Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2017

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

July 31

[edit]
July 31, 2017 (2017-07-31) (Monday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] Floods in Gujarat, India

[edit]
Article: 2017 Gujarat flood (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Flooding in Gujarat, India, kills at least 224 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 224 people are reported to have been killed in floods in the Indian state of Gujarat.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, NYT, Al Jazeera.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: "Worst flood of the century" 171.117.194.201 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed and marked [Ready] but not posted, possibly due to not noticing it. See archive on date July 27.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#.5BReady.5D_2017_Gujarat_flood (old nomination)

Iraqi embassy attack in Kabul

[edit]
Article: 2017 attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An attack on the Iraqi embassy in Kabul leads to a gun battle between ISIL and Afghan Special forces, leaving six dead. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It is notable being an attack on embassy apart from a other attacks in Afghanistan, which usually involves a bombing incident. Passed the sso called BBC-NYT test. Aslo gaining media coverage in Iraq and Pakistan. Amirk94391 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I've tweaked the blurb. What do you think of it now? Amirk94391 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sherenk1: I've added some more contents to the article. I hope you'll now consider it as a Start class article.Amirk94391 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Have I misread the consensus, or haven't we decided not to include perps in the death count? I'm of the opinion that the fate of a criminal does not belong in the title of an article about his crime. GCG (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The question would then be are the ISIL fighters criminals or combatants. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For intentional suicide terrorist attacks on civilians the consensus is not to include the perpetrator(s). For conflicts between conventional military forces the consensus is to include all the dead. For everything else there is no absolute consensus I am aware of, so we have to judge what makes most sense in the specific circumstances. In this case it's a matter of opinion whether ISIS fighters are terrorists or a (guerilla) army, so I think it best to just give the total and leave the detail to the article which can use as many words as necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I give total number of Tempel Mount shooting. It was considerd wrong. I am wondering what is the difference here. Diplomatic mission are not ussualy considered as a military targed. This is political attack not some military operation. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking generally, I'd say embassy attacks fall into the grey area. If the attacked embassy is nowhere near a war zone and operator and host are not currently engaged in the same war elsewhere (e.g. an attack on the Peruvian embassy in Argentina) then it is extremely unlikely to be anything other than a terrorist attack. An attack on an embassy located in a war zone is quite likely (although not always) to be military in nature, particularly if the operating country is involved in that war (e.g. the Russian embassy in Syria). It also depends on the type of attack - if its an air strike then obviously it's military, it it's a car bomb it's almost certainly terrorist or paramilitary. This means that who to include in the death toll needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this rises above the fray as a terrorist incident, and is borderline on WP:N(E). GCG (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Minor terrorist attack (killed two, in addition to the perpetrators) in a region where terrorist attacks are (sadly) common. I agree with GCG that this is borderline even to have an article. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Liu Wen-hsiung

[edit]
Article: Liu Wen-hsiung (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Focus Taiwan
Credits:

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: Taiwanese politician, short but solid article. EternalNomad (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics hosts announced

[edit]
Articles: 2024 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag) and 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The International Olympic Committee announces that Paris will host the Summer Olympics in 2024, while Los Angeles will host in 2028. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An agreement with the International Olympic Committee for Paris to host the Summer Olympics in 2024 and Los Angeles to host in 2028 is announced by IOC President Thomas Bach.
News source(s): NBC News Le Monde Independent Reuters Guardian
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: This has been announced as a done deal that will be ratified at the next IOC meeting in Peru. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBC mentions a statement by Thomas Bach on the IOC website. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scratch that—the reason I wasn't seeing it is because this story is three weeks old and had already dropped off the front page of their website. Oppose as stale. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's three weeks old why is it hitting the news in the US and France today? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. It's trivially easy to demonstrate both that the press release was dated 11 July, and that the story was in the press at that time.[1], [2], [3], [4] ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those stories refer to the beginning of the crafting of this agreement, saying that the final decision would be announced in September. Today they announced the agreement ahead of time. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (Leaning Oppose) - saw this, and was tempted to nominate. However, with the caveat that it is yet to be officially announced, I would wait for such an eventuality to post. Besides, articles need significant work to get up to standard anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the quality issues but how much more official can it get than the head of the IOC announcing this? 331dot (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The official step will be the formal elections at the 131st IOC Session. Merely coronations now but still the point when we should post. --LukeSurl t c 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that the ITNR listing only states "announcement". In the past that has been after the IOC vote, but they decided to do something different this time. The formal vote will likely get far less attention now. The vote has been described as a 'ratification' which suggests the decision will not change. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ratification refers to the cities giving their assent. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bach was referring to the upcoming IOC meeting.(see the Reuters story). Both cities are already excited and celebrating this deal. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (Leaning Support) - Unusual dual allocation so worthy of publication. But wait till the deal is official between the three parties, IOC, Paris bid committee and LA bid committee, some time in August. I know we are close, LA has declared their candidacy for 2028, but I would like formal statement from IOC that 2024 is Paris and 2028 is LA. Meanwhile, please upgrade the articles, especially 2028. Hektor (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now, pending quality updates Can you imagine how ridiculous it would look to post this months after it was known? It's extremely unlikely the "official" vote will even get much press. We're going to be getting "stale" votes. GCG (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this news is already stale. I say wait until it's a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a done deal. The 'ratification' being described for September suggests that the IOC voters won't be making the decision anymore, but agreeing to this agreement. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems like it is a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stale. The prior report indicated that the finalists for 24 & 28 were LA and Paris because no other quality bids were made. It was also stated that, logically, one city would get 24 and the other 28. In this, there was no great divergence from prior finalists announcements. The actual decision on the host city for each was just announced, so it is new. GCG (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with that. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IOC statement says The IOC will continue to work in close collaboration with Los Angeles in the lead-up to the possible ratification of the tripartite agreement by the full IOC membership at the 131st IOC Session in Lima, Peru, in September 2017. (emphasis mine). I know this is a done deal, but I don't think it's accurate to say the IOC have announced this. --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to ratify this would mean no hosts. It's a formality. The decision has been made. Bach certainly qualifies as an IOC representative. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alt blurb suggested. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alt. In general blurbs should always be technically correct IMO. --LukeSurl t c 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as stale per Iridescent. We've known since July 11 that LA and Paris were getting '24 and '28. That was the news story - the first ever double award. I don't think the order in which the two are going is that significant. Also, I doubt when this was added to ITN/R it was envisioned that there would be no other bidders except for the two winners.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy for this to post now, with the alt blurb, though I understand the arguments about the timing of this (IOC not thinking of poor ITN editors when they make these announcements, very inconsiderate). If this fails now, I think we can pass this as ITN/R on 13 September when the formal selection/ratification occurs.
Could Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics be linked (maybe as bold) from the word "agreement" in the alt blurb? It contains the relevant details nicely.--LukeSurl t c 16:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if it is posted now that it shouldn't be later. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Sam Shepard

