→RD: Granny (orca): we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes
::::Wow. I see that [[:Category:Serial killer whales]] is still a red link. Lucky he's not a [[Whaling in Iceland|fin whale]], I guess. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
::::Wow. I see that [[:Category:Serial killer whales]] is still a red link. Lucky he's not a [[Whaling in Iceland|fin whale]], I guess. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
:::To the IP user, if you disagree with the established consensus, you are free to attempt to change it by starting a talk page discussion. Until that happens, your oppose is not valid. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
:::To the IP user, if you disagree with the established consensus, you are free to attempt to change it by starting a talk page discussion. Until that happens, your oppose is not valid. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
::::To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like {{U|Newyorkbrad}} making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:25, 3 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).
Ford announces that it has cancelled plans to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico, long criticized by U.S. President-electDonald Trump, and will invest $700 million in its Michigan plant in Flat Rock, potentially creating 700 new jobs from the investment and expansion of the plant. (CNN)(Fox News)
The U.S. Commerce Department announces that construction spending increased 0.9 percent to $1.18 trillion in November 2016, the highest level since April 2006. (CNBC)
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: Wong created "Old Master Q," one of the longest running and most famous comic strips in Asia, with his works auctioned at Christie's and Sotheby's. Fuzheado | Talk 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Santa Claus does not reward children based on how nice or naughty they have been in the previous year
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: "Our findings do not support the widely accepted belief that Santa Claus only visits children who are nice. Dispelling the “naughty or nice” myth has important implications, including a possible increase in outbursts of bad behaviour by children over Christmas if they find out. This raises the important ethical question: should children be told about this?
Our most important finding is that Santa Claus is less likely to visit hospitals in deprived areas. Of note was the significant association of visits with index of multiple deprivation decile in England (P=0.03). One possible reason for the weaker association observed in the UK analysis (P=0.056) is that the index of multiple deprivation is calculated and summarised differently in each of the four countries. A nation specific index of multiple deprivation is preferred for policy, planning, and resource allocation as it is sensitive to each nation’s unique patterns of deprivation, but future analyses of Santa’s visitation patterns in relation to contextual deprivation across the UK would benefit from a consistent and comparable deprivation metric." Count Iblis (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck?--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the nom, oppose since this is only one study that may or may not be indicative of a larger trend, and needs further review (not to mention circulation by reliable sources) before we can claim it's a theory. Seriously, has Harvard lost its marbles?--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 3 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.
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: If we are really committed to posting individual animal deaths, here is another one. Granny is believed to have been the oldest living killer whale, at age approximately 105. The Center for Whale Research, which has been studying her family group for decades, announced that she is presumed deceased after she has not been sighted with her family group for months. Dragons flight (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not about being "really committed", it's about the fact it was indoctrinated in the RD instructions following a community consensus to do so. As for this candidate, Oppose as it's not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting this will bring the encyclopaedia into disrepute as people will be expecting an article about their grandmother. This should be taken to ANI. Stephen 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: How is this an ANI issue? Consensus here is that the deaths of animals that have articles are no different than those of people with articles; if you wish to change this consensus, please start a discussion on the talk page here. I don't see how this "brings the encyclopedia into disrepute" at all. Plain old Granny redirects to a disambig page, not this article. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: I suspect that the assumption that random comments made at Wikipedia relate to one’s own grandmother, is probably indicative of some deeper issue related to psychological insecurity/ paranoia. Surely this must be many times more true for items appearing as front page news? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed Stephen's reply was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Is that not the case? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not having looked at that one as I was busy at the time, my original assumption of sarcasm was correct I see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support Seems well-referenced and appears to have been updated. -edit- Ah I see what you mean. Its been updated with death in the lead but the body is still alive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds as we don't know if this orca is deceased. The opinion of the scientists is only based on the fact that she hasn't been seen. At a minimum, the article needs an update as TRM states. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well she has been 'considered deceased' by the group monitoring the pod, which has been reported by reliable secondary sources as such, not sure what you want here - a whale corpse to wash up with a 'Yup I am dead' sign round its neck? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who lives near a coastal area I can say that whale corpses wash up on our beaches semi-infrequently(I also googled "whale corpse on beach" as well as orcas, and got many results). I don't want anything per se; I'm simply saying I don't think this is enough. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You dont think a declaration by a group actively monitoring the pod, followed up by reporting from reliable sources satisfies WP:V? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion here by the scientists boils down to "we haven't seen this orca so it might be dead because it was really old". This orca clearly merits an article and an update as to its status, but I don't think "it might be deceased" qualifies as a recent death for an animal. Maybe it swam elsewhere; we don't know. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very different interpretation from what they actually said which is "by year’s end she is officially missing from the SRKW population, and with regret we now consider her deceased.". That is not 'it might be deceased' by any reasonable interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this discussion but I am quite comfortable with my opinion as of right now. Regardless of my opinion, the article still needs an update. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orcas are highly social and only very rarely travel alone (her pod was 27 orcas). As the oldest female, she would have been considered the leader of her pod. I'm no orca biologist, but I think they idea that she just "swam elsewhere" is pretty unlikely. If the whole pod had gone missing, sure they would probably just be hiding somewhere, but in this case the researchers see her pod but don't see her which is naturally a pretty bad sign. Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is a concern that listing "Granny" on RD might be confusing(?), it might be worth posting this item as "Granny (orca)". We don't usually included parenthetical terms on postings, but doing it in this case might help avoid undue surprise. Dragons flight (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a serious concern. Stephen's comment above is clearly making fun of Newyorkbrad's in the Sutter Brown RD nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not a person; fails 2.2. Sca (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See RD rules, to whit An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:.... pretty sure an animal counts here!! If you think that you've found an issue with the rules, please link us to "2.2" which you claim this "fails", thanks!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I recognize that there's no affirmative evidence of her death - best we have is a lack of sighting with the rest of the pod, and following knowledge of how orcas travel in social groups, her absence likely means she died. Barring actually finding her body (given the size of the ocean...) a statement by the authority that tracks and monitors these pods to the extent that they consider her dead (and which took them a couple months to validate based on sightings) is reasonable strength of argument that it should be included here. It's a strong hypothesis by a expert/creditable group, and one carried by news sources, and since it is very unlikely that affirmative evidence will ever be found, is the right place to nominate this. Article is otherwise is good shape sourcing-wise. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come on guys. It's a whale. What, are we going to post Shamu's death to RD now? And don't bother linking me to the RFC which was a sham from day one. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:9F (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP user, if you disagree with the established consensus, you are free to attempt to change it by starting a talk page discussion. Until that happens, your oppose is not valid. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like Newyorkbrad making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a massive section (oddly under Awards) containing all sorts of unverifiable material. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Highly notable but the article is still far from ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A series of attacks kill at least 70 people and injure more than 100 others in mostly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad, Iraq. (The Huffington Post)
Disasters and accidents
In Texas, four children die with an additional six others injured after they are poisoned by phosgene gas sprayed in an inappropriate attempt as a pesticide. (Fox News)
In New Haven, Connecticut, two men are suspected of approaching a man claiming to have a gun, took his cellphone and wallet. Then they stole his SUV and apparently lost control as they were killed when their stolen SUV accidentally crashed into and seriously damaged a synagogue (Hartford Courant)
In Dearborn, Michigan the driver and passenger of a minivan being pursued by police for missing plates were killed when they struck a car, lost control and hit several parked vehicles. (Huron Daily Tribune)
In Detroit, Michigan an African American man was shot in the head driving a car which crashed, police are searching for two men who ran from the car after the crash (WXYZ)
A first-year New Rochelle Police officer crashed his Jeep into a tree, killing passenger Isaac "Hooshie" Ward. He will be charged with vehicular manslaughter as his Blood Alcohol Content was above the legal limit (newrochelletalk)
Huzaifa Shafeeq was arraigned on burglary charges after police say the stole from a Long Island mosque charity box on Christmas and New Years Day. Islamic Center board member said the amount taken wasn't large, but called police as the thief needed help. (ABC7NY)
2016 United States election interference by Russia
Nominator's comments: The last nomination of this article was about the sanctions imposed by the US and not the general issue/development and closed with no consensus. Here I'm nominating the general issue/development which for some reason wasn't featured in the In the news section yet despite the certain notability, importance, article-quality and intense news-coverage around the world. If this does not get added with a blurb it should at least be added to "Ongoing" (even though it should have been added earlier there; note that the impacts of this are still ongoing) Fixuture (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me the problem is the missing link between the Russian hackings and voting in the Electoral College. If there's evidence that the hackings influenced the Electoral College voting, then we can post this for sure. Can't find this in the article. Brandmeistertalk 13:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: But really it doesn't matter here. And it also doesn't require evidence that Russian actors were actually behind these hacks to preempt any similar arguments: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic). Also such things aren't usually under consideration here - it's rather the extend of coverage; and this has been all over the news as a major story. --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, I think this would be considered a stale story, and the reasoning given by the nom (that we haven't had this story featured yet) is a poor reason to push any story to ITN. Second, I still think this is a story that is the subject of the systematic media bias, who for the most part did not want to see Trump become President, and thus are pushing this angle hard. That hackers from Russia have gotten to some of the US computer systems is certainly true but we're still unsure if it was agents of the gov't or the like. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also oppose any Ongoing to this for similar reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(that we haven't had this story featured yet) is a poor reason to push any story to ITN
It's not an argument pro featuring it: it's just a note that so far, for whatever reason, it hasn't been featured in that section despite obvious notability & coverage etc
Second, I still think this is a story that is the subject of the systematic media bias, who for the most part did not want to see Trump become President, and thus are pushing this angle hard.
While I agree that media is non-neutral I do not share your opinion WP:NPOV here. It's conspiracy-theory. Also it has been covered intensely by countless media outlets - not just a select few - (and imo for good reason) so I'm not sure if you're saying that the world's whole media is biased?! Also it doesn't matter. See WP:RS.
but we're still unsure if it was agents of the gov't or the like.
It doesn't matter, as above: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic).
