned later. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We normally don't post criminal stories until there's a conviction, for obvious BLP reasons. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at some of the article's contents - there's quite a lot there that I'd have expected to see framed as 'allegedly' at the very least, if not removed altogether. That said, I agree that the story has the significance to be posted at ITN, but I share the concerns voiced above about when in the process would be the right time. I could be convinced either way, though. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has been convicted for organized crime in Mexico. That's why he was in prison when he escaped twice. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 16:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - he was convicted of drug crimes long ago, so no BLP issues here. His sudden extradition, which Mexico had long refused, is the big news. -Zanhe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – For now, per 331; await verdict and/or sentencing. Sca (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wait until conviction.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that he has been tried and sentenced in Mexico courts already, and with US officials been trying to get him extradited to try him here for months now, makes this an unsurprising turn. Agree that the US conviction will be the point of ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on BLP grounds. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Contrary to the suggestion above, it is not certain that he will be convicted. I have no idea what the basis is for the suggestion that it is certain that he will be convicted. It is never certain that someone will be convicted unless the trial is a show trial, which I see no reason to believe this will be. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find people's objection on grounds of BLP ridiculous. He was convicted and sentenced in his home country Mexico more than 20 years ago, and escaped from prison twice! BLP does not say that only people convicted by a US court can be considered criminals. -Zanhe (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP isn't a suicide pact. Currently, 2017 Gao bombing is on ITN. It identifies Al-Qaeda as behind the attack. Next people will say they haven't been convicted for this specific attack, so it's a BLP violation. The blurb isn't even about his crimes. It's about his extradition, an indisputable fact. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Invoking BLP in opposition to this nomination is completely spurious, as Ramaksoud2000 correctly points out. My ground for opposition is that I don't see this step of the criminal justice process against Mr Chapo as amounting to an event of international significance. But it's not far from it, either. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Inauguration of Donald Trump
Consensus is clearly against posting the inauguration on its own merits, and this is not going to change in advance of the ceremony. Iff something unexpected actually happens (more than just peaceful protests), then a new nomination may be made to assess the consensus of posting that. Note this is not a WP:BOLD closure, it is a WP:SNOW closure explicitly supported by 331dot, StillWaitingForConnection and GoldenRing at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
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: For posting after the swearing-in that will take place at about 12:15 p.m. US ET, and obviously subject to the article's being updated as of that time, which I have no doubt will occur. I anticipate some editors' suggesting that we do not post an inauguration to ITN where we have already posted the same person's election to office. But the circumstances here are extraordinary: Whatever one may think of Trump or of his upcoming presidency—and this thread should absolutely not become a political discussion—there is no doubt that Trump's becoming president today will be the most prominent story in the mainstream news across the world, and will be what January 20, 2017 will always be remembered for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already posted the result of this election. We don't ever post inaugurations, which are just formalities. The precedent in this case is extremely clear, and inaugurations have as far as I can ascertain always (correction: almost always with only one known exception a decade ago) been rejected on ITN. If we post this, then we will have to do the same for other countries too, and post, for the example, the much anticipated upcoming inauguration next week of Alexander Van der Bellen as President of Austria, despite already having posted the election result after the election. The inauguration of a new President, particularly in a larger country such as the US, but also France, China and many other countries, will always be a major story, and there is a reason that we only post such events (namely, a country getting a new President) once, not twice. --Tataral (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not true. We posted the First inauguration of Barack Obama because of the singular historic nature of it, given the record breaking crowds and his status as the first African American U.S. president, not to establish precedent (which does not exist at ITN. If momentum in baseball is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher, "precedent" at ITN is only as good as who shows up to vote in a discussion on any given day. Consensus of every individual discussion is always decided only on the merits of every individual nomination, without artificial connections to coincidental events of similar categories. But I digress) Aside from my digression my only point was that the "we've never posted inaugurations" is demonstratedly false, since we HAVE (and posting either that one or this one would not bind us to ever post anything else outside of consensus to do so). --Jayron32 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Trump is not the first white president, and is there any reason to expect record breaking crowds (except perhaps people protesting against him in the US capital, in which case the blurb should emphasize the protests against him if that was the reason for posting it)? --Tataral (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I make any of those statements regarding a reason to support posting this? Why would you bring them up? You'll note I opposed posting this blurb. Or maybe you couldn't be bothered to read that. --Jayron32 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that you made any such statements, I merely commented on the fact that the reasons that were apparently cited back then, nearly ten years ago, don't apply today. --Tataral (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb as written, wait for possible more interesting stories related to the event, such as aftereffects of protests, etc. To merely report the dry fact of the inauguration is burying the lead on this story. If nothing interesting aside from the inauguration itself happens, it isn't worth a blurb. If something else does, that should be the focus of the blurb and not the routine ceremony itself. --Jayron32 02:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this obnoxious US-centrism. However, like Jayron, I would be open to posting if something significantly out of the ordinary occurs. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I would also support posting something if something extraordinary happened, for example something along the lines of: "50 people are killed in protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States" or "Two million people protest against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States". If there is just the usual formalities, then there is no reason to post anything. --Tataral (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me the more likely scenario that could result in an ITN post is that Trump carries out some significant--and I mean internationally not domestically significant--executive action on his first day. Maybe rescission of measures in relation to Cuba, movement of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a large and provocative movement of troops in Europe or East Asia, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Obama's 1st inauguration made sense as being the first African-American. Trump doesn't break any trends or records, and I think there are very few people in the English speaking world that don't know he will about to be President. Understandably on the principle of this being the effective leader of the free world, that's a huge power position, which is why I can see the US inauguration is more significant than any other country. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the state of the article (pre-ceremony considerations) is a bit questionable. There's one section that has an orange tag, and I don't think including the full list of Senators and Representatives boycotting it is necessary on this page, making its POV in question. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of course is the transition and assumption of authority, not the ceremonies; we can select a different article to be bolded, if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we've already highlighted (per ITNR) the election win, and barring any extremely unlikely events, the transition was assured to happen. And to move away from the inauguration article would be a poor excuse. I would not expect that the article at the time of ITN posting be as detailed as previous ones, but it should be in a shape that shows it ready to be added to by new editors were this to be posted, and right now, its far from it. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't post inaugurations, and we shouldn't make a Trump exception. I would reconsider if there were massive violence in protests, or something else similar. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Of all prior U.S. Presidential inaugurations that have occurred prior to this one during the timeframe when ITN has existed as a main page section, we've posted exactly 50% of the. If you're going to oppose, please oppose on the merits (note, please don't assume I supported this. Bad reasoning and blatant falsehoods should be corrected regardless of the conclusion.). --Jayron32 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of oppose works on so many other nominations. We posted the election. Hmm, maybe we should post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inaugurations in general, not just USA ones. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose and subject to reconsideration. As noted above, we don't usually post inaugurations, and I'm not just referring to US inaugurals, if the election results were previously posted. We made an understandable exception with Obama's first inaugural but I don't think that should be treated as precedent. All of which said, there are people and groups who have been quite openly promising to do anything within their power to disrupt the ceremonies, not excluding violence. If there are major disturbances I will likely reconsider my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is an extraordinary amount of nervousness and uncertainty around the world around what will actually happen now that Trump is President, which simply would not exist if a mainstream candidate like e.g. Jeb Bush had been elected. Especially in Europe, as I understand it. It may seem sensationalist to say "this inauguration is special", but it really is. My local state media have a front page item with the title "we must accept that Trump is now President", for crying out loud. Thue (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. If something extraordinary actually does happen now that Trump is President, I'm sure we'll post it. "Nervousness and uncertainty" are not the makings of an ITN item. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since it's generating so much news worldwide. The event hasn't come to pass but it's already made lots of headlines around the world. Bias is bias, but we have to be fair, powerful countries receive more media coverage than less-powerful ones, and the US has both the world's largest economy and is a member of the UN security council. As Mkativerata put it earlier this week, this is "real news" with major global impact - no idea why (s)he's opposing now. Banedon (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "real news with major global impact." This is "event we've all known would happen for months happens." Inaugurations of presidents of the United States are not more or less ITN-worthy than inaugurations of heads of state of other countries - we shouldn't post this one, either. Arguably, we should be less willing to post this one, since part of the purpose of ITN is "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - One great thing about ITN is that it has a global perspective and does not merely roll out the same headlines as the conventional western press. So the "every other media will have it on the front page" doesn't necessarily hold. (There's a been a lot of coverage in the western media in the last few days about a robbery of Kim Kardashian, that doesn't make it ITN-worthy). I'm not seeing any pressing real world significance to include it. And besides, Trump will (unfortunately) probably do a lot of genuinely ITN-worthy things in the next year, so let's save Trump for that. FWIW, I probably would have opposed posting the Obama inauguration 8 years ago too. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - already posted the result of this election. This is just a party. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb. What's newsworthy here is the extreme divisiveness and protest. This is unique. I've never seen it before. JehochmanTalk 07:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's been protests nearly every single day since he won the election in November, so the protests aren't new. (And in most cases, they haven't been violent either, just angry) That said, if they actually disrupt any part of the ceremony, that might be something. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The election result was already posted, so no need for a blurb about the inauguration. The inauguration is largely a formality and just a big party. Also, I don't see what makes this inauguration that much more newsworthy than the swearing-in of heads of state and heads of parliament in other countries. If this article were to be published in ITN, then presumably a (bad) precedent would be set, which would see articles posted about the swearing-in of leaders in countries other than the US. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We do no post inaugurations and there is nothing extraordinary about this. Also, saying that this "will be what January 20, 2017 will always be remembered for" is rather amusing. It may surprise you, but the rest of the world doesn't usually care about what Americans think or do. File this under "US bias" and move on. Isa (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so what? Unless something exciting happens like an assassination attempt or similar, this is simply run of the mill. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not sure what to think about this - it's certainly not a run-of-the-mill inauguration. That said, I don't really think we can post this again unless and until something actually happens on the day. — foxj 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this section is called "in the news". I'm pretty certain this particular piece of news is front page in virtually every country in the world. I know it's run of the mill because of the election results, but it's still news, and readers will expect to see it here. I am not from the US, and I do sometimes think the coverage here is slightly biased towards the US, but this is major news whichever way you cook it. — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am of the understanding that the "In the news" section has a higher threshold for publication than just being for those things that are "in the news". If it was just "in the news" then presumably Kim Kardashian would be worthy of an article almost every week. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally use the criteria "in the future 'on this day' history books", not so much "in the news". By that criteria, Trump's inauguration qualifies (much more than any "normal" president perhaps except the first black one), while Kim Kardashian does not. Thue (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. Unfortunately Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria is not that helpful in this regard, as it does not really give any concrete guidelines for eligibility, leaving it up to individual discussions. Which is all well and good, but that tends to lead to biases and inconsistencies. My personal rule of thumb is that something on the front page news in multiple countries (e.g. US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany would be a good range) should almost always be posted, hence why I think this particular event is a shoo-in. Something that's more of national interest somewhere in the world, but is still significant, well that's a good contender too. Coverage in broadsheets rather than tabloids is also a good indicator. Not that I'm belittling tabloids, but as an encyclopedia, our coverage would lean towards the broadsheet end of the spectrum. — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes this inauguration any more newsworthy than those of Obama in 2012, GW Bush, Bill Clinton or GHW Bush? Gfcvoice (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Obama's 2008 inauguration was actually posted, presumably because the first black president was so symbolic. As for Trump's inauguration being more notable than a normal US inauguration, it is because of how big a break with the past it is. Trump is not just another politician as e.g. Jeb Bush would have been, but has e.g. made EU politicians seriously consider whether the EU-US alliance is set in stone. Like if Le Pen was elected to lead France - it is a break with the past, which looks sure to get special mention as "not just a run of the mill Democratic change of power" in future history books. Thue (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I attempted to close this, as I see no reason to drag this out any more as there seems to be clear opposition to posting and the support arguments seem unpersuasive, but was reverted. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there was nothing bold about the closure. The consensus is clearly not to post unless something unexpected happens. And I would suggest that keeping the discussion open in the interim harms the chances of a new consensus being reached should something unexpected actually happen. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying - I think it would have been the right move. To add to the very clear record, I oppose this nomination. IMO, posting Obama's inauguration was a mistake. Some of the supports above are verging on, "This isn't just any inauguration - he's the president of the USA!" Most of the others are firmly gazing into their crystal balls. If something extraordinary happens, as others above, I'd support a blurb. Otherwise, this is "rich white man who won election takes up his office." GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 20 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.