[edit]
Article: Sam Shepard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Playwright, actor, author, Chuck Yeager in The Right Stuff. Hektor (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—not just paragraphs but entire sections are unreferenced. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per Iridescent. Huge swaths of unreferenced material here, most apparent in the "Writing and acting" section. Getting this article in shape could be a daunting task. A good start to getting this cleaned up would be to verify his actual "birth name," and then go on from there. Christian Roess (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sam Shephard died on Thursday, July 27. But his death was announced today (Monday, July 31). And that's across all media sources. Therefore, listing it today is justified, imo. However, in my experience posting to RD/ITN, this has often been a point of contention. So I say we keep it here under the July 31st section. As is. Anyhow, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. Christian Roess (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This was previously raised, and I believe the consensus was that we need to place this on the date, but we could use a "NEW" tag in the header to draw attention. GCG (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Is this a very recent consensus? Leonard Cohen's was left on the 10th. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm misremembering this, but up in yellow on this page we have "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." The "event" for RD would be the death, not the announcement of a death. We could be seen in this case as playing with the dates to keep a big name up (assuming it ever goes up). GCG (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a discussion about this a few months back. The consensus was that where there was a "significant" gap between the event happening and the event being reported that we would take the date of appearance in the earliest reliable sources as the marker for which section it should appear in. IIRC there was no consensus on exactly what "significant" means, but 1-2 days definitely isn't and 5-6 days definitely is. This was about 4 days which falls in the grey area, but personally I'd have placed it on the day of the announcement (31st). The [New] header tag is a much more recent idea, and that can be used to highlight any nomination made in the day before yesterday's section or older (use in yesterday's section is permitted but not encouraged), regardless of why the nomination was made there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that makes sense and I go along with that. Also, thanks to GCG for the link to that previous discussion Thyrduulf is referring to. OK, here's my take: This section is called ITN. The question is: when is the RD first "in the news"? Sam Shepard's death was "in the news" on July 31. It was not "in the news" on July 27, the date of Shephard's death. So let's post it under July 31. Next, we don't necessarily use a notability criteria to decide on an RD posting. We evaluate an article's quality first. But let's not ignore that the mainstream media does have a notability criteria for their obits. They do decide which deaths are "notable" deaths, and these are posted promptly. But on the other hand (as often as not) with less notable figures, there can be a lag time for their death announcement. And that lag times shows up in the RD nomination process. Here's a rather stark, but recent example: Sterling Seagrave. According to this source, Seagrave died on May 1, 2017 (see here: Verso: Sterling Seagrave 1937-2017). But his death was only announced 3 days ago (July 31). Right now, Seagrave's Wikipedia article has not been updated since he died. But if it is revised, and meets our quality standard, shouldn't we list his RD nomination under the July 31 banner? Of course. This seems to be the point Thryduulf is making: that's a "significant" gap. But how about posting the nomination today? I say that should be a consideration, because we still don't have Seagrave's obituary notice via any mainstream media sources. And the only obit source is from his daughter, which has been posted at Seagrave's publisher's website. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For a notice of a death, a close family member (who is not estranged and not in a dispute with the (allegedly) deceased) posting on a publisher's website is usually going to be sufficiently reliable. It's not independent, but that requirement is not the most important for verification of objective facts. If you do want to make sure, then look for coverage in local newspapers in the area where he lived and/or died. If they all report the death on 31 July then put the nomination on that date (mark it [New]). If there is nothing other than the publisher before today then put it on today's date, but I suspect that regardless it will be sorted to the 31st if/when added to the template. The oldest currently there is from the 30th so there is still time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:06, 4 August 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: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Al Arabiya
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is heading towards a war. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Stale] RD: Jeanne Moreau

[edit]
Article: Jeanne Moreau (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: French screen icon Sherenk1 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add CN tags at the end of each sentence where you want a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a BLP, so we should be looking to reference any and all claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of screen space, they were the two largest sections in the whole article, so I'm not sure how you needed guidance in finding them. But OK, they've been appropriately tagged. Add refs for those, and you'll be good. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

[edit]
July 30, 2017 (2017-07-30) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Venezuelan Constituent Assembly