There is a much larger issue about the current state of the English-speaking mainstream media that we have to be aware of , and the US election shows a lot of those true colors. Everything I've read on the claims of Russia influence and hacking have certain elements of truth, but the media are taking those nuggets of small truths and making that the central story because it helps to contest what they weren't expecting to happen; they've done this before on smaller stories, but this is the first major story I've seen it done on. Yes, the US has leveled accusations and they have taken sanctions which consisted of similar asking some dozen of Russia intelligence officials to level the US - a hand slap compared to sanctions against major threats. It's also commonly presumed that as soon as the transition of office happens that those sanctions will be dropped, and make it seem like actions in the last part of a lame duck term. That's why to me, unless there was something harder to prove the Russian gov't was really behind it, or extensive tampering with the actual election process, that this is just a FUD-type story that the media is pushing, and one we as a neutral encyclopedia should avoid pushing. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• GRAMMAR NOTE — Both blurbs contain plural subjects with singular verb. Sca (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be fixed now - the blurbs can be improved.--Fixuture (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere on the BBC international news website homepage (currently top 5: Turkey gun attack, Brazil prison riot, Spain migrants discovery, Israeli politics, Baghdad car bomb), even the top six stories on the US homepage of the BBC website has Mariah Carey's non-synch-ed lips and the passing of MASH actor William Christopher listed above this hacking row. It's way off the main pages now, this can be safely put to bed and ignored, much like the rest of the world have already done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There can never be any consensus on this story and any related political stories. Completely independent of their objective newsworthiness, different standards than the usual measures are being applied, almost to the point of being the definition of a moving bar. The story in itself -- isolated -- should be the only one we are looking at here. The various ITN versions of the story itself (U.S. government claims Russia attempted electoral interference through hacking, U.S. retaliates against Russia for that reason) are not conjecture. The action upon which the retaliation is based has been confirmed by the major U.S. intelligence agencies. However, many people are insisting that to be valid, specific damage as a result of the action (in this case a change in the election results) must be proven ... in a case where public opinion and not physical ballots were targeted. If anyone ever finds an absolute measure by which to assess the exact reasons behind all sudden shifts in public opinion, let me know, because it would be really useful to the world to have such an absolute measure.
The division also breaks down along firm political lines. If you voted pro-Trump (or pro-Brexit), you will be highly likely to see any attempt to give this story the light of day as an attempt to provide an alternate reason why Clinton was not elected. If you voted pro-Clinton (or anti-Brexit), you will be just as likely to see a documented attempt by Russia to influence an election in Trump's favour as a dangerous precedent. I have seen no attempt by either group toward compromise, and thus there can never be consensus so long as that refusal to compromise exists. In ITN, indefinitely stalled compromise will always result in non-posting (due either to non-consensus or to eventual staleness). Such silence on specific types of stories is a very common form of censorship.
This type of result may possibly be an inherent weakness in ITN. If so, it is growing, not receding. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's like comparing a tabloid "RUSSIA HACKS AMERICA!!" with a broadsheet "Growing speculation that Russia somehow influenced the presidential election". We would never post the latter, as it's just a hypothesis. Do we post the former? Sometimes, but it's a classic Kardashian test case. We're not here to go along with the mass hysteria, we're here to provide some encyclopedic balance and value. Also don't forget this is English-language Wikipedia. As I demonstrated above, if you have to go from the BBC News homepage to the America/Canada news homepage and then find it listed below Mariah Carey, you should, by now, get the hint that this isn't of interest to most of the world. If ITN is growing away from a tacit over-acceptance of American "news" stories, I'd see that as a strength, not a weakness, and its growth should be encouraged, strongly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sanctions and expelled diplomats are the better story for ITN purposes, and it closed as no consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing: Most of the sources given in the nom. are dated. Something more recent, like 30-minutes ago, should be used. In any case, when the CIA, FBI, DHS, and the U.S. President agree on this, we should take note. Forget the BBC or U.K. press for this one. And when someone like John McCain says "it is clear that Russia has attacked the United States of America," we can assume this one will be ongoing and hot for months, at least.--Light show (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Those agencies work for Obama. Trump denies the allegations. Besides, there is no evidence, so it could be fake news.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sanctions and near 35 expelled russian diplomats are facts and the real event, the hacking is just a wierd acusation of some country against another, Maduro from Venezuela did a simil acusation every month, we gonna post it?--Feroang (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (or, as a second preference, ongoing) - came to this decision slowly, but regardless of whether or not you believe it's true or think it really made a difference, it's an official accusation made by the US government, and most journalists seem to find the claim credible. Nothing like this has really happened before in the USA, and the expulsion of diplomats and announcement of sanctions means that there's ongoing events associated with it. I think it's very newsworthy. Blythwood (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No consensus for expulsion of diplomats which is a meatier topic. If we posted every example where country A accused country B of various types of malfeasance, we would post nothing else. For mine, the claims that Russia allegedly hacked websites having a material effect on the American election are greatly exaggerated. It is more a case of a failed campaign trying to shift the blame to someone else. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. And I suggest a speedy close. This is very similar to "United States sanctions against Russia", which was closed with no consensus. (See discussion below.) Please cut it out. This is a POV-pushing non-story, denied by Russia and poopooed by the POTUS-elect, and we don't need to keep arguing against its inclusion ad nauseam.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose as nominated - I still continue to support posting something related to this, but can't accept a blurb with "accuses". Countries (and politicians) accuse one another of things very often, and many of the time it's either untrue or nothing comes out of it (e.g. "Trump accuses Clinton of felony"). If posted, this should include something substantive that has happened, such as sanctions. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already voted that one down (see above). I'm afraid this alleged fake news is old news.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article quality, but we'd need to work out a better blurb. --Jayron32 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's simply not in the news any longer. The world and even the US has long moved onto the next Trump affair, this time tweeting so hard the Republicans buckled on policy. What a state of affairs, when this supposed "superpower" country is run by the "grab her by the pussy" Twitter-wigger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide car bomb explosion and gunmen attack in Iraqi al-Qadisiya town situated in west of Najaf, kills at least 7 people and injures more than 17 others. Yesterday, 29 people were killed in a bomb explosion at a busy market in Iraq’s capital Baghdad. ISIS claims responsibility. (Reuters)(Tasnim News Agency)
Gambian PresidentYahya Jammeh accuses the West African regional bloc, ECOWAS, of "declaring war" after it said it was putting forces on alert in case he refused to step down at the end of his mandate on January 19. (Reuters)
Spanish and Moroccan authorities clash with migrants on the Moroccan-Spanish border along Ceuta, as they attempt to climb and rush the border fence. (Express)
Police arrest Anthony K. Boisvert after a foot chase in Lebanon, New Hampshire, charging him in the setting a fire which destroyed an abandoned building on January 2016, and two other fires, one which destroyed the historic First Baptist Church on December 2016 and stabbing two at a condominium complex December 29. (The New Hampshire Union Leader)
Authorities seek three men after they rob $6 million on New Year's Eve from the offices of high-end jewelry designer Gregg Ruth in New York City. (ABC NYC)
Consensus against a second posting of this story. BencherliteTalk 07:26, 2 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: Ban Ki-moon has concluded his ten-year tenure as UN Secretary-General, and his successor has taken office. Given the prominent role that the UNSG plays in foreign affairs and international relations, I believe this change in power warrants inclusion in the home page news items. Say what you will about the effectiveness of the role, but it does have symbolic significance as a high-profile figure and leader in the international community and thus I contend that this event does have international notability. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted his election a few months ago, and in fact added the election of the UNSG to ITNR as a result. The ceremony of taking the position now is not really ITN itself. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. For the the same reason we most likely won't post Trump's inauguration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There's only one UN secretary-general in this disunited world. Sca (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Elections are notable. An elected person assuming office is not notable. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I remember the election was posted - the custom here does not post the event of such elected people taking office. HaEr48 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: New York City has 33 subway lines. The Lexington Avenue Line is 1/4th of all entries into the system. 1.3 million/workday. That's more than the transit systems of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston combined. It's so overcrowded they've been trying to build a second line on this half of Manhattan Island for almost a century (it was planned 1919. Plan published 1920. Not rushed in favor of other lines (27 lines opened between 1904 and '41 remember) it was supposed to open 1938-41. Great Depression delayed it, then World War 2, then passed over again for other subways, then construction started, then the economy collapsed before anything could open (NY came within 1 inch of bankruptcy) and $5 million a year was spent to keep the tunnel pieces unflooded while they waited. Then passed over again for other subways then construction restarted 2007 and opening was delayed from 2013 to '15 to yesterday to today to tomorrow (1/1/17). It was nicknamed "the Subway That Time Forgot" and East Siders spent their entire lives in the delay and died of old age like Cubs fans. This is the most important addition to the subway since 1940.
Oppose good faith nomination. Not sufficiently important for ITN. While interesting (I'm a native New Yorker) this is essentially a local/regional news story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided on this, but with the Moscow Ring, as described, it drastically changed the topology of the Moscow subway; this bit seems more about helping to alleive a stressed system but not really changing the topology. So I can see the difference, but I do think there's something similar about these too, as the cost and # of people affected are similar. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Upper West Side has 2 lines, now the Upper East Side will have 2 lines. Not as drastic a change in topology as a ring around the city but still more important than an equal-size line in my part of NYC would be (outer boroughs). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not your run of the mill subway extension, big project by any standard (impact, cost, length etc). 81.204.120.137 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a GA but has nearly doubled in size since it passed in March. I've tagged it as too long because I'm concerned that the average reader won't want to trudge through reams of text, if they bother to wait for the page to open at all. There is also a talk page discussion on the issue. Its development history should probably be split from it. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just one of 30+ lines in NYC subway, hardly of interest outside New York. HaEr48 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's only 9 trunk lines. It'll become a trunk line instead of a branch of the Broadway Line when it's extended in the future. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The project has huge interest outside New York and is a very large infrastructure project being completed, equal to others that have been featured on ITN (Moscow Ring Subway, bridge openings, etc.). SounderBruce 05:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "huge interest outside New York"? The linked news sources in the nomination, as well as maybe all of the references of the article, are local New York sources. Could you point me to a news source in Kenya, for example, talking about this? HaEr48 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The PhilippinesGermany Dec 28 2016: (translated with Google Translate) <in New York Project of the Century> No other infrastructure project in the American metropolis is so infamous: A subway on Second Avenue was already spoken in 1919. Now it is finally opened. On January 1, the metro line on Second Avenue will finally be opened in New York. It is not just a project, but for decades the largest extension of the subway network of the American metropolis. Above all, the "Second Avenue Subway" in New York is something like a bad "running gag" and notorious as a project that is never realized. Their construction has been under discussion for almost a hundred years, but the plans have been abandoned one by one. The fact that they have now been implemented is considered a miracle for many New Yorkers.PolandNew Zealand HeraldGuardianthe Independent (UK)Washington PostSingapore Maybe more will appear on Monday. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this is something very regional, and barely something of people's concern. --QEDK (愛) 05:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you produce any evidence for this rather bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of enough compelling evidence that it is of interest outside NY. I hope the contradiction logic works for you. --QEDK (愛) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What lack of outside interest? Reported in Polish, British, German, Filipino etc news, that's hardly lack of outside interest. Again, could you please provide any evidence for your bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although maybe it should read "a section of the Second Av Subway" or some other similar statement? I mean it is only 3 stations and is only ~20 city blocks long for now. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 09:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as too regional. Even if it transports a lot of people every day, it's still a subway system in one city of one country of the world. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Bandeon; this is too regional a story. While I find it personally interesting, I don't feel it is so dramatic a change to warrant posting to ITN. Maybe if this was the NYC Wikipedia, but not just Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto, ditto. The only generally interesting aspect is that it took so many years to finish. (I also opposed the Moscow Ring Subway.) Sca (talk)
PS: At 23,000 words (!), target article is way overlong for general readers. Sca (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The opening of a 3.2 km section of a subway line is not notable. If this line was in Africa, I doubt it would even be nominated. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The 97-year development time seems like a good DYK hook, but this isn't ITN material. Even the opening of an individual city's first metro line is rarely going to get posted here, let alone incremental development (and I speak as a transport enthusiast). Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too marginal.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 2 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.