Uber agrees to pay $20 million to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission claims the company exaggerated prospective earnings and downplayed the costs of buying/leasing a car when recruiting new drivers. (Reuters)
A small plane carrying Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki crashes into the sea near the tourist town of Paraty in the state of Rio de Janeiro, killing the magistrate and two other people. Zavascki had been handling the politically-charged Operation Car Wash corruption trials. (Reuters)
An Italian rescue official says a number of people have been killed by an avalanche, possibly connected to Wednesday's earthquakes, that buried a ski resort on a slope of the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy's Abruzzo region. About 30 guests and staff were at the hotel. The only survivors are two men who had been outside when the disaster struck. (BBC)(Daily Express)(Reuters)
At least 15 children are killed and 45 more are injured after a school bus collides with a truck in Etah, India. (BBC)
A court in South Korea strikes down a request by prosecutors to issue an arrest warrant for Samsung vice chairman Lee Jae-yong, who is accused of bribery and embezzlement, in connection to a corruption scandal involving impeached PresidentPark Geun-hye. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Sorry for the poor formatting of this request. The suggested article is 2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis, which is already listed but with a blurb that is seriously out of date. The topic (which currently has a completely obsolete blurb) is about to "age out" from the main page, but new events make that unjustified. A new president has been sworn in and military forces have invaded the country. The vice president and much of the cabinet have resigned, the navy has declared support for the new president, and the army has expressed neutrality. These are major new events – especially the invasion. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a blurb refresh. Events of the last 24 hours clearly warrant it: constitutional crisis; rival inauguration; Senegalese troops crossing the border. Don't worry about the formatting. Someone at some point decided to make ITN nominations inaccessibly difficult. They should be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Banedon (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone may want to suggest a blurb and add some value to the discussion. Or do we ignore that now? Stephen 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the blurb should refer to an intervention rather than an invasion. This is a regional intervention in an internal constitutional crisis, not the invasion of a unified country. It also seems likely that the Invasion of the Gambia article will be merged into the constitutional crisis article. Details of exactly which forces entered the country should be checked. It seems clear that Senegalese forces entered the country and that Nigeria sent at least one warship and provide some air support. It seems less clear whether Ghanaian troops actually entered the country. Togo and Mali may also be involved. Some of the sources are slightly dated reports about preparing to go in, rather than reports of what actually happened after that. It may be better not to try to list the specific countries at this stage. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both articles look in good shape, though there is a discussion about merging them. IMO we should go ahead and post, and if the merge happens soon then the blurb can be tweaked. Obviously significant to the modern history of Gambia, and In The News. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I prefer the altblurb but don't object to the original one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb. "Invasion" isn't the correct word to use. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call it when troops from one country make an opposed entry into another country? It's true that none of the sources currently cited in the article use the 'invasion' language, but surely the dictionary supports this? GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Invasion" suggests the forces have no permission to enter the 'invaded' country. Jammeh is no longer the legitimate leader of the country, so him opposing this intervention does not make it an 'invasion'. The legitimate leader, presumably the people who voted for him, most of The Gambian military, the UN, and other countries all support this action. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too worried either way. I'm seeing reports of clashes as troops entered the country and tens of thousands fleeing, which to my mind makes this sufficiently invasion-like to call it an invasion. I haven't followed the political situation very very closely; if everyone in the Gambia (except Jammeh) supports this, then why is it even necessary? GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say everyone in The Gambia supports it, but most people seem to(including the navy, and the army chief, though a few individual units are still loyal to Jammeh. If Jammeh is no longer the leader, he is just a trespasser with supporters to protect him. It's only an 'invasion' if the legitimate government opposes the action. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely 'legitimate government' is in many cases in the eye of the beholder? It's worth noting in this context that the Gambian parliament has voted to extend Jammeh's term. So the foreign forces are not only opposing a few units loyal to Jammeh, but also the national parliament (whose vote may well have been unconstitutional, I'm just saying it's complicated). GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate is a particularly muddy word to use here. What Jammeh is doing is quite possibly both legal and showing contempt for democracy, simultaneously. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You are certainly correct- but more groups and people seem to think Barrow is now legitimate than Jammeh. Yep, it is complicated, though. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for finding that, I wasn't aware of that page. It may be worth examining how they came to post it there. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The top of that page defines an invasion as, "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." This would qualify. GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Googling the word invade states that the armed force must enter "so as to subjugate or occupy" the entered area- which is not the goal here. But I will say that I don't strongly oppose the use of the word 'invasion'; just that I feel the other would be better. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. According to the article Senegal halted the invasion to give Jammeh one final chance to step down, with a deadline of noon (same timezone as UK, so we're talking 45 minutes). I would suggest waiting until then to see what has happened. I would support the transition of power either way given the circumstances, but see no point in posting an invasion for the sake of waiting that length of time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updateaccording to the BBC, Jammeh is "highly likely" to fly to Guinea today. What's less clear is whether he will formally stand down. I advocate waiting here. I would note that a non-violent transition of power under these circumstances would be highly newsworthy in and of itself - I support any conceivable outcome, but think we should wait to see what that outcome is rather than post something for the sake of posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late for a non-violent transition. There was already a pretty big military incursion yesterday that was met by armed resistance – mostly mercenaries, according to some reports. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing. It's an ongoing constitutional crisis, so it makes the most sense to put it in ongoing. We had just featured a related blurb, so I'm adverse to having another one. --Tavix(talk) 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing Exactly the type of story that is changing a few times a day and likely will until the crisis is resolved. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as blurb (before the two ongoing comments were added). I'm open to moving it to ongoing, and perhaps it should have been put there when it aged off originally. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we not wikilink The Gambia? I didn't know it was a country, I thought it referred to a disputed territory or something and had to bloody type it in search to look it up. Would have preferred a simple click. #wikiproblems --NaturalRX 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Long-standing convention at ITN is not to link countries. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This came as a surprise to me, too, recently, but then that's because most of my geography comes from the precursor to Wikipedia, Dr Fegg's Book of All World Knowledge, also known as The Nasty Book, according to which the Gambian national anthem ends, "From mountains down to flat bits, ring out your anthem great, though now you're part of Senegal the words are out of date." [2]GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 20 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: This one is very likely to be posted once there is a quality article, due to the high number of fatalities and the unusual circumstance of a high rise collapse due to fire. I am placing this nomination to draw attention of experienced editors to help write that article. JehochmanTalk 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that they seem to reporting between 30-50 firefighters that were attempting to fight the blaze and were caught in the collapse, so I believe this should be included in the updated blurb. I do not that this is definitely ITN-appropriate as it is about an iconic building in Tehran in addition to the lives lost. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability and post once expanded beyond a hub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is developed - Similar to TRM Sherenk1 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update - The Iranian state-sponsored media has reported that at least 75 are dead (see here), I'll edit the article and blurb. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Honestly, the best decision would be to wait. My father is a firefighter and he says it takes multiple days to sort out a fire with a high death toll. This could take upwards of a week, possibly two, because of identification and confirmation. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been updating the article, and there are definitely still fluctuating numbers. That said, even if everyone ended up safe (doubtful, but..), the collapse of this building itself is also significant. I would recommend that we altblurb "At least 20 firefighters are reported missing from the collapse of the Plasco Building." or something like that. If this blurb is then still up at ITN when a fixed death count is known, it can be updated. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major disaster. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. Article is fine. AIRcorn(talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article looking more than adequate now for main page inclusion, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I went with the alt blurb pending more solid numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think for the picture of the news, this file is better. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GTVM92: changes to posted blurbs, including issues with pictures, is dealt with at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 20 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.