[edit]
Articles: Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, 2017 (talk · history · tag) and 2017 Constituent Assembly of Venezuela (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Venezuelans chose more than 500 representatives who will make up a constituent assembly in a controversial election boycotted by the opposition. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Venezuela elects a constituent assembly in a vote that is boycotted by the opposition.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Venezuela elects a constituent assembly in a vote that is boycotted by the opposition and attracts worldwide criticism.
News source(s): The Guardin
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Besides being WP:ITNR, it is a polemic election: Decisive event during the Venezuelan protests, more than 14 deaths during the election day, several governments' spokespersons announced that they won't recognize the results and the United States vowed to take action against the election. Jamez42 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on principle but we need to definitely wait to know what the blurb should be. Far too much claims and misinformation from the two sides in Venezuela as well as other countries (like the US) trying to swing support. It's difficult to discern what the "truth" is here. -MASEM (t) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Added a blurb as well. Maybe too long. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits. This is not ITNR as this isn't a general election or change in head of state, but given the turmoil in Venezuela this does merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not on ITNR and the current blurb isn't neutral either. This could well be an important development in Venezuelan politics, but I think we should wait for the new constitution to be either voted on in a referendum or enacted without one. Forming the constitutional assembly is not in itself the big issue here - that is the constitution that they will produce. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An uncontested election in a country on the verge of civil war is not an election. This is an administrative matter that will have no lasting impact, as it's results will be not be acknowledged by the opposition. We rejected a similar vote 11 days ago in the same country for this reason. To post this now would confer legitimacy and show WP:UNDUE preference for Maduro. GCG (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The prior vote was essentially a poll of the populace called by the legislature. This is far more substantive. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that opinion pulling shows the NO vote eviscerating the YES vote. A success for YES, especially a large one, would show the boycott held. GCG (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an important development in the crisis, though obviously we wait till the results are announced. I've added an alt blurb that I think is more neutral. I think it is important to note the boycott in the blurb. I don't know if will make sense to quote the partisan makeup of the elected assembly in the blurb (i.e. "biggest party") like we usually do for parliamentary elections. --LukeSurl t c 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The preliminary (and official) results, according to the president of the Electoral Council, are that eight million people voted, meaning a turnout of around 40%; the final results will be very similar. The Public Ministry declared that the official number of deaths at the moment is 10. If possible, I recommend including in the blurb that the election took place among violence. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been a week since the nomination, the Constituency Assembly was swore in and it had it first session, so I added the Assembly article as article2 and I'll provide some of the highlights this week. I'm not sure about how's the best way to summarize the events in a blurb:
  • The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz was removed by the Assembly and Tarek William Saab was named as her replacement.
  • Diosdado Cabello declared that the Assembly would take place for two years (meaning that the new constitution may take this long to be drafted).
  • The European Union, Mercosur, the Organization of American States and the Holy See and several states condemned the election.
  • Nicolás Maduro becomes the fourth head of state sanctioned by the United States along with Kim Jong Un, Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad.
  • Over 10 deaths during the election day.
  • Smartmatic, the provider of the electoral machines, declared that the results were tampered. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Anton Vratuša

[edit]
Article: Anton Vratuša (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vecer
Credits:

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: Yugoslavian and Slovenian politician and diplomat, former PM of Slovenia EternalNomad (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]
July 29, 2017 (2017-07-29) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

July 28

[edit]
July 28, 2017 (2017-07-28) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • 2017 Hamburg attack
    • One person is killed and four others are injured in a knife attack in an Edeka supermarket in Barmbek in the German city of Hamburg. Mayor Olaf Scholz said the attack was motivated by "hate". The attacker is reported to have shouted "Allahu Akbar" before attacking. (BBC)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: iPod nano

[edit]
Alright, the point has been made. Nomination in good faith, but snowball's chance in hell, etc, etc, let's spend our time elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 31 July 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.

Articles: iPod Nano (talk · history · tag) and iPod Shuffle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

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: Since Tone & Masem briefly floated the possibility of Microsoft Paint and Adobe Flash appearing as a RD, how about this? Mainly this nomination is to see how much support there is for non-living RD nominations, if that is even a thing. Notably current policy specifically says non-living entities are excluded, so if someone snow closes this citing that policy, I won't mind. This is unlikely to make it as a blurb since the product is relatively minor. Banedon (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Stale] RD: John G. Morris

[edit]
Article: John G. Morris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT [6]
Credits:

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: Long time photo editor for Life, NYT. GCG (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Paul Shanley

[edit]
good faith, but no support, and if we discount the implied outrage WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this still amounts to undue weight, and skirts the outer bounds of NPOV and BLP μηδείς (talk) 14:36, 30 July 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: Paul Shanley (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Paul Shanley, a convicted and notorious pedofile priest, is released from prison (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Paul Shanley, an American priest convicted of raping a child, is released from prison.
News source(s): NBC News, NPR
Nominator's comments: This has been all over the major news networks, especially because there was and still is high opposition regarding this release. 73.142.103.7 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you link to actual stories about this? It seems sensational to post his mere release.331dot (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is posted we'll need to be very careful about phrasing the blurb for BLP reasons - avoiding value judgements completely as we should not be making any in Wikipedia's voice (even if near universally shared) and cannot source anything else inline. I've suggested an alt-blurb that I think avoids any issues, but I don't have an opinion atm about whether this should be posted or not but very many people get released from prison after serving sentences for very serious crims, so the bar to ITN-notability is very high so it needs to be clear why we are featuring this one and I'm not sure that it currently is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, his incarceration didn't merit an ITN in 2005 and if an individual with a similar level of influence was jailed now it wouldn't be posted either. He's an appalling person and understandably some are enraged about his release but it looks like a run of the mill parole and not especially significant. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose who cares, on an encyclopedic level, that one paedophile out of hundreds of thousands (or millions?) has been released from prison? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not newsworthy for someone to be released after serving their whole sentence (meager as it may be). Any expectation that he would serve longer is misplaced and more suited for the sentencing phase. I think if we had truly massive news coverage and a GA, we could look the other way on the newsworthiness; that's really not the case here. GCG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to RD] RD: Charlie Gard

[edit]
Article: Charlie Gard case (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Following a controversial legal case, Charlie Gard dies from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Credits:

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: Highly publicised death following extended legal battle in the United Kingdom between the parents and the staff of Great Ormond Street Hospital. Posting as Charlie Gard would be fine, as it is a direct redirect to the nominated article. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, the word case is at the end for a reason. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this. As nominator, I support posting it in whatever form you wish to title it. The word case denotes, accurately, that the article is not about Gard in its entirety. However, this would not pass as a blurb, and is in the news. I feel it should be on the main page, the article condition assumed appropriate, rather than holding it back for semantics. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We made an exception for Ian Brady, so it don't know why we can't do the same here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I did not comment on that discussion but in reviewing it, it seems that some argued that Brady likely merited a standalone article. I am not convinced that Gard does. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are very busy, as we have to inform the BBC[1], The Telegraph[2], The Guardian[3], The Chicago Tribune[4], the Irish Independent[5], The Irish Time[6], The Washington Post[7], Reuters[8], The Associated Press[9] The New York Times[10] and a shed-load of other reputable sources that they have all been arbitrarily demoted to tabloid status by an IP editor on Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITN#Purpose - One of the stated purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I may be interpreting this in an incorrect manner (and am fully open to constructive admin criticism for doing so), but it seems to support User:LukeSurl. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support demonstrably global news and certainly fulfilling one of the ITN tenets of featuring items our readers would be looking for, medical conditions and legal cases make it even more encyclopeically valuable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I see the coverage and that the article is in good shape, and I don't see a problem with having an RD for a person that doesn't have a standalone article on principle. But the counterissue that the child never got past a year, so there's clearly nothing about him as a person that we can document, which becomes similar to the situation around putting Stubbs the cat in RD. Alternatively if we think of this as a blurb about a significant case over treatment rights in the UK, the problem is that there doesn't appear to be anything groundbreaking here yet to change the law or challenge that (something more akin to the creation of the AMBER Alert - we'd not have noted the death of Amber, but this would be more appropriate). And then one has to ask how many other such challenges like this happen out there and why this one is special to have this much news coverage. Hence my neutrality here, I could see this as a valid thing to post but also can see it problematic that reflects Western media bias. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is a time I need to remind the admins; no vote counting, judge it by the arguments. This case does not meet RD qualifications, there is no lasting impact, and it is a tabloid story. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: - Judging by the arguments, all three of these complaints can be addressed with relative ease. Multiple editors have invoked WP:IAR, which trumps RD qualifications. There is the same amount of lasting impact for this RD as there are for most, if not all, others - someone is dead. Finally, consult the cornucopia of non-tabloid, reputable sources added above in my response to a similar complaint. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The no lasting impact thing proves that this is tabloid story. Multiple users are wrong, and the reason why is that they think like tabloids. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to make a couple of points. First Charlie Gard absolutely would pass WP:ANYBIO. The only reason he doesn't have his own article is for the very good and practical reason that it is easier to fold it all into the broader discussion of his legal case. Secondly there is precedent for posting people to RD in such situations as we recently did in the case of the notorious serial killer Ian Brady. I concur that this should not be the norm, but this does seem like one of those situations where WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per TRM and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD per IAR. With everyone from Trump to the Pope weighing in, this is a truly international story and the article is good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Pawnkingthree and TRM. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Certainly meets the requirements. Rest in heavenly peace. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Covered in international media, I would dispute the claim it doesn't have a lasting impact- there's a BBC article at the moment entitled Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything, which as the title suggests lays out the likely lasting impact of the case, including the impact to the reputation of GOSH, the impact of digital media and the court battle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is posted, it should be as a blurb and not RD, as it is the event of his death and the controversy regarding him that is notable, leaving aside the fact he has no standalone article.331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as RD If the supporters feel this event is so notable that it needs to be posted, judge it on its merits as a blurb. What we are trying to do is squeeze a story that does not merit a blurb under the very low standard of an RD. Fine; but RD does have standards, which is that the person has to be notable enough to have an article. This is a clear cut case of WP:1E. RS are perfectly capable of posting tabloid stories, which is what this. We do not post everything that appears in RS, per WP:KARDASHIAN. GCG (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't necessarily call it a tabloid story, but definitely a case of media bias to pick up on one specific case where there was issues over parental control of treatment options over the hospital/government side, which is something that happens all the time. Why this case got called out of many, I don't know, but we should avoid catering to that. (In the states, we had a similar problem with Death of JonBenét Ramsey, in which most recognized that the only reason the case got as much media attention was that the family was white and affluent. I don't know/can't tell if that's the case here, but that's also not the only reason). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tabloid implies lurid or vulgar sensationalism. Debate related to the end-of-life law is fair game. When we pick up one case and make it the center of repeated and outsized coverage, it quickly becomes lurid and vulgar. GCG (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -it now appears that, aside from the RD nomination, there is a further debate as to whether or not this merits a blurb. Would such a debate procedurally necessitate a new nom, or would it occur here? Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need a new discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb. This child has generated more coverage and controversy than any of us likely will. His death is undoubtedly 'in the news', and at this stage no one seems to be arguing about the quality of the article title. The fact that a congenitally ill child who made international news has a brief personal biography seems beside the point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's pretty clear there's a well argued consensus in favour of at least RD, so let's post that ASAP, and we'll see what happens about a blurb. Unnecessary accusations of tabloid-brains have been proven suitably ridiculous as this has been covered in RS and globally. The debate here also should focus on the fact that we have an article, we have a precedent, we have no reason not to post this under the current criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as RD. I read a consensus in favor of posting, though certainly not universal approval. Much of the disagreement (though not all) centers on the lack of a standalone article for Charlie Gard. The current RD rules allow any person with a stand-alone article to be posted without regards to notability / significance provided their article is of sufficient quality. However, to my mind, there is nothing about the current rules that prohibit posting at RD for individuals who lack a stand-alone article, provided a consensus exists to do so, but such persons won't automatically qualify for posting. I suppose if someone wants to view this as an exercise of IAR then they are free to do so. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of IAR that one shouldn't let inflexible rules stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I disagree with the decision, I must commend the elocution of the judgement. Thanks for taking the time, @Dragons flight:. GCG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm late to this discussion, but I completely agree with Dragons flight's decision and reasoning. I've been rather disgusted by the relentless and disproportionate tabloid coverage, but RD is the correct place for this. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Inder Kumar

[edit]
Article: Inder Kumar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rediff
Credits:

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: Indian Actor Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pakistan PM court verdict