Nominator's comments: Not familiar with the formatting of news item candidates for the main page. Please feel free to fix any formatting issues with the nomination. Thanks in advance. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for the nomination. A very tragic attack. Clear details will not emerge for some time, so we should wait until we have at least one official announcement, but the eyewitness reports I am seeing right now indicate a high number of casualties... --GGT (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Not clear how big this is or the casualty level. As of right now the death toll is in the low single digits. If it stays there I'm not sure this will fly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Istanbul just announced at least 35 deaths. Will add as soon as online resources are available. This is clearly a major-scale assault. --GGT (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes, obviously. Made particularly salient compared to... the attacks that happen about twice a day by now... by the fact an attacker seems to still be inside with hostage, reminding one of Bataclan. LjL (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Support once we have enough that's adequately sourced to post. This is clearly going to be a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but likely Support - I'd like to have us wait a few hours for details to become clear. It does seem it is still an active situation. I've also provided a less clunky alt.blurb (IMO). --MASEM (t) 00:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable event with many casualties, very sad way to begin a year. EternalNomad (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support after article is developed - Not properly structured, so wait until done so. - Sherenk1 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's clearly the biggest news right now. SWF88 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then support: I think we should wait a bit so more accurate details can come out, and the article can be developed a bit, but then definitely support. Seagull123 Φ 01:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the custom of posting multi-death high-profile attacks in ITN. Agree with above comments that we should wait until the article stabilize a little bit. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do note that the Turkish gov't has ordered a media blackout of the event, so we are not likely to get more details in the short term. As such I think we should accept that the info we have is all we're going to get at this point, and judge if there's anything glaring with the article before posting. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense. --QEDK (愛) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update since ISIS claimed responsibility. Something like "ISIS claims responsibility for an attack on a nightclub (pictured) in Istanbul, Turkey, which killed at least 39 people and injured more than 60 others during New Year's celebrations." Banedon (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD It's nice to get a nomination that's in decent shape when it shows up here. Oppose blurb Nothing unexpected about this persons death and while influential in their field, this is not an iconic figure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. No prejudice to ongoing discussions of a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
United States troops withdraw from Afghanistan after 15 years.
Arts and culture
China, with their largest television network China Central Television, announces a new launch of a global media platform extending globally and renaming the network China Global Television Network. (News Asia)
Disasters and accidents
In Helsinki, Finland, authorities detain an unidentified driver after driving at high speed, and veering for unknown reasons, into a crowd, injuring 7 people. Authorities quickly conclude no evidence points to a deliberate attack. (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: Sourcing seems okay, maybe a bit thin, but could use another check. MASEM (t) 05:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a couple of cites. I tagged the locations. Then we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tackled those, finding a number of questionable sources (like inline use of imdb cites) that I have replaced with reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issues noted above have been corrected. Looks good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support brief article but no glaring errors or omissions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No clear nomination or target article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 1 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.
^ should be posted. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what about them? We need a target and suggested blurb to evaluate this. (Google news only shows the UN council supporting the Syrian ceasefire today...) --MASEM (t) 00:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the reference is to the fact that five non-permanent members of the Security Council begin their terms each January 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The funeral of Łukasz Urban, the driver killed in the course of last week's attack on a Christmas market in Berlin, takes place in his village of Banie near the German border. President of PolandAndrzej Duda and a German diplomat attend. (BBC)(Deutsche Welle)
After 35 Russian diplomats are expelled from the United States, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recommends expelling 35 American diplomats. Russian President Vladimir Putin rejects Lavrov's recommendation and expresses a desire to restore relations between the two countries. (The New York Times)(Newshub)
The U.S. Burlington Electric Department says that a code associated with a broad Russian hacking campaign dubbed "Grizzly Steppe" by the U.S. Government has been detected on a laptop associated with a Vermont electric utility but not connected to the grid. (The Boston Globe)
Mali returns two people France deported on the same planes they arrived on. (BBC)
Law and crime
A body found in a burnt-out vehicle north of the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro is confirmed to be that of missing Greek Ambassador Kyriakos Amiridis. A military police officer who had an affair with the ambassador's wife confesses to the murder. The wife and a second man are also detained. (BBC)
Sahaj International opens in Kochi in the South Indian state of Kerala. The country's first school for transgender pupils, it caters for adults who left school early. (BBC)
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.
. Note: this is a dog, not a person, so the RFC does not apply. I don't think we can post it as a recent death. JehochmanTalk 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, please re-read the instructions, updated some months ago: An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if ...The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, looks like a human first and last name. Readers would be greeted by a dog face after clicking :) Brandmeistertalk 09:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
[reply]
You've got to be kidding. A dog on RD? And one who's only claim to fame is being owned by a famous person. It's not like he was Secretariat. What a farce wiki is. 2600:8805:5800:F500:C87B:5949:FF7B:B61 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A comment like the one above is perhaps more helpful on WT:ITN. SpencerT♦C 16:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I think you mean "what a farce is wiki". Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - meets requirements. Neutralitytalk 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, feel free to propose it, but I see no reason why animals should be excluded, assuming they meet the standard of notability to have an article in the first place. The dog was notable and received extensive press coverage throughout his life. When American Pharoah dies, I would expect him to be on Recent Deaths. Ditto with, say, Bo Obama. Neutralitytalk 03:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have updated the candidate template to add the link to the relevant discussion and updated language as to avoid requestioning if animals should get RDs. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull, based on IAR if necessary. A reader seeing an unfamilar (but human-sounding) name on RD and wondering "I wonder who this was who died" and clicking through to the article should reasonably expect not to find that it was a dog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should expect a human, but I don't see why that's a reason to pull this. Sam Walton (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a scenario such as I described would damage the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the article was complete and accurate (like this article), I can't see how it would damage Wikipedia's reputation. There is some risk to taking ourselves too seriously, I would suggest. Poorly sourced articles featured at OTD, ITN, etc., are a much greater problem. Neutralitytalk 03:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree fairly strongly and fear that the misleading name situation here in the context of the recent deaths listings risks bringing the project into disrepute. If I didn't happen to be traveling for the holiday with access only from a mobile phone, I would bring this to ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any actual evidence that our readers see this as bringing the project in disrepute, or is this just your opinion. Stephen 11:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's different from this case than with a case of a person the reader cannot recognize and clicking through to find out about that person. The fact it is a dog (but a very notable one and whose death was covered in sources) may be surprising but far from damaging to the project. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, thinking about this further, the only point where there could be potential harm would be if a named creature that shared the same name with a living recognized human, that in that case we absolutely should make sure to distinguish in the RD. (Eg, if there was a famous dog named "Barack Obama" that died in an ITN-worthy way, I would expect the dog's death to be listed in RD as "Barack Obama (dog)" or ".. (pet)" so that we don't readers panicking about that. But that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will tend to click on the names they recognise in RD, not the names that they don't. Sutter Brown isn't getting many views because news coverage of the death seems mostly confined to news media based in California. But the article is still getting more readers than Maurice Failevic – a French director who is also at RD now. Neither of them are in the same league as famous people like Robert Vaughn or Jimmy Young who weren't posted at RD but still had many more readers. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can assume that people only click on recognisable names, perhaps many click to read about people (or animals) that they didn't know. Stephen 11:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "... take this to ANI ..."???!! Seriously, the posting of the dog fully complies with RD rules, themselves based on community consensus. If nothing else, it'd be worthwhile taking it to ANI just to see the pathetic dramafest that would follow, which would result in a flurry of boomerangs. Plus, per Stephen, where's the evidence that this has "damage[d] the reputation of the project"? Is the reputation of the project more damaged each and every time one of our rogue admins rushes through the posting of inadequate quality, non-encyclopedic of American actors without consensus? 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
Comment - I agree with TRM. ANI has enough drama crap as it is without cluttering it with trite rubbish over a momentary bit of confusion over a dog's name. Newyorkbrad, you should know better.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Sufficient level of referencing including all major claims and contentious statements. A reference for every sentence or item in the article, while desirable, is not required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale- nomination is older than the oldest current RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 2 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.
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: English footballer. Fuebaey (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon necessary sourcing improvements - There's a lack of inline cites in much of the article, this has to be fixed. Also I note the death update says it was "early hours of the 30th", should this not be sorted under that? --MASEM (t) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unreferenced. Still don't understand the initial support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At this time there is reasonable referencing including all major claims and contentious items. A footnote for every sentence describing a playing career, while optimal, is not required and the refimprove tag seems no longer justified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:21, 1 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: In the article, it says December 30. Might be 31st. (Referring to death-date) Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fixed one unsourced statement to the obits, and added a few free images. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Needs a few cites but overall article is in decent shape. Fill those in and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support issues resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russian president Vladimir Putin says a ceasefire has been brokered between the Syrian government and rebel forces. The ceasefire is said to be guaranteed by Russia and Turkey and would exclude UN-denominated terror organizations such as ISIL and al-Nusra. The FSA says it would abide by the truce, while Ahrar al-Sham expresses "reservations". (ITV)(Reuters)
Naveed Baloch, the man from Pakistan who was wrongly arrested in the aftermath of the recent attack on a Christmas market in Berlin, gives an interview outlining the conditions in which he was held and reveals he is now in hiding amid fears for his life. (The Guardian)
Stale. Older than oldest currently posted RD. Dragons flight (talk) 11:11, 2 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: Needs significant sourcing improvement, but the THR article will help a bit, going to try to dig a bit more myself. MASEM (t) 17:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that she died on Dec 26 (Monday) but the news of her death only was announced Thursday by her family. Thus sorted at this date. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this needs more than sourcing. Her biography section (the prose) is almost devoid of her acting career. And there's the extensive filmography section, which I have no opinion on but others might feel strongly about. Fuebaey (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to fill in what I can - just that her obits take her though her schooling and then just lay out her acting, without any deep biographical aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would be good to have more detail in bio, but meets minimum criteria for main page as is. MurielMary (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A stub with no prose information on her acting career. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2016 (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.