Nominator's comments: News coming out of Senegal (and despite this weeks ago at this hour is that the threat of ecowas intervening at midnight had yielded to pressure. (Nigeria had offered asylum if he steps down by today, so he MAY be headed there (apparently, Mauritania first though)). Nevertheless, its notable that an Ivory Coast like crisis was averted. Still given South Sudan and the above source id keep an eye for a potential coup/coup-like situation in a few months (like ivory coast just now, but we dint post that, ironically)...should be interesting to see how he worldks with a parliament that issued the extension for three months. Lezze. The article title shuld be changed as there was really no crisis, despite a threat of one, and, further, he left when his mandate expires. Looks like Mauritania pulled off a coup (no pun intended)...dunno if we should mention that in the blurb? Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not confirmed by other sources. The situation remains unclear. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 19 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.
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)
Support - A very important event with a huge amount of casualties. The article needs work however. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support deadliest attack on Mali soil, article could be larger but with current info, it's all in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support The article is reasonable and it has been described as Mali's deadliest suicide attack. Only weak because the international news is dominated more by the avalanche and building collapse. However, given the number of causalities and concerns about systemic bias (which may partly explain the relatively low coverage) I think we should post this. AIRcorn(talk) 21:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major terrorist attack with high death toll. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are going to need a new photo in order to post this as it will knock the The Gambia story off ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for file protection for the main Plasco photo over at Commons which ideally should be done before posting a photo to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted No oppose votes and this has been up for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait at least until we have some idea of how many is 'many'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. The rescue attempt, it appears, is still ongoing, the figure is "up to 30". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per pvs. Deveolping – support in principle. Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do note in news stories that while the hotel/avalache is no small part of this story, the fact there were four quakes in an area under a cold snap and that was hit by quakes around the same time last year is also a significant part of the story. It will probably be a few days to confirm how many they have been able to save or not, so I would suggest something along the alt-blurb line to get this up sooner than later (noting we can update the # and status once the rescue attempt is complete). The article, however, still has sourcing issues. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Four have been confirmed dead and up to 35 others are missing. The blurb can easily be updated as more information becomes available. AIRcorn(talk) 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, alt2 added so this can get to the main page sharpish. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Alt2, but to simplify for int'l audience suggest we make it just "in central Italy." (That it occurred in the Abruzzo Region doesn't seem particularly relevant to the event.) Sca (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whether it's 4 or 34 dead, it simply isn't of lasting or global significance. Having this and the Tehran one up at the same time would distract unduly from the far more significant stories ITN presently has: climate change, Chelsea Manning and Gambia. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dramatic story. Anytime dozens of people are suddenly buried by snow (or anything else), there's great interest. Sca (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in drama. I'm interested in ITN being more than a news ticker for the latest natural/maritime/aircraft disaster. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your interests are your own. But this is definitely in the news, and will continue to be for a time. Sca (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not really in the news at all. For example, on the New York Times homepage it is a small-font headline-only link well down the page. They correctly take the view that it is a minor albeit tragic disaster that doesn't warrant significant editorial attention. We should take the same view, because it is the correct view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major, unusual disaster, widely reported. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2. An unusual type of disaster, with casualty figures broadly in line with the sort of casualty figures that tend to garner consensus for more conventional types of tragedy. The rationale for the sole oppose amounts to "Chelsea Manning being released in May is too important to be bumped off by this". It would be like me trying to pick quality holes in RD nominations for the sake of keeping Graham Taylor on the main page. If you support the intention and the workings of this section then you must respect its outcomes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone alter the blurb? It explicitly states in the article that the cause is unknown at the moment with the earthquakes as a possibility. We shouldn't treat it as fact. Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 10 years 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article needs updating with the newly-announced 2016 values, but this is a good opportunity to point readers towards some excellent encyclopaedic content. Modest Geniustalk 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic note—"hottest year in history" is journalistic shorthand and has no place in Wikipedia, since it's very obviously not been the hottest year in history (that would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or parts of the Neoproterozoic, depending on which geologists you listen to). What this actually was was the hottest year since systematic worldwide records began to be kept in 1880. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic pedants note—Still a bit clumsy, as history extends far earlier that the means of accurate temperature measurement; it should really be "in the history of climate measurement". I guess that's even clumsier. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Just say "hottest year on record" rather than "hottest year in history". I can't see why that wouldn't be an accurate short-hand. Although I prefer "warmest" to "hottest". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And "warmest" would be more in line with useage in the linked article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I originally wrote 'on record' before realising that having 'record' twice in the same blurb sounded horrible. Happy for someone to come up with better phrasing, and I agree that 'warmest' is better than my 'hottest'. Modest Geniustalk 22:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Absolutely. We need a goddamn wake-up call around here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (pending an accurate blurb and good article). Obviously the blurb needs to be corrected, per Iridescent's more-than-mere-pedantry point. I can't conceive of any possible reason why this not ITN-worthy. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support an alt-blurb based on Iridescent. Climate change is real and important news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply because this is yet another record-breaking year. Climate change will take decades to reverse, so we'd technically be seeing this type of story each year for decades. I think a more interesting story related to climate change would be this potential break-off of a giant ice sheet from Antarctica as this could potentially raise sealevels by 10 cm alone. (It hasn't happen so no ITN/C yet) --MASEM (t) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what's wrong with posting this, and then a year later posting when 2017 becomes the hottest year on record? What ITN policy says we shouldn't do that? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the unwritten ITN policy of posting nothing other than minor maritime tragedies. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe wait until we can post "New York under 2 ft of water"? That'd be newsworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because all but a few people recognize that we're undergoing climate change and the years are going to keep getting warmer and warmer. Saying this year was warming than last is basically is the equivalent of "the sun will rise tomorrow". On the other hand, events like the ice sheet crack are much more concrete sights that something different is happening. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ice sheet crack is concrete and observable, but one could say it's just as "inevitable" as the temperature increasing. They'd both be worth posting. Also, I think that every consecutive year that sets another record adds to the newsworthiness of the warming, by showing that it's going up, up, up over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has not been updated yet. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but say "hottest year on record" or "hottest year in recorded history" or something similar; I'm not picky. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - certainly newsworthy, and post it every year if the record keeps getting broken. If the trend continues, we should add it to ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated the article. C628 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Incidentally those who think this story will have to be posted every year are probably mistaken. The next record year probably won't be until after the start of the next El Nino in a few years' time. The blurb could debatably be improved by a mention of the contribution of El Nino, but, if so, there is a different forum (WP:ERRORS) for discussing changes to posted blurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - even if this is superseded next year (of which there's no guarantee), what's wrong with posting it then? There are ITN/R stories that repeat every year. Banedon (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Espresso Addict has changed the blurb to read "... due in part to anthropogenic climate change" (emphasis added), citing WP:ERRORS. I think this change is unwise as it can be read as the science organisations suggesting that some (or even most) of the warming is not due to climate change, though I think the intent is to note that variations like El Nino mean there is natural variation and not every year is expected to be a new record. Anyone wishing to comment in support of the change or otherwise is advised that Espresso Addict has noted the change at ERRORS. EdChem (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Guardian article says "... with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change", I think the original blurb was correct. Is Cyclonebiskit around to help with this? Banedon (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have political motivations in their reporting. The more impartial BBC article states "The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists...", so the blurb correction is sensible. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at main-page errors. Suggest we keep the discussion together. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:55, 19 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: Very notable English female cricketer, captain of England side for many years, journalist, MBE/OBE etc. Article is mostly reasonably sourced, I've just done the most obvious gaps. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Article quality seems OK to me, which is basically all that matters for an RD these days. But maybe a few other editors (hopefully with more experience of assessing article quality for RD purposes than I have) might want to have a look first. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Suggest using the title of nobility in the RD posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A couple of extra sources would be good, but nothing problematic outstanding I don't think. @WaltCip: Do you mean posting as "Rachael Heyhoe Flint, Baroness Heyhoe Flint" or as "Baroness Heyhoe Flint"? I'm happy with either of those or just as "Rachel Heyhoe Flint". Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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: American football player and coach. Fuebaey (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. The infobox and article body disagreed on the death date (infobox said 18th, prose said 17th) but as the source given in the article says he died on "Tuesday" which was the 17th, I changed the infobox to match the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 21 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.
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]
Support just to be clear, whichever way this goes.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mal Brough, who was a minister in the Howard government (appointed in 2004), has some Aboriginal ancestry but is never described/identified as indigenous. The first Aboriginal minister at state level was Ernie Bridge, who was appointed in 1986. I agree that the distinction between "indigenous" and "of indigenous descent" is pretty arbitrary, but we have to follow what other media use. IgnorantArmies(talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Don't think this is significant enough for ITN, and AFAIK we don't have a track record of posting any similar "firsts". For a bit of context, Wyatt has not been promoted to cabinet, but rather to the "outer ministry", which is broadly the equivalent of being a junior minister (in the UK) or a deputy secretary (in the US). He was previously an "assistant minister" (an even more junior position), which means his elevation isn't really much of a surprise. Frankly, the distinction between his previous position and his new position is only one of semantics – he'll probably get a small pay rise, but there's no real change in his responsibilities. IgnorantArmies(talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an internal appointment in a country. Further, there are many possible "firsts", as any reader of sports trivia will know. For example, there might be "X becomes the youngest ..." or "Y becomes the first celebrity ...". Banedon (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the concern over exactly how they are classifying "indigenous" here and that this feels like a DYK rather than an ITN (an interesting factoid but nothing groundbreaking), I don't think we should include this. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal..." sums it up perfectly. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There have several of indigenous Australians appointed as Ministers in Australia's states and territories. Mal Brough, a former Minister had some aboriginal ancestry through his maternal grandmother but did not identify as indigenous. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close? Is it time to close per WP:SNOW on grounds of no hope of consensus for posting? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Invoking Mal Brough or State Ministers is disingenuous. Reliable sources clearly do not identify Brough as indigenous. And a Commonwealth Ministry is far more significant than a State Ministry. The Cabinet/non-Cabinet distinction is also immaterial: Cabinet Ministers have just as much power in law as non-Cabinet Ministers. I would have thought that a landmark in indigenous representation in any country is of international interest. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 18 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.