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Based on the Supreme Court verdict relating to Panama Papers, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) is forced to resign on corruption allegations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of Pakistan delivers a verdict in a case filed following the Panama Papers leak, forcing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) to resign.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Pakistan's Supreme Court has disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following an investigation into corruption allegations.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualifies Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following a corruption investigation.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigned after the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualification verdict.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support disqualification of a Prime Minister is really huge news. I would support it for ITNR.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on signficance (if the Prime Minister of Pakistan is head of state this might be ITNR) but I'm not a fan of the blurb - can it be more succinct? I haven't evaluated the article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance, wait until the article is brought into shape. I share Thryduulf's concerns about the blurb, and have proposed an alternative. Article has sentences and paragraphs lacking references, and suffers from an over-reliance on primary and/or out of date sources in several cases. The lead, for instance, does not reflect this verdict as I am writing this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's only "head of government" but I'd still support it for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding and support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: which statements are you referring to ? please point out so that I fix them without any delay.--Saqib (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: After a brief look: most of "opposition response", and a number of sentences in "Before the Supreme Court". Vanamonde (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: what do you think of it now? [7]. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: the article seems to be alright. I think it should be posted now without any delay.Amirk94391 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not fantastic, but better now, certainly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Since when? Thought they had less than 1.32 billion people of India Regards, theTigerKing  17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this been posted? Sca (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Jeff Bezos

[edit]
Consensus is clearly against. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 29 July 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: Jeff Bezos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos briefly becomes the world's richest person (Post)
News source(s): [8] [9] [10]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: He was briefly the world's richest person, since a lot of his money is held in AMZN stock, and AMZN just missed earnings. Regardless, CNBC says "he will likely take the crown from Gates more permanently in the coming days and weeks", and if we accept stock fluctuations at face value then statements like "Bill Gates is the world's richest person" are unprintable since if MSFT drops 50% tomorrow he'll suddenly no longer be the richest. Since there's no certainty the next time this title changes it'll be in the news, and since "Bezos' rise carries important symbolic weight — signaling Amazon's unbridled power and value, presenting a new face of outsized wealth to the world and heralding a new kind of billionaire who is skeptical of philanthropy and has massive reach in culture, technology and media' (per CNBC), I'm nominating this anyway. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I would support posting this if Bezos was on top for longer than 'briefly'. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in very good shape plus it's not everyday a person becomes the world's richest for a few moments. Worth noting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with 331dot that "briefly" is something of a problem. Is there an annual summary list or something a little less subject to hour-by-hour fluctuations? Also, the rank ordering of billionaires is of relatively little importance compared to most things that make it to ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little sceptical of this news story. Billionares' net worth aren't figures kept diligently updated on a spreadsheet somewhere, these estimates require a lot of guesswork about the value of various forms of assets, including those that aren't public. With good reason, World's richest person is a redirect to the article about the Forbes annual The World's Billionaires report, which is slower, more in-depth reporting. I'd prefer to wait until the next Forbes report and post that. Note that even with Forbes "world's richest person" excludes dictators and royalty who may be even wealthier. --LukeSurl t c 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if this weren't a fleeting happening, I don't think this is quite newsworthy enough. These folks' wealth is in stocks: stock prices fluctuate. Changes are inevitable, and unsurprising. Moreover this list, as LukeSurl pointed out, does not contain certain categories of people. Overall, not enough to be featured. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fact this only lasted a few hours shows how fluid this designation is. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Notional Wealth. Does not make any impact whatsoever! Regards, theTigerKing  18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Financial willy waving. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the above... unless I'm in his will. In which case I enthusiastically support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 27

[edit]
July 27, 2017 (2017-07-27) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and medicine

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: D. L Menard

[edit]
Article: D. L. Menard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: June Foray

[edit]
Article: June Foray (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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: Unfortunately, in terms of roles (of which she had many) much is unsourced, though I see a few "overarching" sources that could be used [11] [12] that can help. MASEM (t) 04:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But dahlink, who needs references ven you haf tcharm? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nitish Kumar

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:01, 1 August 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: Nitish Kumar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nitish Kumar is sworn in as Chief Minister of Bihar within 24 hours of his resignation from the same post. (Post)
News source(s): [source]
Credits:

Article updated
 RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 26

[edit]
July 26, 2017 (2017-07-26) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Ready] 2017 Gujarat flood

[edit]
Article: 2017 Gujarat flood (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 213 people are reported to have been killed in floods in the Indian state of Gujarat. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Indian Express
Credits:

 Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. Much like the China floods that were nominated not too long ago, this is the monsoon season in that area and this sort of flooding doesn't seem unusual. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Due to the number of people killed. Article looks good and well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a disaster of this magnitude generally mandates a blurb. Article seems well sourced, though is probably at the minimum detail required. Regularity of event doesn't really sway me, as, for example, we post details destructive hurricanes even though an annual hurricane season is predictable of itself. --LukeSurl t c 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I tried to find some historical figures to weigh how common this is, but failed. To LukeSurl's point, there is a difference between regularity and predictability. If we start posting natural disasters on ITN every week, we'd have to reevaluate our standards. But that is not a problem yet. GCG (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 3 support and one weak oppose, this seems good enough for an admin to make the call. Marking ready. GCG (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the article has enough content, it needs a good amount of copyediting. It currently reads quite clunkily. Trying to do some of that myself, but some of the information is not presented in a format that's easy to understand for readers (for example, The Banaskantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Morbi, Surendranagar, Mehsana and Sabarkantha received 267%, 208%, 189%, 174%, 172%, 130% and 115% rainfall respectively in the said period.) SpencerT♦C 18:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Spencer: fair point. I've made an effort to copy-edit, though in all honesty part of the problem is with the source material itself; hasty reporting in smaller English newspapers in south Asia tends to mean that grammar goes out the window. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renominated mistakenly. Already reverted. 200+ death is significant. Considered as the “the worst flood of the century”[13] in north Gujarat by state Chief Minister as the north Gujarat receives little rain in most years. Highlights changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Transgender ban in US military

[edit]
No consensus, and as noted, some official policy announcement would have to be made, and we don't really do mere tweets μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 30 July 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.