[Closed] United States sanctions against Russia
No consensus. With significant participation and voting split roughly evenly I see little hope if gaining consensus on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2016 (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 most extensive sanctions by the United States against Russia since the Cold War, a major incident extensively covered around the world (covered in the "Government response" section of the article) Tataral (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously mayor diplomatic incident. There will be Russian response which should be included in blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Putin rejected his foreign minister's suggestion of retaliatory action against US diplomats. [14]331dot (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non-story trumped up by the Obama administration. Too US-centric. Snoozefest. Time to move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." As Neljack states below, this is getting a lot of coverage for a "non-story". If you don't like what RS cover, you will have to take it up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also extremely POV-pushing. It's a desperate attempt by the Obama administration and the Democrats to suggest HRC did not lose because she was a bad candidate. I find it extremely misogynistic to suggest she needs an excuse like this. Besides, both Russia and the United States (president-elect Trump!) deny it. So, this could be a rumour (or fake news?). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid. Let's move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will disregard your comments. And the United States has imposed these sanctions and the United States government, including its President and its official intelligence agencies, has concluded that Russia interfered with the election. The far-right politician you make repeated references to does not hold any government office, or other office, and doesn't speak for the United States. --Tataral (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean president-elect Trump? This is outrageous. Calling him "far right" as you just did sounds like an attempt to POV-push the "In the News" section of the main page. Please don't do that. Since the nominator is biased, I would suggest closing this ITN nomination. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is a far-right politician by any objective standard. That is purely a descriptive term. It was you who brought him into this discussion, although he has no relevance for what we are discussing. --Tataral (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not objective at all. It's an opinion. Mentioning Trump here is perfectly germane because he denies these allegations pushed by the Obama administration two weeks before they become obsolete. Enough already! Time to retire gracefully. And no, we don't need this POV-pushing ITN, thank you very much.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not relevant at all, he's a private individual who doesn't hold any public office. We just stick to what the US government says and the official actions it takes on behalf of the United States; in this case the US government has taken extensive actions against Putin Russia that have received broad coverage around the world and been described as highly significant. --Tataral (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Trump will be POTUS in 20 days. The USFG is currently under the leadership of Obama, but their position will change as soon as Trump becomes President. I don't think ITN should cover the tantrums of a lame duck president. I love Obama, but the context is too POV. Let's drop it and move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Private individuals are entitled to hold private opinions, but do not speak for countries, and certainly not for the United States. The United States government has taken extensive action against Russia in response to Russian cyber warfare, trolling and whatnot, and that's what we base our discussion on. --Tataral (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's not just a private individual; he's the president-elect! Anyway, lots of editors oppose this nomination, so I think it may be time for you to drop it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the United States is Barack Obama. Speculation as to who might become president of that country at some point in the future has no bearing on the issue discussed here; the sanctions have already been imposed by the current US government. --Tataral (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no speculation. Trump was elected.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to this is quite clear. The U.S. political system was specifically designed so that one and only one person can speak for the U.S. and command U.S. foreign policy at any given time. Until January 19 and partway through January 20, that person is BHO. After his inauguration on January 20, that person will be DJT. The date of this particular action comes before the new inauguration. Political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with it. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a non-story. Russia has not retaliated, and Trump is not impressed with Obama's tantrum. Nobody is. This ITN nomination is clearly partisan POV-pushing, but it's boring.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure how a diplomatic incident involving two of the most powerful countries in the world and the expulsion of dozens of diplomats is a "non-story". The media certainly does not seem to agree. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose political sabre-rattling. If something tangible happens, then we could consider it. This story is going to run and run and run and run and obviously take a few critical turns once Trumpmeister takes his throne, this is merely an opening tit-for-tat volley. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This story is going to run and run and run and run
And still it wasn't linked in the In the news section?! --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree absolutely both saber-rattling and tit-for-tat volley, minor in the overall scheme of things. Agree at the same time that it is going to "run and run and run" ... at least for a few days. Insofar as it is noteworthy, it is noteworthy in that we truly have not seen anything on this scale since the Cold War, and certainly not since the current media environment. For whatever it is worth, I don't think we have ever seen this kind of action in response to a claim of domestic electoral interference. That last aside, these kinds of expulsion-counterexpulsion used to be quite common at that time (front section, but small mid-section mention), but the baby-boomer bulge has passed, and increasingly the majority of people never knew the everyday realities of the Cold War. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose at present. The US sanctions on Russia and Russia's reaction seems like a story that could be worth covering. However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard. At a minimum, I would want to be able to link to a specific section focused on the sanctions. Whatever article is targeted should also explain in what way these are the "the most extensive sanctions against Russia since the Cold War". The current target article merely parrots that claim, but doesn't give any additional historical context in the prose. Dragons flight (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard
The entirety of it is newsworthy imo. If this doesn't get added to the In the news section as a blurb (whether linked to a section and/or to the entirety of the issue) it might also get added to the "Ongoing" part of it.
Oppose Per TRM. Standard US/Russia diplomatic non-story. The US expels some diplomats, Russia does same. Its an old old story well trodden by both sides. Unlike the US-Israel issue recently, this is SOP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim that these are the most extensive diplomatic sanctions on Russia in 25 years is accurate, then I have trouble seeing how this could be considered standard behavior. However, as I said above, the article doesn't do a good job of elaborating on that claim at present. Dragons flight (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits but oppose at this time per Dragons flight. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now per Neljack. It is still a diplomatic spat between two of the most powerful countries in the world. If a particular section is desired then the "Obama_administration" section works. Banedon (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw this yesterday (hence why I moved it to the 29th) and was considering posting, but when you look at the "penalty", its a newspaper slap rather than anything devastating, and far from threatening US/Russia diplomatic relations since this was only aimed at intelligence officiers. There was reportedly going to be solid evidence presented for this reasoning but I haven't seen a story yet cover it. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not a minor diplomatic tiff. The sanctions and in particular the expulsion of so many diplomats is without modern precedent. I'm not sure this was ever done even during the most tense periods of the Cold War. That combined with the US presentation of hard evidence of Russian meddling combines to make this ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence released so far is actually considered weak by security experts [15] and certainly not hard evidence of hacking the election. That someone in Russia was getting into various US systems, sure, but that doesn't tie it to the Russian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which "security experts"? Both the CIA and the FBI have repeatedly stated that Russia was responsible, going back at least as far as December 9. (The first CIA report confirmation is actually older than that -- the public statement was simply a report that it existed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Obama administration has three weeks left and has virtually nothing to lose from this act, similar to their abstention from the UN Israeli vote. We posted the election almost two months ago and we don't follow up with conjecture. If say, someone presents information which makes the election invalid then that would be worthy of posting. This no. That the Russians have chosen not to respond in kind makes this even more of a non-story. Fuebaey (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I would have supported this startling diplomatic offensive, but the fact that Putin says Russia won't retaliate in tit-for-tat Soviet style takes much of the steam outta the story, for now at least. (Maybe he expects DT to reverse it?) Sca (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the non-story becomes even more unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Was the interference ITN worthy? If not, then it's hard to see how this response is. -- Shuddetalk 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the interference was unknown, subtle, and very diffuse over time as to not be any single event to be nominated at any point, it only became something ITN-able when the US gov't made the first allegations that Russia was interferring with the election. It's like any other cybersecurity hack - that "event" is usually not discovered until months later and after sufficient investigation and PR management has been set in place before it is publicly announced. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely ITN material considering that this will mean trouble for Trump when he becomes "President" in January. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All "what" will mean trouble for Trump, a presumed ally of Putin? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly given that analysts are taking Putin's non-response as trying to avoid any issues with the next administration, and most seem to recognize that this sanction will likely be revoked shortly thereafter. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because, as TRM described it, this is saber rattling. According to the NYT article listed as a source above "Despite the international fallout and political repercussions surrounding the announcement, it is not clear how much effect the sanctions will have, except on the ousted diplomats, who have until midday Sunday to leave the country. G.R.U. officials rarely travel to the United States, or keep assets here." Calidum 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the D does undo it after he becomes the P, that would be blurbable – a significant reversal of U.S. policy. It would also make him look compromised, but that seems to be S.O.P. for him. Sca (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: Imo it doesn't really matter how much of an effect it has: the more newsworthy thing are the (severity/resoluteness of) the accusations by the US.
@Sca: Imo that would also be blurbable and a different subject. Probably it wouldn't even be linked to the same article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If these people were spies and hackers, why weren't they expelled when we found that out? This is not news, it is an attempt to create news. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is the presumptive hackers are alleged to be in Russia; this is billed as a 'consequence.' Sca (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Donald Trump's reaction to Putin's decision to not retaliate, makes this newsworthy, this is definitely not business as usual. The wiki-article must, of course, first be updated properly before we can post this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Trump is appeasing some yanks while sucking up to the Russians. It's nothing, a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DTweets are not RSs, IMO. – Sca (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple actual reliable sources disagree with you, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, Yank is capitalized, according to my sources, whose identity I never will reveal. Sca (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For one thing, it should be "alleged interference" since they still deny it. But this issue has been and will continue to be "ongoing," which if anywhere, is where it would fit, IMO. I added an updated source. And I'd suggest not using Wired as a source for this kind of issue, any more than I'd use Rolling Stone. --Light show (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more that it should be "alleged" seen as both sides (Russia and the US/Trump) deny it. Or, it should be "the Obama administration's allegations of..."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for considering this as ongoing is it indirectly relates to this. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I voted "support" further up) - 2016 United States election interference by Russia wasn't in the In the news section so far, despite mayor coverage and obvious significance, was it? I think it really should be and that this would be a good occasion. --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Reasons have been provided above - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2016 (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.
Comment I've put in the full nomination template and signed for the nominator. Mamyles (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAssad regime ultimately links to a section on the Baathist regime in Syria since 1961, well before the regime of Bashar Al Assad's father Hafez Al Assad, let alone Bashar's own regime. Somebody more interested and knowledgeable than me should probably be able to find better wording and/or a better link. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had a jab at a blurb, using Syrian Civil War ceasefires. From my understanding of the report, this is yet another attempted ceasefire in Syria. I'm tempted to wait a bit just to see if it holds for a few days. Note that this doesn't cover the other factions: ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and the Kurds. Fuebaey (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alt blurb, an important development in the situation, reflected by the media all over the world. Our information is brief but correct and well referenced. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to be the first solid move towards some kind of end. Nergaal (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - that's already the third "ceasefire" attempt this year. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceasefire is major news in a very high-profile conflict and is a top news story in the international media. It is not for us to crystal ball-gaze about whether it is likely to last. Neljack (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It is in the news, and it is important if it holds. (For the civilians on the ground, even a brief pause for humanitarian aid is presumably quite important.) The UN is scheduled to vote on endorsing the ceasefire soon. I have the same trepidations as others about the likelihood that this won't last, but ultimately I am in favor of posting. Dragons flight (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Oppose until somebody more knowledgeable than me fixes the Assad regime wording problem that I mentioned above over 30 hours ago. If and when that gets fixed I expect to revert to neutral (due to my insufficient knowledge of and interest in the main issue). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A train and a bus collide in Tunis, Tunisia, killing 5 and injuring around 52. (Nessma)
Law and crime
The Korea Fair Trade Commission fines U.S. company Qualcomm $852.9 million for alleged antitrust violations for restricting access of its competitors to its patents. (Bloomberg)
Blurb has been posted and would be inappropriate/disingenious to pull at this point, discussions should continue at WT:ITN --MASEM (t) 15:00, 29 December 2016 (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.