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: Oldest gorilla ever, first born in captivity. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article in current state poorly reflects this animal's importance and is under-referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose substandard referencing needs to be fixed. --Jayron32 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What content/references exactly are missing in your opinions? The article doesn't have any [citation needed] or similar tags...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to updates made since my original objection. Reontgenium111 maybe doesn't realize that articles are frequently edited, so the version he viewed may not have been the same as the version I viewed. Also, they may not be aware that tags do not make an article substandard. Being substandard makes an article substandard --Jayron32 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope this doesn't turn into another #DicksOutForHarambe. Let's hope #CocksOutForColo doesn't happen. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referencing is a problem, I don't know if the genealogy section is necessary here since none of the other gorillas are notable (yet), and that "favorite food" line in the lede stands out like a sore thumb. This needs a major copyedit before considering posting. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. I've added some sources and I would say ready to go. There was an uncited statement but it wasn't really relevant to the article (belonged in the article on her zoo) so I decided to remove it. Blythwood (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Appears to be a significant and tragic blunder by the Nigerian military. Comparable to the Kunduz hospital airstrike. C628 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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, significant loss of life, and significant event in Nigeria. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:30, 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]
Weak support - because accidentally hitting civilians on a large scale is rare. Weakly because international coverage appears to be limited (but I'm seeing more coverage than the Chelsea Manning event). Banedon (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clashes with Boko Haram have not really touched too much on civilian lives (compared to the Syrian war, and of course outside of the women they have kidnapped), so innocents killed in such an accident is significant. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing the arguments made on both sides, there is no real dispute that this is in the news internationally and the coverage has been significant in the mainstream news media. This alone is not sufficient to post as the purpose of ITN is not to be a news ticker but to highlight encyclopaedic coverage of events that are in the news. Those supporting this nomination made arguments highlighting various factors such as the international coverage, the significance of the crimes and how the severity of the original sentence was viewed around the world. In contrast most (although not all) of the opposition was framed in terms of personal dislike or subjective comparisons to other stories that were not posted - if you make these comparisons it is important to justify why it is a relevant comparison and why the same reasoning should apply to both, and that was almost universally not done. Also highlighted by the supporters, was the importance of Chelsea Manning to the LGBT movement, and while this is not directly relevant to either the original sentence or the commuting of that sentence, it is one reason that the coverage of this commuting is more significant than any of the others Obama has done - which completely refutes the 'just one of many' arguments made by some opposing. Overall, there is a consensus to post the story. Less clear though was which blurb should be posted, as there was little discussion of this. Altblurb II, featuring Oscar López Rivera, is very long and would ideally need to be condensed and the significance or otherwise of the commuting of their sentence was essentially undiscussed so there is no consensus (for or against) including them. I went with altblurb I as I feel that the added context helps explain the significance to those unfamiliar with the story. I know it is not normal practice here to close a discussion when posted, but this is an emotional topic for some and the standard of discussion was staring to slide so I feel it best to draw a clear line to stop it getting unnecessarily heated. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 19 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.
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:
Nominator's comments: One of the biggest heroes against the horrors of Western imperialism is soon to be free. 128.62.64.238 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: Manning was not pardoned; her sentence was commuted. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point (and the sources back that up). Blurbs changed. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Regardless of the POV of the IP, this is going to be a huge story. Waiting to see how it goes, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 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 assume you're referring to this by KT McFarland. Anyway, I presume Obama is above giving the finger to Trump and is doing this based on his own convictions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly, but I suggest that it how it will be seen. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 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 a big difference between a speech about an action not yet taken and an action taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 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]
It doesn't have to be front page news in every country to be ITN. But it is front page news in some places, which helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:21, 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]
I couldn't give a shit about precedent; it is usually the refuge behind which a poor argument hides. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK then let's make this happen. Still not going to support this, but hey. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Judging by the coverage of this story in reliable sources, this is a major story. --Tataral (talk) 02:10, 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]
Support - Orig. Either blurb. High-profile story, with a long history; leads many U.S. news purveyors on Jan. 17. Sca (talk) 02:16, 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]
Oppose one person among 273 whose release was announced today. What makes this case special among them? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 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]
Oppose Good for her, but this is more of a human interst story than something fo real significance. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major story, coverage in numerous major news sources. Funcrunch (talk) 04:06, 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. [4]331dot (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, pardons can be reversed and have been. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 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]
My vote stands, cover it when she walks free. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The commutation is the story, not the release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 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."[5] 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]
I'm afraid that no major media outlet of record shares your quixotic view of "the real story".--Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 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 - An internationally covered story well worth featuring as a blurb at ITN. Jusdafax 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this has zero implications onto the world. It is one person let out of jail 4 months from now. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 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 ([6]) 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]
Oppose Outgoing presidents commute/pardon regularly. Nothing particularly special about this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 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]
Oppose It really should be done when she is free. We will want to list her again when that happens, so that is when it should be done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 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]
She wasn't imprisoned for being transgender. How'd you draw that conclusion? Banedon (talk) 11:05, 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 America 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]
While I personally support Manning's release, I don't think we should be discussing whether or why she made a "mistake" here; that's a matter of opinion that has nothing to do with whether this news item should be featured. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't the right decision, so I think it can be described as a mistake. She was 23 when this happened I think! Has Obama spoken about it yet?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion that it wasn't the right decision, and that it was a mistake. That is not the only view, and it's not relevant to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Who is the world would think this was a good idea? No one!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people do. Get out of your bubble and you might learn about some of them. You can even start by reading the whole thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 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 Geniustalk 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fate of Manning has become symbolic of the the fate of whistle blowers, as a prisoner of conscience. The history articles I have read are full of prisoners of conscience, and find mentioning their fate important enough to include. If History (and the front pages of the major newspapers) finds his fate relevant, then I don't see why we shouldn't. Dismissing his fate as "Adjusting the sentence of a single convict" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the symbolic significance - should we then refuse to mention any one man's fate ITN, no matter how significant that person? If the New York Times finds his sentense adjustment notable enough to feature as a top story, and you don't (do you think the New York Times and Washington post is making a mistake?), then I consider it likely that it is you who let your ITN "vote" be influenced by your personal opinion. Thue (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not post every story covered by the mainstream media on ITN. You appear to be confusing us with a news service like WikiNews. You have no idea what my personal opinion is on Manning - as it happens I supported the leaks. So please don't accuse me of letting personal opinions bias my judgement. Modest Geniustalk 18:48, 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]