Articles: Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military (talk · history · tag) and Transgender rights in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States bans their transgender citizens from serving in their military. (Post)
News source(s): "Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' in US military". BBC News. 26 July 2017. Retrieved 28 July 2017.; Gunter, Joel (27 July 2017). "'My stomach dropped': Transgender troops hit hard by Trump ban". BBC News. Retrieved 28 July 2017.; Stark, Liz (26 July 2017). "Hartzler: Transgender service members 'costly' to military". CNN Politics. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article3 is not showing up but it's Vicky Hartzler. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - big news without any doubt, but it is being overshadowed by many other Trumpisms. ITN can't realistically become the Trump News Network, so I don't know is this is the story I, as a metaphorical editor of a news establishment, not an online encyclopedia, would run with. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about Trump. This is about transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the story is just a tweet by his Drumpfiness, so yes, it is. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There have been protests in the US as well as internationally.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People protest Trump daily. If we posted them all, we might as well call this the Trump Ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're protesting Trump the individual (who cares? we'll never become his BFFs), but the policies of the commander-in-chief when it comes to transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has also been tweeting that he dislikes AG Sessions, but Sessions still has a job. His tweets are not official policy. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about DJT? This is about transgender rights (transphobic work discrimination) and how it may harm our (inter)national security if transgender translators can't perform HUMINT for other US military personnel and their allies for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no change to their rights, just a tweet. The policy to expressly permit them to serve was never fully implemented, this is just the status quo. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nothing has actually happened yet, this is just a tweet by Trump. The military has made no moves to implement this yet and didn't even know he was announcing it. Trans soldiers being expressly permitted to serve was a relatively new policy as well, that hadn't been implemented yet. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not altogether clear that the blurb is actually true. Trump has tweeted his preference and what he wants to see happen. But that is far from the current reality. This may yet occur. But until it does, we can't say this. A tweet is not a formal policy directive. This appears to be premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Trump's tweet has not actually established any official ban as the current suggested blurb implies. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time. The "policy" appears to be up in the air: Trump says one thing, the army bigwig says no change will be made until something else. If we have more clarity on this, perhaps. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The generals have said that tweets are not official policy guidance. They are smarter than we are; they're disregarding his tweets. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:52, 31 July 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: 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, the CONCACAF Gold Cup concludes with the United States defeating Jamaica in the final. (Post)
News source(s): ESPNFC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: USMNT wins 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup, the biennial international men's football championship of the North, Central American and Caribbean CONCACAF Confederation of FIFA. JanderVK (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canada won once, ZOMG! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of fairness, the runner up has been someone else 9 of 14 times. So it's not exactly a US v. Mexico tourney. GCG (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know I'm wasting my breath, but I'll reiterate my previous opinion that these confederation cups need to be considered as a group. Either we post them all, or only the truly relevant Euros and Copa America. GCG (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Almost no meaningful prose describing the tournament. The "article" is not an article but rather a long page of tables with an introductory sentence or two about each. Not quality writing at all. --Jayron32 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - as per Modest Genius. It's arbitrary, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In essence, if you were to rank them this would be the #4 or #5 confederation tournament. --LukeSurl t c 13:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahead of Oceania, where New Zealand squashes small island nations every time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per logic above. The Gold Cup, at least internationally, is of minimal importance. I, for one, an avid football fan, had only passing knowledge that it was on, and no notion as to who won before seeing this nomination. I would place this on par with the AFC Asian Cup in terms of importance (and that is minimal). It is far surpassed by the Euros, Copa America and the AfCoN. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the women's cricket World Cup is important. You keep bringing it up even a week after it concluded. :)
I'm with him: no more posts about dames! GCG (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to STSC verifying their claim with reliable sources in an objective manner, otherwise we can discount that position as pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So a competition open to the best nations[by whom?] in the whole world is objectively less important on all measures than one open to only those from ~1⁄6 of the world? [Citation needed] Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for the Ashes. and the Rugby Championship. Six Nations. Boat Race... GCG (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody claims (afaik) the boat race is more important than the Women's Cricket World Cup, just that it is the most important event in rowing. This is not the most important event in men's football by a very long way, it's not even in the top 4. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"BOAT RACE KLAXON"!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • STSC I do hope your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote that as I find it rather offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • STSC It's fair to compare rationale for (not) posting something, but not directly compare interest. CFP should not be rejected on ITNC for being a second tier, amateur, college event when NCAA BB is on ITNR. But there will invariably be some second tier events in one sport that eclipse the first tier of others in audience. It's the primacy of the WWC within that sport that makes it important. As to how many people watch it, the answer is a) more than usual and b) enough to exceed the fringe threshold in the minds of ITN editors. GCG (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. "We already post five football stories per year; this is nowhere near the same level of importance [as other football stories]". Banedon (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Soccer is plenty represented in ITN/R. If the USA men's team won a soccer tournament, that tells me all I need to know about the level of competition. If we beat Jamaica, that tells me more than I need to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Murica - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu

[edit]
Article: Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Couple of unferenced statements, but generally in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just add a second line? That is done occasionally, no? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it merits discussion, and with this READY so soon after death, there's little harm in waiting 6 hours for comment. My vote is to post per WP:WIAE. We post images of Mohammad, the article for Emperor Shōwa is entitled "Hirohito." I totally respect the argument, but without wiping the entry as well, what's the point? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually those are false equivalencies. A better example is Madonna/Bono. I support this suggestion and think we should change title of article, with full name in the first line. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for being sensitive, but it's not possible for us to list this on the MP without using his name, in one form or another. That article suggests that any form of the name - not just the full one - would have to be avoided. I think WP:NOTCENSORED has to apply - we don't avoid using a neutral and factual phrase on the MP just because a certain group of people might find it objectionable. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 World Aquatics Championships

[edit]
Consensus against. --Tone 18:29, 26 July 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: 2017 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14] and a variety of others
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Multi-sport international event, plenty of subpages (e.g. North Korea at the 2017 World Aquatics Championships) most of which are being updated. Banedon (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I oppose as ongoing as ongoing is not generally meant for sports events in progress; the end will be posted as ITNR if article is OK. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics is posted because it is a multi-sport event; its article or related articles are incrementally updated- as well as interest in it. The World Cup is posted(which I've opposed in the past) due to its sheer popularity worldwide. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Temple Mount crisis