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: Notable actress from the 1950s and '60s. Calidum 01:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good article, edit protected, etc. On a side note, what an absolutely horrible time for this family. I can't imagine.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with note: We don't normally post combined death blurbs, but considering the news coverage, the proximity of the deaths, and Reynolds and Fisher's mother-daughter relationship, I think that may be the best way to handle this one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we could figure out how to throw that together, I think it would be a good thing for sure.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tossed something up. I'm agnostic on including the ages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better without the ages, but I could be convinced either way.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support amending current blurb, as Kudzu1 mentioned. APKwhisper in my ear 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but by the time admins here post this, someone else will kick the bucket :/ .. too slow you guys, too slow..--Stemoc 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb - Definitely. Unusual situations call for unusual measures. Neutron (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb - top-field actress and special situation. Definitely combine.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Filmography and stage work are completely unsourced, while the awards section needs some work on sourcing as well. Truly an unexpectedly horrible chain of events for the family :( —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb Both actresses are absolute icons. A very unusual and tragic series of events. EternalNomad (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb Both very notable actors. The close proximity of their deaths is notable as well. †dismas†|(talk) 02:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb The obvious answer here. Brianga (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb, out of necessity. She was an internationally famous star years before Carrie was even born (ie. Singin in the Rain (1952). There are numerous books about and by her. The blurb should really list her name first, with Carrie next, regardless of the timing, such as "she died a day after her film star daughter Carrie Fisher ..." In fact, she was a regular headliner in Las Vegas when Carrie was still in kindergarten.--Light show (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is anyone actually looking at the article quality rather than just rushing to turn ITN into a memorial website? Referencing is far below acceptable standards. Seriously, some of the support !votes appear to be in total disregard of even the most minimal standards at ITN. We are NOT a news ticker and we need to put a check on reactions to recent, albeit unfortunate, events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems to be immediately wrong with the Reynolds article is a lack of referencing in the filmography section. As soon as we can get that looked on—which never takes that long—we should be fine. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this recent post. No one has been able to respond after an entire day. --Light show (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm in a position to answer those questions. I think it's better to have a source than not, but sometimes it seems a bit unnecessary—for example, we wouldn't need multiple reliable sources affirming that Humphrey Bogart was in Casablanca or that Janet Leigh was in Psycho. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are we looking at the same article? I'm looking at Debbie Reynolds and seeing massive gaps in referencing and multiple orange tags. As of right now this is far below acceptable standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see one orange tag in an early section which is likely merited, and I see a second, claiming a section with references currently being added to it contains no references. There looks to be a handful of editors going to town on this article right now, it should be fine very soon, thus explaining why I'm not concerned and feel no worry about a pre-emptive thumbs up. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see three and very large gaps. When you post a Support !vote you are saying the article is good to go, which this is clearly not. If and when it is I will be happy to change my position. We DO NOT post articles in this condition. Orange tags are a showstopper for any article nominated to be featured on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could change my vote to "hold" or something of the like, but I don't see how that would be explicitly helpful to the discussion at this stage. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb. First, Reynolds is notable on her own merit, but second, that is very unusual. epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at the article quality or read the guidelines for ITN? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think that a 14-year-old article that has been actively edited by 1,100 different editors and has 160 watchers should not suddenly be considered no good. The article's history and the opinion of its regular editors should be considered and maybe have superior value. --Light show (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think the guidelines and standards upheld by longstanding consensus at ITN should take precedence. And no one is saying the article is no good. But that is a long ways from being up to scratch for being promoted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Yes. And I think it can be improved. But it doesn't need to be improved to a Good Article immediately. In fact, I don't think it can happen that fast. We have to consider the long history of the page (since 2002). epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Please consider commenting at some point in that talk page post I noted. In any case, the only rationale I've yet seen for this filmography issue has been V, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, which ignores the prior 1,100 editors' opinions about what is likely to be challenged. Does anyone think that of her hundreds of roles in film, tv, and stage, that anyone is seriously going to "challenge" it suddenly? All they have to do is Google the question or use IMDB or TCM. These aren't political opinions or quotes, after all. They're borderline trivia.--Light show (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Light show: As always, I invite people who want to change the ITN standards to participate here more often. I'm on your side. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb, very unusual and both were very notable people. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are still weak on sourcing. For example, we have a block quote that is not given an inline cite (though the prose claims it is on liner notes: this should have an explicit citation per QUOTATION), and her stage work is not yet sourced, particularly as there's a few non-linked works in there. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb Yes, I opposed the blurb for Carrie alone but that's water under the bridge. As noted, this is an unusual situation (And now watch Andrew Ridgely drop dead tomorrow). Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article looks a lot better now. Sourcing is much more thorough and information and quotes for which citations cannot be found have been removed or commented out. I think this is ready to post as a blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting out quotes that appeared revelant (like the long block quote I mentioned before) is lazy, and not addressing the problem. For example, that block quote just needed to cite the details of the record that the liner notes appeared in. Should be very straight forward to do. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
T'weren't me. Anyway, that can be addressed later. The priority should be improving the article to the point where it can be featured on the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because it seemed out of place and excessive for the small section. see edit. I considered just citing it, but it was still excessive for a pretty mediocre quote which was almost as long as the entire section. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing relevant material can be seen as degrading the quality of the article. I can't say for sure in this case if it does or not, but that was an extremely easy thing to supply the source for (to whomever removed it, it looked like Light show). It's one thing if the quote was added with no idea where it came from or who spoke it, and you exhaust Google in trying to find it on the web or in books (in which case it has to be removed), but saying "Oh we can deal with that after it is posted to ITN" is not appropriate here. I know there's a sense of urgency to update the blurb (which I agree with given that we have decided to post Fisher's), but we cannot sacrifice quality just to expedite things. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Masem is free to criticize the article's state, that doesn't mean that he has to fix it or that he hasn't dismisses his complaints. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this is one of the many, many reasons why ITN/C is bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did work yesterday to fix up Fisher before it was RD'd, despite not having worked on the article at all before. I was on travel most of today so couldn't do that for Reynolds now. I'm just seeing very sloppy fixes that avoid real problems simply to say that what's left is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb it's a slow time of year for news, and this is the news. Why the hell not make a combined blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not adequately referenced. If it gets there, it's RD only for me, a combined blurb is tabloid and kitsch. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb - both very notable people in the film industry. The rarity of the coincidental timing. Seems biased to give one a blurb and the other a RD so all things considered a combined blurb is the way to go. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD only, no blurb, and wait for adequate referencing per The Rambling Man. Reynolds doesn't have the same level of fame as Fisher, and at this point people are just rushing in and trying to list things based on emotion rather than the guidelines. — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted combined blurb. Thanks to those who improved Debbie Reynolds. I posted a version that included both ages, because ages are usually part of death blurbs. Though the result in this case is quite long, it didn't seem unreasonable on the current main page. I didn't use the blurb with ages above, as I thought the writing was a bit too awkward; however feel free to suggest other (shorter) phrasing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use two sentences? "American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher (pictured) dies at age 60. Her mother, actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds dies one day later at age 84." -- reduces the number of commas in the sentence. Banedon (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I might also suggest changing "dancer" to "singer" since Reynolds seems to be better known for that part of her career than dance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this suggestion by Kudzu. She could dance, but that was always in support of her acting on screen or stage, whereas she sang professionally for decades. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who dafuk is the second female??? Did we get this low for the sake of Star Wars fandom? Didn't she die of old age? Can we remove all the other entries and say something about the Rogue One also? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wookiepedia has no entry on Ms Reynolds, so don't attribute a drop of her fame to Star Wars. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Picture The combined blurb is sensible and sourcing of her filmography is a minor issue. The significant issue is the image which we now use. We have already had Carrie Fisher's picture for a day or two and so we should now use a photo of Debbie Reynolds such as the one pictured (right). Reynolds was more accomplished and a bigger star in her day and so should get top billing now, Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Andrew D. Tragic as this is, there is an element of irony here in the fact that some of the same people that lauded Carrie Fisher's accomplishments seem unaware of how famous Debbie Reynolds was in her day. She was not called 'Hollywood royalty' for nothing. Having them both up there is the best thing to do. Let's just concentrate on improving the articles and working on other articles in the news as they come in. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and bravo to any suggestions of continuing to be productive. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Article, is much improved. Oppose combined blurb Reynolds does not come close to meriting a blurb and we are not supposed to be a memorial page. Unfortunately it's starting to look like one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? She is both Academy Award and Golden Globe nominated. And had a leading role in an iconic film. Has had an extensive career in acting. You are wrong in your assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs for deaths are extremely rare. The usual standard is that they were not just important, but at the very pinnacle of their field, a truly iconic figure and or their death was surprising to a degree that it was close to shocking. Robin Williams comes to mind in the entertainment field as justifying a blurb. If the standard you describe above were applied, ITN would be just a running obituary ticker.
Exactly. BabbaQ you are wrong in saying that Ad Orientem is wrong. Loads of people are nominated for GG and Oscars, if we included all their deaths, ITN would be swamped with them. I think if it weren't for the Carrie Fisher angle, nobody much would be arguing for Debbie Reyolds to have a blurb. Wikipedia is not fancruft or tabloid media. — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You both make a assessment based on the notion of fancruft and disliking a joined blurb between mother and daughter. I make my assessment based on Reynolds career. She was a top-field actress, and a blurb is appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (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.
[Closed] RD: Seth J. McKee
Stale. Older than oldest currently posted RD. Dragons flight (talk) 11:10, 2 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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose no inline citations. MurielMary (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto. Sca (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added an archive to the PD citation at the bottom. To be fair, there were inline citations - just very few in the middle of the article. It should be easy enough to use the archive link for shortened footnotes. The more important question is whether we want to post an article virtually identical to his US Air Force biography. Fuebaey (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So with the PD citation, does that mean that inline citations are not needed? There are still whole paragraphs which are completely uncited, including one with a whole list of uncited awards and honours, and some paragraphs with one citation partway through. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on your interpretation of WP:Verifiability. Some people'll read All content must be verifiable and say well it is - the citation at the bottom of the page is a spitting copy of the article. Others might say All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material, which can be fixed by simply adding:
to contentious statements (as of this timestamp). Could use {{sfn}}, but I'm not sure how that'll mesh with {{USGovernment}}. Fuebaey (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Died as the highest-ranking survivor of D-Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.177.37 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (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.
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.