Kim Kardashian's jewellry theft in Paris was all over the main pages of news outlets. Doesn't mean we should have featured it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between celebrity news and this case. Also I really, really doubt that Kim Kardashian's jewelry theft was featured at the top of the New York Times - I actually never heard of it before now. Thue (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the world has changed outside of one non-violent person being released from federal detection several years earlier; the crime was still considered committed so that story doesn't change. The only major thing that seemed to hinge on Manning's release was a statement made by Wikileak's Assange that he would voluntarily be extradited back to the US to stand trial if Manning was released, and as far as I can tell, Assange's not said anything (tons of speculation from third-parties though on this). And even if Assange was extradited, that would still be a trial to show if he's guilty or not, and we'd not report on that until the trial was over. Add that we are overlooking 200+ others receiving the departing President, and that's basically leaving us with a very weighted story towards one person that doesn't affect anyone else. That's why this is a poor ITN/C, it reflects a systematic bias of the press. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 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 productive work? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't close, that would look like censorship. Let this ITN run its course please.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the oppose votes cite valid policy-based arguments, only personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims that this isn't more significant than hundreds of other pardons and commutations this week, which is obviously not true at all. At Wikipedia, noteworthiness/significance (for ITN's purposes) has to do with with how reliable sources treat the subject, not editors' personal views. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ultimately, Wikipedia provides a service to readers by highlighting comprehensive articles, like this one, that provide background and context that might be missing from many newspaper accounts. The ability to highlight broadly informative wiki content is probably the thing that pushes me over to support here. I think, on the merits, commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence didn't really need to be front page news around the world, but there are many news organizations that treated it as such. It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important. This story is also not so trivial as the tabloid / celebrity news we often ignore, since the larger context of her leaks had impact on international relations and issues of national security. So, I think this story meets the requirements for ITN although less decisively than some news stories. Dragons flight (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important.". WP:ITN/C is not a news ticker. We are much more selective than the mainstream news to avoid the sensationalism that mainstream news has. Otherwise, might as well just dump WP:ITN/C and stick an RSS feed to CNN on the front page. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you mean a more neutral organisation like Reuters or BBC News, surely not CNN.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be BBC, Reuters, AP, any other number of sources, but key is they all nowadays tend to report sensationisticly and do not give great weight to actual impact on the world-at-large, what our measure is for encyclopedic appropriateness. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our measure? So, now you get to decide what impact is without any referral to any reliable source ever; just what you adjudge to be "sensationalic" based on your own feelings about what should or should not have any impact? Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or widely cited essay that says "our measure for encyclopedic appropriateness must explicitly ignore reliable sources like BBC, the AP, Reuters, etc. and instead be based solely on "impact" as adjudged by the personal opinions of a small number of very loud and aggressive Wikipedians? Because I don't think that I was present for that discussion that invalidated WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR and the like. It is one thing to say "I oppose because there is no source material on this topic showing it is likely for people to be seeing it in major news outlets." It is quite another to say "I know literally every major news organization in the world is dedicated to covering this in substantial detail, but I don't really like it, so I am more important than the entire editorial decision making staff of every major news organization ever." --Jayron32 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOT#NEWS. We are evaluating things that happen to be in the news that are of encyclopedic quality, which cannot be measured by counting how much coverage the story is getting in a short (one-day) time period. That's how we avoid being sensationalist that the mainstream media are more likely to be nowadays. Wikinews is thataway if one wants to corroborate on breaking stories. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If I counted right, it's 13-11 in favor. Needs attention. Suggest post. Sca (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's time to close this I agree with the above comments. We are nearly evenly split with no realistic likelihood of gaining consensus. I can't do it myself as I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on valid policy-based arguments here (relating to the significance/newsworthiness of the topic as seen from reliable sources), there is consensus to post. Comments that are not based on Wikipedia policy, such as purely personal views, should not be taken into account. --Tataral (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly the point I was trying to make on WT:ITN after the non-postings of the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting and the College Football National Championship. Don't count votes. Evaluate them and disregard the ones that should be disregarded. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, as an admin, should know that we don't count votes, we analyse them. There's a consensus to post this, because most of the Oppose votes are of the "this isn't important" type which is clearly proved wrong by the fact that it's front page news all over the globe. Those, therefore, can be discarded. Most of the policy-based votes are for Support. I'm not going to post it myself, because I commented above (even though I didn't vote). But it should be posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue the exact opposite: most of the support !votes are of the "it's on the (media outlet) website", which has nothing to do with the ITN criteria, which state "Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites". Most give no other reasons to post this. You could equally discard those. We're currently at no consensus. Modest Geniustalk 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After that bit you cherrypicked, it goes on to talk about the "length and depth of coverage, the "number of unique articles about the topic", and the "frequency of updates about the topic". It passes on those three. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Assessment of significance is subjective. You may feel that the media coverage is sufficient to justify posting this to ITN. Others came to a different conclusion. Personally, I feel that the media coverage is no greater than dozens of other stories each week, and that there are insufficient encyclopaedic repercussions to merit posting. You clearly disagree. That's okay - we're allowed to have different opinions. What we cannot do, though, is discard contributions here just because we disagree with them. Black Kites' 'clearly proved wrong' is in fact a matter of opinion, where there can legitimately be differing views. Modest Geniustalk 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully with Muboshgu and Black Kite. I see consensus to post, given further supports below. Jusdafax 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A symptom of the modern discourse. Modest Genius's position can be summed up with "My feelings are more important than your data" He doesn't like the story, so his vote should "count" actually more than people's whose votes are based on a dispassionate analysis of source material and data. It isn't who has the best data or best source material, just who shouts the loudest. Typical. --Jayron32 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/C has turned into the United States Congress. Some people argue with facts, other people counter with unsubstantiated opinions, discussions get deadlocked and no progress is made. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was lead article on BBC and Guardian this morning, so clearly of international interest. More significantly will have ramifications re Julian Assange's extradition to US. 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support – the only commutation/pardon of international interest, and the international interest is such to merit an ITN entry. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The commutation of this sentence is very much not of international interest.--WaltCip (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who lives outside the US and watched last nights news and saw it as one of the lead articles I can say with some confidence that it is of international interest.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You state that this is "not of international interest", but you don't offer any sort of rationale or evidence for this unsubstantiated opinion at all. This of course is true for all the other oppose votes here, and is the reason that we will have to disregard them. Such expressions of personal opinions are not relevant for this discussion. The ITN process is not based on whether editors personally like the topic under discussion, but on how it is treated by reliable sources. Editors who don't think it is significant would need to go and look for evidence that reliable sources don't consider the story important, but not a single editor has done so. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that reliable sources from across the planet treat this – both the commutation as such, but also Manning's fate more generally – as a highly significant, important, noteworthy story of very large international interest – to put it in perspective, I'm not aware of any US presidential pardon or commutation ever receiving the same amount of coverage in reliable sources globally, or being considered to be as important. Therefore, there is clearly consensus to post this now – consensus doesn't mean counting votes if they offer nothing of substance and no valid rationale, it means evaluating comments based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. Blythwood (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 16-12. Time's a' wastin'. Sca (talk) 21:54, 18 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.