[edit]
Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 27 July 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: 2017 Temple Mount crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Already a discussion in ITN to nominate this as ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 25

[edit]
July 25, 2017 (2017-07-25) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Politics and elections

[Closed] Adobe Flash no longer updated

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:48, 31 July 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: Adobe Flash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Adobe announces it will cease maintenance of its Adobe Flash Player in 2020. (Post)
News source(s): [15] [16]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Mainly nominating this because the current blurbs are so one-dimensional ... Flash is iconic and very well known, but it's been declining for a while, and now it's finally getting killed. Could expand the blurb to link Comparison of HTML5 and Flash too. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article looks good. Also quite significant since Flash was really noteworthy in usage on the Internet. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Things can change between now and then. And we normally do not mark the "death" of a software product since it is not really dead. (Eg there's a reason why the ransomware attacks were able to exploit XP systems far pass MS's lack of support for them). --MASEM (t) 05:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Microsoft announced Paint was dead, and then changed their mind. Nominate it if it actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The article is indeed pretty good, and it would be nice to feature something a bit different. But the actual event isn't until 2020, assuming they don't change their minds or the schedule. Announcing that they intend to do something in three years isn't a major encyclopaedic event - though the actual end of maintaining this important software might be. Unfortunately I don't think there's much of an alternative to saying 'come back in 2020'. Modest Genius talk 09:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I would probably support posting this..... in 2020. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with above, but I'm guessing by 2020 this will be less relevant. "Old soldiers never die..."GCG (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The internet is going to start changing in response to this. Flash was used all over and this is one turning point. Wikipedia can't reject events than happen over the course of years without having a highlight day in which some bomb explodes or some President is elected. Rich web games and web content is now doomed. So many different well established and popular websites all have their days counted in their current form due to primarily working with Flash and the impossibility to do the same with HTML. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose now. This is just an announcement that something will happen in 3 years if nobody changes their minds. I might support when support is actually ended though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until 2020 when it actually does stop getting updated, if that actually happens. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - So what, software comes and goes, that's the nature of IT. STSC (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - STSC As much valid as presidents coming and going, being the nature of presidency. Yet, that never fails the news. It's not unimportant software, think of .swf files having the usage of .jpg, .mp3 and .gif files for example. Yes, they had that much usage across the web at one point and it's now ending. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if one believes the source then it's hard to see Adobe changing their minds. Microsoft is phasing Flash out on its browsers, Google is doing the same, Apple is supportive of the 2020 timeline as well. Quoting The Verge, "HTML5 standards have been implemented across all modern web browsers, and the need for Flash just isn’t there anymore". Banedon (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the nominator that the current blurbs are a bit dull - ITN/R sport items and two not particularly notable people dying who should be in the RD section - so this would at least be something completely different. I also agree that this announcement is unlikely to be reversed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Barbara Sinatra

[edit]
Article: Barbara Sinatra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

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: Fourth wife of Frank Sinatra Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]
July 24, 2017 (2017-07-24) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and medicine
  • Charlie Gard case
    • The parents of the terminally ill Charlie Gard give up their legal challenge over treatment in the United States. The latest medical reports indicate that the window of opportunity no longer exists. (CNN)
  • Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
    • A girl born with HIV, who was started on HIV drugs when she was 2 months old and stopped 40 weeks later, is virtually-free of the virus even after no further treatment. (CBS News)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] Lahore suicide bombing

[edit]
Article: July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A suicide bombing in Lahore, Pakistan left 25 people dead and wounded 53 others. (Post)
News source(s): BBCDawn, Dunya News, The Express Tribune
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths in a notable city. The blast is getting media coverage across Pakistan and many other countries. Passes the so-called BBC test. Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, it's a routine bombing in Pakistan, and all the articles cited are boiler plate 3 paragraph "This happened, this many people died, we think it was this islamist group". I don't care about "international importance" but unless I actively search for the story, I don't see it any place. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't even the deadliest attack of the day. 36 were killed in Kabul. Another 35 in Ghar the day before. These were not even nominated. "If you think those were notable, you can nominate them." Yeah, and then I'm being pointy. We're going to need to work this out sooner rather than later. GCG (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Article meets ITN standards quality-wise and there is consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sun Zhengcai investigation