I commented out the blurbs since this is a RD nomination. The article needs some more references but otherwise it is in a good shape. --Tone 08:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is in good shape Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in present state. Article has not been updated for tense since his death (e.g. "he has since retired ..."). Also some irrelevancies e.g. is the fact his son is an MP relevant for the lede? MurielMary (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be posted now? The quality of article is much improved and all issues raised have been addressed. —MBlaze LightningT 19:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still has several "citation needed" tags on key claims. MurielMary (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Late change of vote to support for referencing all claims. MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting that George Michael and Carrie Fisher were apparently shoo-ins for full blurbs, yet for this guy, the leader of a reasonably large English speaking nation for five years, it's not even suggested. ITN never used to be this full of tabloid click-bait rather than serious encyclopedic news, not to mention the WP:WORLDWIDE and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues here. — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, ludicrous double standards. The foundation is all about claiming to make Wikipedia more inclusive and more representative, but as we see over and over again at ITN, that's talk. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, although the target article should probably be VSV-EBOV and it needs some TLC. Doc James, any chance of improving that article a bit? Are any reliable sources talking about the potential impact of this vaccine? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and added a blurb. (Hopefully it makes a good compromise between accuracy and general comprehensibility without saying something silly like rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine.) "no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters"! Thank you for drawing my attention to this. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about timing. Per the instructions above, new nominations should be listed here under a heading for the day that they became news. In this case, your sources and others, e.g. [24] reported on the vaccine results on December 22. While this news is not so stale to completely fall off the page, this nomination appears rather untimely. Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree a little old. I nominated it as I was surprised it was not already there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I have fallen far behind a lot of things this year, including many things with which I should be much more in contact. However, as to "old", four of those days in between were Christmas holiday weekend, which does make the measure a little different. Even conventional newspapers did not publish on at least one of those days. So this is one case where a 6-day-old story really only comes across as two days off. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A huge deal, and the target disease is well-known to the public too. Banedon (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ebola has been one of the most horrible ways to die, and even if not that many people are still directly affected by it, it shows that even horrible rare diseases can be cured with enough interest (aka $$$). Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a big deal. Article quality is adequate though it could use a little fleshing out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, though probably not for very long. Sam Walton (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(laugh) And because this nomination has been artificially dated back to Dec 22 (even though the news outlets only posted it on Dec 23 - eg. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/health/ebola-vaccine-study ) but the Aleppo offensive ending nomination was not equally dated back to its first media mentions on Dec 13 (eg. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38308883), the ITN rules kick the Ebola story off almost instantly ... and that even though the Aleppo story had been in the continuing section of ITN for a month. (Coincidentally, the Ebola story also has priority over the Aleppo story based on nomination date.) This demonstrates very different bars for different kinds of story. Per what I said above, ITN has been developing a strong systemic bias toward some types of stories (politics, "if it bleeds, it leads"), while at the same time, those on the forefronts of research and medicine in a post-epidemic scenario simply don't have the same kind of time to push that level of awareness here. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ebola vaccine news and journal publication were both first published on the 22nd. If you take a closer look at that CNN link you'll notice the page was updated on the 23rd, but the URL says "12/22", which is when most news outlets posted the news (see Google). As for the differing standards, TonePosted the Aleppo candidate on the 23 Dec with a date of 20 Dec. I suspect the date may have simply been a mistake copied over from an entry below. ITN/A states that blurbs should be dated by "date of occurrence... not by date they were added", which is why I backdated this one to the actual news/publication date. Sam Walton (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that must have been my mistake, likely copy-pasting the date from another item. Anyway, I see this has been posted now to the proper spot, good call. --Tone 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply pointed out that the true date of occurrence of the end of hostilities and victory in that particular campaign was more than a week earlier, and that reliable sources did cover it at that time (see earlier link). Surely GWB has taught us about the difference between victory and declared victory? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least we posted it. If those sanctimonious passers-by who find this so funny that it might not reside at ITN for too long wish to actually constructively work on how best to counter such issues, that'd be helpful, otherwise I'd suggest their drive-by comments aren't really that helpful at all. Editing via IP is particularly a bizarre way to retain anonymity as to allows all readers at Wikipedia to geolocate via IP numerous times.... how odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss just what I was laughing at. To clarify, it was neither at the actual fact of a quick posting almost immediately falling off, nor at any person. Incidentally, I also recognise precisely why this kind of thing, for these particular kinds of stories, will always happen at ITN -- if anything increasingly so, in parallel with other media attitudes -- and no amount of work on my side will ever change those underlying reasons.
As to working constructively, my IP changes, so alas, I cannot show off every single one of my article edits on a single proud Wikipedia page. (Nor have I such personal need, so I remain an IP, deliberately, for reasons mentioned elsewhere. People will keep or undo my edits as always, hopefully on their own merit.) But yes, you are right, I have been seriously behind in active constructive work of all kinds this year, in large part because 100-hour workweeks do not lend themselves to copious free time. (I also would not wish on any here such a year as I have just had.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – I'm okay with this except that the verb create seems slightly inappropriate here. How about devise? Or better, some language attributing the evaluation to the 'scientists,' as in, "Scientists say a new vaccine is the first to be effective against Ebola." – Sca (talk)
PS: I will not post this at WP:MP/E, only to be told it's not an error. Sca (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 'create'? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Government forces push to capture a Houthi enclave in Bayhan District, on the border between Shabwa and Marib provinces, resulting at least 28 Houthi militants and 12 Yemeni soldiers killed. (Dunya News)
The Philippine Coast Guard looks for 18 missing sailors from a ship sunk by Typhoon Nock-ten (Nina). At least seven people are confirmed to have died in the storm. (AP via Daily Mail)
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: French film director and life-long Communist, winner of many awards. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks to be well referenced. Sam Walton (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Short and leans heavily on a small number of sources, but what is there appears well-referenced. Dragons flight (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been posted as a blurb and there is no realistic likelihood of gaining sufficient consensus to pull it. I think we have reached the point where further debate is not likely to be productive. Note: I am INVOLVED so if anyone thinks there is something to be gained by continuing this already massive discussion feel free to revert my closure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support with necessary improvements. A good number of paras without sources. Any film role which she was not in a starring role needs sourcing. I suspect tthere might be calls for a blurb, but she falls into the same class of actor as Leonard Nimoy, and not really appropriate, though one can argue her death was a surprise given the events of the last week, --MASEM (t) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inadequately referenced. Agree that no blurb is necessary here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supportafter a few more sources in the text; my support does not hinge on sourcing the filmography section, per previous discussions. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I added a blurb to the nomination in case people thought she should receive one (her death was not really expected). I support this for RD and would not be opposed to a blurb posting if there was consensus and the article was in great shape. Andise1 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the alt blurb, since it wasn't in my nomination, and people have already voted. If you suggest one be added, I suggest you add it to your comment/vote. Brianga (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD – A beloved actress by many, including myself, but not of the caliber for a blurb. Article could still use some sourcing improvement as of this comment, but it's largely good to go for posting imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Far too many gaps in referencing. Also Oppose blurb. She wasn't that important. Still very sad news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - She should be in RD as a notable actress and writer.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD on improvement Lots of unreferenced sentences and even paragraphs at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems referenced enough for inclusion on the RD list. Killiondude (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the guidelines for that specific level of references? After all, it's a BLP, so presumably you're not advocating we post an article with shedloads of unverifiable claims? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Her death was a surprise to many as she was only 60 (which is not "old" these days) and seemed to be in good health in her later years. She was known around the world for her portrayal of Princess Leia and many people knew her from other roles as well. I'm not a ITN regular, so if I'm missing why George Michael would get a blurb and not Fisher, please let me know the details. Thanks, †dismas†|(talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - this is a top of the field actress as part of a major film series. She is also a best selling writer and stage actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. The level of readership since the heart attack shows that she's in the same league as George Michael. Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both RD and blurb pending the addition of citations to cover the uncited paragraphs currently there. Supporting blurb on the basis that she was the lead actress from the third highest grossing film of all time. Miyagawa (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. I think the relative surprise of her death combined with her high profile role merit a blurb- though I can see the other side and am conflicted, but coming down on the support side. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am incredibly shocked about her death, and 2016 might be the absolute worst year for notable deaths. Damn you, 2016! 70Jack90 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too am shocked, but that isn't a reason to support or oppose this nomination; it needs to be evaluated per the guidelines. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Easily more notable than George Michael on a global scale. Elia Soaten (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. She's best known for being a supporting actor in three films that changed the world of film. But Mark Hamill did too, as did Peter Mayhew and Kenny Baker, but I doubt we'd see/have seen blurbs for any of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, what does Mark Hamill have to do with this blurb? Has he died? Do you own a magic ball to see in to the future with? Fisher is also a best selling author etc. BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting that comparing notability is, once again, deceptive and subjective. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are probably right Mark won't get a blurb. His career faded into utter obscurity and actually became the butt of many jokes post Star Wars. He was cast as the failure opposite to Ford's success. Fisher however became a voice for drug/alcohol abuse and depression. Her semi-biographical work, Postcards from the Edge was made into a movie. Her Biography Wishful Drinking was turned into an HBO documentary. Her mental illness and adovacy kept her in the limelight---people without mental illness and who don't know mentally ill people may not directly recall why she was in the news, but it kept her in the news.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb - top of the field actress deserves a blurb on ITN. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Have done some work on the citations and I think there's enough there now. Also support blurb due to her international renown (she would be recognisable and known in many parts of the world as Princess Leia). MurielMary (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb she was known for a single thing, and died of poor health. No need to appease the nerdom. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that "she was known for a single thing"(known for writing and mental health advocacy) as well as "died of poor health"; this states "Fisher showed no sign of being ill". This was a surprise. If you don't want to "appease the nerdom", fair enough. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you go ask somebody on the street what do the know about Fischer will anybody say "writing and mental health advocacy"? At best they will mention she had an affair with an actual icon, icon which was married at the time. If SW7 didn't come out last year nobody would have remembered her, and with SW7 she had a very similar role to the freak death guy from the last ST. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, your rationale is confusing. She is a noted author as well as an actress. And for one of the most iconic roles ever. Are we suppose to take your rationale as a contemporary joke or are you serious?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Leia is "one of the most iconic roles ever". Do you have a source for that? Mary Poppins, Ripley, Hermione etc are all "iconic".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ok, the character was iconic. I'm still struggling for "one of the most iconic roles ever", especially as the most iconic moment of her iconic role is her being stereotypically nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt. Granted she took him out, with help.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt isn't that bad. Trust me, it could be worse. (Jar-Jar Binks was downright embarrassing.) epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fisher was known for being a main character in one of the most popular, iconic movie series of the entire century. (I'm assuming the above oppose vote ^^^ is a joke.) epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but Oppose blurb. George Michael and David Bowie and Prince, yes. Carrie Fisher is not at the same level as those celebrities. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Of the Star Wars actors and people, I would only put George Lucas and Harrison Ford at the level of warranting a blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. This is the sudden death of a well-known actress and writer. I don't see how people can feel she is less worthy of a blurb than George Micheal -- they both are. Calidum 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP. She is so well-known that NOT having anything on the front page makes WP look like it's slow on the uptake. Yes, the blurb could be improved but getting it up there quickly as-is is better than spending time to change it around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fret, it'll happen, probably sooner rather than later as more American admins come online, but we aren't a news ticker, that's for Wikinews. We actually should be trying to exercise editorial quality control, and until such a time that the article is well sourced per WP:BLP and WP:V we shouldn't post it. However, that won't amount to hill of beans once the usual crew get involved, so start your stopwatch, not long now! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason 2016 has been a smorgasbord of celebrity deaths is that we are the right number of years away from the period in time when celebrity culture really took off. So each year will be like this for the foreseeable future, with every person weighing in to support a blurb for the celebrity they recognise the most from their personal memories. Objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usual consensus is for an American admin to steam-roller across whatever discussion is happening and post popular Americans to RD regardless. It's happened for a couple of a years. If we can "change the usual consensus" to avoid that, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure that's not what you meant but that's the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting sucked into more of your shit, thanks. Please take your negativity elsewhere. Best, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ... creative interpretation of NPA. Note away; not a single other person is going to read it as a personal attack. I'm out. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you claiming what I'm saying is "shit" is abundantly a personal attack. Thankfully we have it on file, the ever-growing purple one. Good to see you're out, dereliction of your duty per WP:ADMINACCT, it seems you need to take a break to cool off. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not at all surprised that you -- particularly you -- would come to that conclusion? And why do I strongly suspect that you will automatically dismiss (as either inaccurate, inappropriate, or irrelevant) what I just said as shit ... although you will never say it in those words here? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still 10 [citation needed] tags to be fixed before this is even close to ready, even "just for RD". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Well known actress for 40 years, including an iconic role; well known author and mental health advocate. Also, if it matters, she is better known than George Michael. Neutron (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"she is better known than George Michael" according to whom? What metric are you using? Did she sell over 100 million records worldwide? No, she was a supporting actor in a movie franchise. Oh yeah. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a figure for how many people have seen the Star Wars films she was in, but our Star Wars article does say the films (probably including the three she was not in) grossed $6.46 billion, which is pretty good. She was a co-lead in the first three films, not a "supporting actor." As for George Michael, he appeals to a much narrower demographic. Both my 85-year-old mother and my 25-year-old son knew who Carrie Fisher was, but I strongly doubt that either knew who George Michael was until after he died. If that's not scientific enough for you, it's all I've got. Neutron (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb She had an iconic role in an extremely popular franchise. JDDJS (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I kind of knew that my hatting of the discussion would be reverted ;) In any case, there's a consensus for a RD when the references are fixed. Everyone, be nice when discussing other possibilities. --Tone 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I know it's a shock to us all and it's right after Christmas and George Michael just died and this is making 2016 suck even more but ... we did not giveLeonard Nimoy anything more than an RD when he died, and I daresay that in the context of the Star Trek franchise he was even more iconic than she was in the context of her franchise (plus, despite his own battle with addiction, he still managed to do more other work outside of the franchise and offscreen as well than she did). So if Spock's actor isn't blurb-worthy, Princess Leia's isn't, either. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Hey Daniel, nice to see you around—I know we met in 2012, but I can't recall if we've interacted since then. Anyhow, who's to say that consensus can't change? :-) Put a different way, is there a compelling reason to not post Fisher that doesn't rely on past discussions? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Hi again . To me this relies on the outcome of past discussions, not those discussions themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair... I agree Nimoy is a legend, but he was pretty old and Spock had been played by someone else for years before he died, while Fisher was young and still has another role as Leia coming up. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I would argue that all things considered Nimoy was more accomplished:
Fisher: Best known before A New Hope for her cameo in Shampoo where she became best known for something that happened off-camera: turning down Warren Beatty when he publicly propositioned her. Best known after, outside of the movies, for her supporting performance in When Harry Met Sally and a memorable 30 Rock episode. In between, was delegated by John Landis to keep John Belushi from using too much coke on the set of The Blues Brothers, in one of the all-time worst personnel decisions ever, and gave the best lowdown on what really happened on the sets of the Star Wars films in a lengthy Rolling Stone interview. Wrote the roman à clefPostcards from the Edge and the screenplay for its film version.