Support perhaps with a mildly toned down hook, but the article is excellent and something we should certainly be proud of posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A notable development, and a great article to post. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support BFD. Should this be an ongoing rather than a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready. Prefer blurb to ongoing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 17 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]
Comparing the relative significance of stories by the size of landmass is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 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. --Tone 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There will be war in less than 20 minutes. So we should change blurb accordingly. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:28, 18 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.
Nominator's comments: Could be the end, leaving it to private searchers. Reported to be "the costliest in aviation history". Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Geniustalk 16:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nomination per Modest Genius. "Man does not win lottery" is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 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]
Oppose No updates in the timeline section (other than this) since July. Even CNN long ago moved on from MH370. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the original crash wasn't in the news and this item will fade before the day is out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't in the news?? The press was full of it for days... and it was posted on main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM is technically correct; the plane going missing was in the news, not it crashing. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, no one knows if it crashed or not, do they. I'm not sure that makes it less newsworthy. Many might argue that makes it more newsworthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 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]
Thanks. Reported total costs of the search have varied between US$135-160 million. That's quite a sum. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 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)
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 bit stubby, but sourcing someone who lived in a developing country and was only active pre-internet (other than a brief flurry in 2014) is always going to be tricky at short notice. One of the most influential musicians of the 20th century within his (admittedly limited interest) niche. ‑ Iridescent 21:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sources for the albums/years and support subject to that - it's not a stub any more. Fascinating. Good work. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Each album now has at least one source confirming existence and year of issue. BencherliteTalk 00:32, 19 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.
Nominator's comments: Rather shocking event, and now sources are saying that this may have been conducted by a drug cartel. This event appears to be a rather major draw. Article for the festival itself may need to be rewritten, or a dedicated article created on the shooting. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With all due respect to the deceased, the injured and their families, this is of zero significance on a global scale. ITN needs to get serious: fewer maritime, aircraft and shooting tragedies and more real news. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A second shooting happened the following day in Cancun that killed 4 [9] that is also presently attributed to organized crime. Note that there is no affirmation that these are decidedly linked but I think a combined blurb might be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Like every other day, organised crime, much of it drug-related, yet again killed X hundred people (give or take Y dozen) all over the world yesterday, including Z people at location L due to specific reason S'. That's the global significance of the event, so in a sense it isn't really globally insignificant, but that 'global significance' just isn't "news" (and whatever 'global significance' it has is largely or entirely unmentioned in the news reports). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:27, 19 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.
Oppose - this is a regional election. A quick Google search turns up things like [10], 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 [11], 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]
When it was originally nominated, yes. After explanation, I became more convinced this is not worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. We're all wrong occasionally. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 17 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. ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Iridescent's sensible argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 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. st170e 16:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong, it's been called for 2 March 2017. I suggest the blurb be changed appropriately. st170e 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We post election results, not calls for elections. Wait until there's a result. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 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? st170e 17:16, 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. st170e 17:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than oppose something I don't fully understand, I'll scratch my !vote. Hopefully that'll start a trend around here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your edit. Thank you st170e 17:30, 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). ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful, thanks Iridescent. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 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]
Support per my previous comments, now that elections have been called. Modest Geniustalk 18:59, 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. --Tone 19:21, 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:
Weak oppose notable story but the article (despite not being tagged as such) is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should wait to post this until the article is a bit more fleshed out. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Comment The number of casualties on ground is exceptionally high. That's the encyclopedic value. Juliussasar (talk) 15:14, 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]
Support - high number of ground casualties. Article not in too bad a shape, although image sizes could do with tweaking. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 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]
Support Significant death toll and now the article looks good. Brandmeistertalk 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event and article is no longer a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Death toll seems to have stabilised at 37, so main and ALT1 blurb, if chosen, will need adjustment. But I'm not sure Turkish Airlines would appreciate the publicity. The operator was ACT Airlines, branded as MyCargo Airlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested moving the article on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Consensus appears to be that the article is correctly titled. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 17 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 Oppose per Mkativerata and IP. Banedon (talk) 05:42, 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]
Done Books ref'd with ISBNs --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:06, 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.
Nominator's comments: Most recent person to walk on the moon. Alex Cohn (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several areas need souring improvement, notably the Honoraries and the Popular Culture section. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of unsourced material in here. Not postable in its current condition. BencherliteTalk 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Quality has now improved. AIRcorn(talk) 07:34, 18 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.
Nominator's comments: Article is in good shape, subject described as "legendary" by USA Today. -LM2000 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is good to go, article is in very good condition (worth considering GAN!) so no issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus closing
Consensus not to post now and renominate when the last show takes place. --Tone 08:16, 16 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.
Nominator's comments: The Greatest Show on Earth. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Weak oppose in favor of the last show. I generally favor posting when the news is happening, but this is something that could easily be (sort of...) reversed. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:04, 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: California’s premier historical author for over 40 years. During his career he was also the State Librarian and a professor, and wrote over a dozen major histories of California from 1850 to recent times; considered a "giant of California history." --Light show (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article quality (which is all that really matters for an RD) seems fine, at least in my somewhat inexperienced opinion. And if this is not posted soon it will get lost (by tonight, I think), which would be a pity. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale This is older than the oldest current RD entry (17th). Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] RD: Mark Fisher
Stale as month-old biscuits.--WaltCip (talk) 18:09, 19 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.
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: [13][14][15][16]. 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]
Notability is no longer acceptable grounds for opposing an RD, see the note in the above RD nomination form and also WP:ITNRD.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 18 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.
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]
Accept others' opinion on notability, but I still think the article is not sufficiently developed to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is now reporting 6 deaths in an unrelated incident during the same festivities;[17] perhaps the two can be combined somehow? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 16 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]
Support - Notable and article looks fine - Sherenk1 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article looks developed enough to post. --Tavix(talk) 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tavix(talk) 17:36, 16 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 | Talk 07:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in very good shape. AIRcorn(talk) 08:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with having this as a blurb. AIRcorn(talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Obviously meets the notability criteria and the article is pretty good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:33, 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]
Posting. --Tone 10:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Article about pinyin is also in good shape and we are using it for everything concerning China. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:50, 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]
Support blurb. You shouldn't have to be called Thatcher or Mandela to get a blurb. Significant impact and notability.--WaltCip (talk) 22:22, 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]
Support altblurb, offered above. Sca (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for blurb. Combination of very old age and the importance of the writing system he developed justifies a blurb in this case, IMHO. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:32, 15 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]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