I'm not saying she never did anything else outside Princess Leia. But Leonard Nimoy was undeniably more accomplished, and we didn't give him a blurb either.
Oh, yeah, someone else was playing Spock, I know, to which I point you to the last scene of Rogue One (I joked when her episode on the plane was reported that that happened when she finally got a good look at how she looked digitally regressed in that scene). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb – An iconic actor (and only woman) from one of the best-known films of all time. And to those who say she is less well-known than George Michael, tell Google that. "Carrie Fisher" has over 28 million hits, while "George Michael" (a more common name to boot) doesn't even have 10 million. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I Googled "George Michael" and got over 28 millions hits. "Carrie Fisher" gets over 34 millions. "Leonard Nimoy" gets 3.7 million. I wonder what the Ghits will be in 5 years time? Really, though, we shouldn't be resorting to Ghits for something like this. I'd support a blurb to end this increasingly fraught discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for Blurb Can we just post it already? she died like 6 hours ago, she was a known celebrity mainly due to the Star Wars franchise so a blurb is acceptable. Fisher was young and I'm sorry that we have to move down George Michael from the news but this dead will be far more remembered in the next decade or so.--Stemoc 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably rename "In the News" to "In the Somewhat Recent Past". Neutron (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb I think the correlation of Star Wars fans and Wikipedia editors is causing some to lost sight, especially regarding the "more known then George Michael" which is bollocks and as one of the first gay mainstream pop stars infinitely more historically important and yes will be remembered more in "the next decade or so". We wouldn't post Mark Hamil so why Carrie? GuzzyG (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD As much as I am a huge Star Wars fan, I have to admit I don't think the article really qualifies for a blurb because it needs some improvement and Fisher, while definitely a notable and relevant celebrity, has not achieved the level of stardom and international fame as George Michael, Prince or David Bowie, who had blurbs. κατάσταση 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carrie Fisher herself said this:
"Perpetual celebrity — the kind where any mention of you will interest a significant percentage of the public until the day you die, even if that day comes decades after your last real contribution to the culture — is exceedingly rare, reserved for the likes of Muhammad Ali." - Carrie Fisher in The Princess Diarist
Quoted from the obituary in The New York Times. There is also an element of a quiet news period around Christmas and New Year giving greater prominence to celebrity deaths. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of expediting this, I see much sourcing has been added. There are about 4-5 places that need CNs, but this is far far improved from my initial !vote (notably, all films where she wasn't a major role are sourced, a key fact I am glad to see). I would propose to have this marked Ready for RD , and pinging @Ad Orientem:, @The Rambling Man: and @Black Kite: for concurrence. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been marked improvement but there are still serious gaps in the television and video game credits and further south. But we are getting there. On a side note, once the remaining cite gaps are filled I think we can put this in RD until consensus is gained on whether to blurb or not to blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent about 20-30 min to fill in a dozen+ gaps in the tv and video game sourcing. There are still some gaps, but of types that I am comfortable that can be fixed now this is at RD and balancing the timing aspect. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb This is looking in pretty good nick now. AIRcorn(talk) 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - I'm seeing sufficient international coverage. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: And can I add it is frankly embarrassing Wikipedia hasn't posted this yet. The article is in fine fettle, the subject is an internationally known actress with a starring role in several of the most famous films ever made, and practically every major English-language media outlet in the country has this as a top or the top story. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb: Classic case of both systemic bias and inability for the Wikipedia 'mob' to follow stipulated guidelines currently at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section. There is a sui generis clause in the section on RD which references blurbs. I want to take everyone to this page and this page, demonstrating the comparison between a true sui generis situation such as the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela, compared to the deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael, who are orders of magnitude less impactful. To me the question should be - tomorrow morning when I get up, will the death of Carrie Fisher be such a momentous event as to be the top headline in newspapers from Mumbai to Tel Aviv to Seoul? Because the deaths of Mandela and Michael Jackson were. The deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael will not be. That's not to say these individuals were not important or that their deaths were not sudden and sad, but that's precisely what RD is for! Colipon+(Talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: a similar and equally reliable test is to simply follow the "New York Times rule" - a very reliable gauge of any person's notability globally as it is widely recognized as the world's newspaper of record. The deaths of Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher were top "all-cap" headlines, taking up the majority of space on the front page of the print addition. The deaths of George Michael and Carrie Fisher will at most be a front-page inset, if it makes to the front page at all. Colipon+(Talk) 01:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot accept the idea that the New York Times is the world's newspaper of record, and I see no evidence that it is widely regarded as such. The NYT is hardly read in much of the world. The Guardian probably has a bigger worldwide presence. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your point, this is colored by my own bias. That said I hope you will also appreciate that I feel sometimes like I am the lone wolf fighting systemic bias here and giving things a truly global perspective- trying to bring perspectives from countries that ordinary Wikipedia editors have no exposure to or don't care to think about (with no malice of course). For what it is worth I have checked both state-run and more 'independent' Chinese websites and neither George Michael nor Carrie Fisher feature at all, let alone being the top headline - and if you respond by raising the 'state censorship card' I should make it clear that both the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela were top stories on Chinese web portals. Colipon+(Talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, I do very much appreciate your attempts to combat systemic bias and I agree with you here that Fisher doesn't warrant a blurb and the rush to give her one seems indicative of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, of the other large international wikipedias: dewiki, eswiki, ptwiki, frwiki, plwiki all have Fisher on their front pages - this does not appear to be solely an American story. — xaosfluxTalk 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, my argument had nothing to do with notability or international reach; it was about the magnitude of international significance compared to other, far more impactful figures, specifically as it relates to what constitutes the standard for a 'blurb' vs an RD. As a side point, those wikis you pointed out have different systems for organizing RDs, so they are not comparable to the English wiki. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it is worth, the NYT certainly used to share that position with the Times in the English-speaking world (including the ESL world and various Times regional editions). However, this is the post-truth era -- has been for at least 15 years now (correlated against certain world events and the rise of social media) -- and there is a significant percentage of the English-speaking population which no longer trusts any large-scale news source to give the appropriate weight to each piece of news, or even assumes that the really important news is being suppressed by precisely those institutions. All that being said, the front page/front section notability of either newspaper should not be taken as the sole measure of ITN notability ... although the front page/specific section (sports, entertainment etc) might be. Media outlets such as that are designed to have specialized sections. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the print edition won't come out until tomorrow, her death is front page center with a large photo on their page. Would not be surprised if it is an all caps death in the print---look at the discussion generated.2602:30A:C7F8:75A0:E131:D2B9:43E:BBBB (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She has a fairly large article on the front page. About a fifth of the page including photo---below the fold, but still front page.74.124.47.10 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that I have to chime in to support, confirms my decision to retire a few years ago as this has become too big of a bureaucracy. Just about every major news source has Carrie's death on the main page. Carrie gained fame through Star Wars---arguably one of the most influencial films ever. The timeliness of her death, in conjunctions with Rogue One dominating the box offices and the revival of the franchise makes it timely. Wikipedia is one of the few resources that people come to looking for facts/information that still isn't reporting her death on the front page. Seriously, pick a media outlet, and she is on their front page! Even the Wall Street Journal has it on their front page! Breitbart---Check. Slate---Check. CNN/ABC/NBC/NYTimes/CBS/Washingtonpost/Huffingtonpost---check. And oh, between her glory days, she remained relevant as an author and advocate.2602:30A:C7F8:75A0:E131:D2B9:43E:BBBB (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (an admin known to use the ... a lot ;-) )[reply]
The US is not the only country with news sources to consider. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news ticker. It exists to promote high quality articles about topicla subjects that are "in the news." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb It would be hard to describe Carrie Fisher as one of the leading actors of the past few decades. If she qualifies for a blurb, there must been dozens of actors who would. That would lower the bar too far. The concerns about systemic bias also seem to me to have force. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD - leaving this open for determination if 'upgrade' to Blurb is warranted. — xaosfluxTalk 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb for much the same reasons as I opposed blurb for George Michael. The Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." Like my previous remarks, I would suggest that this is appropriate here as the other options (cause of death itself is a major story or rare cases [of] the death of major transformative world leaders) don't seem to apply here. Incidentally, while I would tentatively say that Carrie Fisher is a little more culturally significant than George Michael I don't think that argument really matters as neither of them were transformative world leaders. Greenshed (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose the blurb in general, I will point that here, Fisher had been in the news a week prior for suffering a heart attack, but which she seemed fine and recovered from. And then news she died, which no one was expecting. This far exceeds the "merely a statement of time and death", as the death was surprising. I just feel that the press are putting far too much on her being a major star of one overly popular film franchise, making her death seem bigger than life. They did the same with Nimoy, and we kept him to RD. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point (although I am not aware that any reliable source had said that she had recovered and was fine). However, the guidelines do not cover every eventuality and while the sad circumstances of Fisher's death are not quite a simple one-liner, her death itself was not a major news story like, for example the death of Gaddafi. Thinking about where to draw the line between RD and Blurb, I'd say that on the spectrum from a one line note of time and cause of death all the way through to a major news story about a death itself we are much nearer the beginning than the end. Greenshed (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given a quick glance at this discussion thread, the number of comments already posted and the relative split between support and oppose on the question of a blurb, I think the odds of gaining consensus are somewhere between slim and none. And I think I just saw slim hopping the last train out of town. But I'm WP:INVOLVED so I will let someone else close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I disagree. :-) Even when you made your comment, in pure numbers it was approximately 2-1 in favor of a blurb, albeit it's difficult to parse all of the statements above (I accept that you might come up with different numbers, but not enough to say no consensus). Plus there's another four supports below. Marking [ready]. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using a slightly longer glance I get a count of 14 people only supporting RD or actively opposing a blurb and 23 specifically supporting a blurb at the time of this comment. There are a few others that don't bold a preference saying things like Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP and just ordinary supports with no obvious position. Not quite 2:1, but not even close to slim. Especially given the four !votes below. AIRcorn(talk) 06:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about "American bias": It's important to note that visitors from the United States account for the highest demographic of users to Wikipedia ([25]) with about 20%, or 1 in 5 visitors coming from the U.S. It would make sense to post something relevant to those users, even if it reflects an American bias. Additionally, most actors and actresses are born in the United States considering that is where Hollywood is located, so it would also make sense to post a large number of popular Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:B15F:E82D:2A7D:BC0A (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot disagree too strongly with the above comment. We are not here to cater to any demographic or nationality. We are an encyclopedia, period. Nor are we a news ticker. If people want information that provides current news and caters to the interests of various groups, buy a tabloid newspaper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above is neither for, nor against this nomination. I'm just merely trying to rationalize as to why there is an inherent bias on ITN for American-related topics. The contributors to ITN are reflective of Wikipedia users as a whole, which is why there is always support for American-related topics. While it may be frustrating for us non-Americans, we cannot discount the importance and value of these American-related topics to American ITN contributors, and by extension, American Wikipedia users. Likewise, we cannot discount any other nation, like the United Kingdom or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or France or Germany, or, or, or.
Support blurb Carrie Fisher's death is top-page news and she played a central role in one of the world's most popular franchises, with which her face has become indelibly associated.--Beneficii (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – Fisher was a well-known individual, almost five decades within the film industry and obviously well-known across the globe for her notable role in an iconic franchise -- it stands to reason that we take note of this. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for blurb: If George Michaels who died suddenly at a relatively young age just like Fisher who died suddenly and had global fame and created a strong impact on pop culture and portrayed a cultural icon along that, then she deserves a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. IMO the current ITN standards for blurbs are too high and Fisher is an actress and celebrity of sufficient renown that a blurb is warranted, especially given the sudden nature of the death. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: I completely agree and would invite you to chime in more often here. The standards can only be changed with more editors and consensus. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for blurb (marked by someone before I could). Those supporting a blurb now outweigh the opposition 2:1, so consensus seems to be quite clear. Calidum 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The division really seems to come down to two specific issues. Well, three, if you count personal opinions about "Star Wars" by people who either never saw "Star Wars" or never saw anything in it, but that third does not seem to hold very much sway here at all.
The more minor of the original two is Fisher's personal credentials. I say "minor" as, in such a case, looking only at the personal credentials will inherently be swayed by personal opinion as to their value. To that, I would say that Fisher's credentials are certainly significant, but that she was not the Everest of any of her fields. To use the Nimoy comparison, Nimoy certainly came closer, although ironically he may have been handicapped in potential subsequent achievements precisely by his association with his most well-known role.
The other issue is the real elephant in this room. The original "Star Wars" trilogy was unquestionably a highly significant change, not only in the standards of SF space opera or in the film technologies used, but also in the way it ushered in the blockbuster (multiple viewing by a highly targeted audience) and tied-in merchandising filmmaking trends. (That effect may have started in the U.S., but it has definitely spread worldwide. You personally may not own a piece of SW merchandise, but I strongly suspect nearly all of you know someone who does.) Fisher happened to be one of three leading actors in that trilogy. Her acting in those films was reasonably solid, but not truly exceptional, as might be expected of someone cast in part deliberately because of her lack of previous major roles. However, her having acted in that role has indelibly associated her with that film franchise, especially in light of its recent successful revival with her in a significant role.
So the decision of "blurb-level newsworthiness" here rests almost entirely on to what extent Fisher's accomplishments are inseparable from the "Star Wars" phenomenon. If her other accomplishments are truly to be considered independently of Star Wars, she does not rate even an RD -- not because she has not done good things with her life, but because none of those things were genuinely exceptional within their sphere. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be exceptional anymore to make it to RD, just notable. AIRcorn(talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally, in this context, understand notability to require exceptionality in one's field, or possibly a key world event in which one was a major contributor. Otherwise we would be ITN'ing every single person who has ever appeared semi-regularly in the pages of a major newspaper. (Yes, "Star Wars" does qualify as a key world event, for the reasons outlined above. Not all key world events involve major loss of life, STEM advances, or politics. In fact, one of Wikipedia's ITN strongest systemic biases is the determination to share mass media's bias toward "if it bleeds, it leads".) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignored anyone's major claim to fame, they'd be a lot less blurb-worthy. Calidum 06:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that I chose to stay out of this vote. I consider my final paragraph to be a question I should not personally be answering ... not if I want to see my own ITN choices with anything resembling neutrality in the future. (The last time I argued for blurb vs RD was for someone who was genuinely considered exceptional (not just notable) in their own field, on a worldwide basis -- and I was still accused of regionalism, ironically by someone who personally defines it without in the least realizing it.) However, I do think that the way the community answers this one will identify very important things about the current nature of the Wikipedia community. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question people who support a blurb should argue why she deserves it when Leonard Nimroy didn't get one. Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it should be argued on its own merits. Besides, like all of Wikipedia, this place is inconsistent. What gets posted depends on who shows up and other vagaries. Also this happened, which has moved the goalposts somewhat. AIRcorn(talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That had nothing to do with blurbs. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb People seem to forget as well as being an extremely well-known actress world-wide, she was also a notable author and scriptwriter/editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with blurb. High profile individual whose impact went beyond just the Star Wars films. – The Bounder (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb posted per consensus established here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? I see many opposes, which in contrast to most supports are well-reasoned and based on policies and evidence. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I bet some supports came from Star Wars fans. Brandmeistertalk 12:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you are right. That's a no brainer, seeing as to how Star Wars is one of the biggest franchises in the world. That being said, Carrie's fandom goes beyond just Star Wars. Her battle with depression and drug addiction helped to destigmatize the issues and make it something people talked about. Her openness about her personal demons, post Star Wars, have helped millions of people. Yes, interest in her is high due to her being in Star Wars---but isn't that why virtually every news media is covering her death on the front page? Because it is a lead story? Her millions of fans are looking for the story and information related to her death, which is exactly what makes this notable and worthy of a blurb as compared to some obscure issue nobody has heard about or cares about? (Admin note, I already supported above under a different IP.)74.124.47.10 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Object to blurb post - What procedural legitimacy does the blurb have? Again, like George Michael below, this reeks of systemic bias. The more of these RDs we post as blurbs, the more we 'inflate' blurb-worthiness generally, as editors continue to cite precedence for later blurb posts. Colipon+(Talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Yes, she also did work in mental health advocacy and as an author, but she was by no means famed for this work internationally to the level we usually require of these blurbs. — foxj 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb and restore to RD. There is no evidence of consensus for posting this even if we accept some of the !votes that are obviously fan based. The argument for a blurb is extremely weak when looking at the ITN/RD criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the point of posting the blurb (which was within an acceptable timely manner to allow consensus to form given the time-constraints of ITN) there were approx 24 blurb supports, 9 RD supports but oppose blurbs, 3 opposes, and 4 generic supports. There was *clear* consensus to post a blurb by any standard under which WP:CONSENSUS is measured. If the best argument is 'fans voted for it' and other such vote-nullification arguments, you need to provide much better ones. As the choice between blurb and RD is basically a subjective opinion (not based on solely article quality like RD but on the super-notability of the person) complaining other peoples subjective opinion is wrong is not going to go far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said that much better than I can. The idea that there was no consensus was laughable. The pile-on opposes, from people who've already expressed an opinion, shouldn't change that. Calidum 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the bar is too low with this one. Maybe George Michael should be removed too, but that guy remained in the pop culture for a long time. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we close this It's up as a blurb, it's not unanimous and doesn't have to be. This conversation isn't likely to be productive, unless we go to WT:ITN to try to establish a way to differentiate RD and blurb deaths going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have done this - the guidelines are established at ITN/DC; no one cares to follow it because in reality, the closing admin looks at a group of "support" or "oppose" votes and decides based on their discretion as opposed to 'testing' the arguments presented against the 'rules' stipulated. Admins can step up and better enforce those rules - and remember that the most popular opinions are not necessarily the right ones. In my opinion a lack of standards also makes ITN one of the remaining 'amateur' corners of the main page, where our systemic bias is apparent for the rest of the world to see. Colipon+(Talk) 16:00, 28 December 2016 (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.
Support subject to referencing being brought up to standard. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He died on 24 December (sources just updated to say this). Which day should this nomination appear under? Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it has literally just been announced, then I'd say leaving it here is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Oppose' for now. Not in horrible shape but needs a little work on referencing and at least a line concerning his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks OK to me. I added a CN tag but I don't think that is enough to stop posting. The list of works is I think is fine with ISBN numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, is it too soon to re-visit your oppose? The referencing has improved and a line has been added since you commented. There won't be much to say about his death, other than the statement issued that he passed away peacefully at 10pm on Christmas Eve. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I dealt with that citation needed tag. Thanks for pointing that out. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [cn] there, needs fixing, then good to go. Not ready, yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging that TRM, and thanks for the other citation needed tag Stephen, I've dealt with both of those. A warning: some people (various IPs) keep trying to change the death date to 27 December ([26], [27], [28], [29]). Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All good, well done, good stuff. My post-posting support for what it's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last c/n has now been addressed, and there are no other objections; therefore, posted to RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2016 (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.jpg)