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:46, 31 July 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: Sun Zhengcai (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sun Zhengcai, a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, and the party chief of Chongqing, is placed under investigation. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sun Zhengcai is removed from office as the Communist Party Secretary of Chongqing and placed under investigation
News source(s): The New York Times, Financial Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: An "investigation" of a sitting Politburo member has happened only four times in the last 20 years, and is considered an event of extreme significance in the Chinese political scene, because it ends the career of the subject of the investigation. To be clear on precedent, the analogous case of Bo Xilai – also a Politburo member and a Chongqing party chief – in April 2012 was posted on ITN; the investigation into Xu Caihou and Zhou Yongkang (former Politburo members at time of investigation, not incumbents) were also featured on ITN. The timing of the investigation also means it will significantly impact the upcoming 19th Party Congress, an event closely watched by both domestic and external observers. Colipon+(Talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Colipon+(Talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one imagines that people across the world are placed under investigation every day. This may be more significant but it appears from the nomination that it's the subsequent ramifications which should be newsworthy, and we're yet to see what they really are. Everything else seems speculative at this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "investigation" is highly charged and should be considered in its independent context; it is essentially a irreversible indictment in Chinese political parlance - a death knell. There is been no known instance of anyone who was placed under investigation by the party's disciplinary authority and subsequently "cleared", therefore the news is most shocking when the announcement is made, not when the results of the investigation are known. Same argument was made at Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang. Colipon+(Talk) 12:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To TRM's point, it looks like Bo Xilai was posted after he was expelled, correct? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a mere (even if rare) investigation because he could be cleared. Would support posting his conviction/expulsion. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ITN practice has long been that conviction is the point at which these sorts of stories are posted. Just because nobody has been cleared before does not mean that it will not happen on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think one guy did get cleared once. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing this in google/bing news feeds, but the fascist regime of the CPC isn't exactly known for rule of law in a country where billionaires disappear. Being "investigated" is as good as found guilty over there, the rest is a formality. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Most outsiders don't seem to understand the significance of this event. Politburo members are usually untouchable in communist China; if one of them is being investigated by the state, it's certainly significant news in itself regardless what the outcome is. STSC (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, systemic bias at its best here. Colipon+(Talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're still talking only an investigation. We're well aware that likely means the end of the career, but we presume innocence to start, and so only at the end of the investigation does it make sense to post. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already stated that I would support posting the end game of this investigation, even if that outcome is virtually certain at this point. We haven't (rightfully) posted investigations into Russian interference or hacking; I don't support posting this mere investigation either. No bias issue for me at all. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is who is being investigated here, the outcome is secondary. This event significantly shows that the anti-corruption campaign in China is targetting the "big tigers" as quoted in Chinese press. I think it's much more significant than the "Women's Cricket World Cup", just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket), which was quickly posted on ITN. STSC (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you consider significant is not necessarily what others consider significant; hence the need for discussion like this before posting. India, a participant in the Cricket World Cup, has 1/7 of the humans on this planet. Clearly cricket is notable to many- and has now been added to the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, second STSC's comment. It is laughable that Women's Cricket World Cup, an event of (relative) little consequence even in the countries involved, receives ITN coverage but not Sun Zhengcai. To be clear, it is not just the 'investigation' that is the bombshell here - it is the fact that Sun was abruptly removed from office. It totally, suddenly, and irreversibly changes the Chinese political landscape (second most consequential only to the United States). Colipon+(Talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn, "India is a big country so cricket is news", that argument is as tired as it is ineffective. Anyway, there will be no "end" to this investigation. Sun will just quietly go away. That's how they do over there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where I'm coming down on this, but the opposition seems to be pulling the "Evolution is just a theory" card. You may choose to reject the factual basis of Colipon's characterization (essentially that Sun has already been convicted) or you may accept it but still dispute the worthiness, but to say "we post convictions not accusations" is side-stepping the issue. GCG (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreatCaesarsGhost: Why do you say that? The news is that he has been placed under investigation, not that he has been convicted, so why is it sidestepping the issue to point out that we don't post these sorts of stories until conviction? Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the weight of various stages of a criminal/political proceeding are not the same in various countries. The proper course for ITN voters is to weigh the prima facie case of the nomination, in this case that a) this act is "a death knell" (to quote Colipon), b) it is extraordinarily rare, & c) due to the role of the office in the country and country in the world, it is significant. To say we don't post indictments ignores the entire case of the nom, but specifically the first point that this is not a indictment in the common parlance. I'm going to register myself as weak support, because in each case a) Yep, all signs point to the criminal justice system in China being a formality to execute the wishes of the CPC, b) seems true, but c) I don't understand the internal politics enough to know if the change from this guy to his replacement matters at all. GCG (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main point remains - the Chinese internet is largely walled off from the global internet; assuming Chinese internet users were proportionally represented on the English Wikipedia - or even Wikipedia more generally, it would be a 'no brainer' to post this story - because the significance is so obvious to those familiar with the matter - it is a bombshell of immense proportions - and has happened exactly three times since 1990 (Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, Bo Xilai.) That the subject matter needs to be justified at all seems to reflect overall systemic bias. In response to @GreatCaesarsGhost:, Sun's dismissal changes everything about the upcoming 19th Party Congress. It was anticipated that Sun would be a successor candidate to Xi Jinping; that the party was to remove such a high profile figure speaks to a total revamping of the 'rules of the game' and irreversibly re-shapes the political landscape. It is of course difficult for those who live in an electoral democracy, unaccustomed to the machinations of a one-party state, to appreciate the significance of this, so I don't hold it against the editors personally for opposing such a nomination. But for the sake of balance and in light of the arguments made, I urge the final adjudicating admin to weigh the arguments on their merits and consider the issue of systemic bias seriously. For what it's worth, at the Chinese wikipedia, the item is #1 on its ITN feature. Colipon+(Talk) 04:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colipon, maybe the blurb could also include the 'Anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping'. STSC (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for a conviction. However much we might think it's inevitable, that is the standard we have always applied (see the recent item on Lula's conviction in Brazil). If a major Politburo member is convicted and removed from office that would probably be notable enough for ITN, but merely announcing an investigation is not. 'Innocent until proven guilty' might not have much currency in China, but it does at ITN (and is enshrined in Wikpedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME). Modest Genius talk 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The way these Chinese "investigations" work, at least as reported in state media, is that you don't get a formal investigation opened (with a public announcement, no less) until they already have decided that you are guilty of at least some violation. Given such an announcement, the chance Sun will escape unscathed is basically zero, and that's not mentioning that Chinese state media for the past few days are filled with stories announcing local officials' support for placing Sun under "investigation", and there's no way in hell they'll back out now. I don't have much to add to Colipon's description of the significance of this event. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The president of the USA doesn't get an impeachment hearing until the senators are convinced he's guilty of at least some of what he's accused of. We still don't post until he's either impeached or not. In this case if it's been decided already that he's guilty then they will announce the guilt at some point. That's when we'll post (assuming the article is of sufficient quality at that time). Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That analogy is so completely inapt that I'm at a loss for words. To start with, the House of Representative impeaches; the Senate tries the impeachment. If you are actually claiming that the Senate has ever refused to try articles of impeachment passed by the House due to insufficiency of evidence, please provide a reference, otherwise you are just making things up. The way the Chinese system works, we are way past the point of no return. The chance he'll be cleared is zero; the chance that he'll avoid criminal prosecution is minuscule. It's like insisting on not posting about someone's death until the official autopsy report is released months later. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what Thryduulf is saying is that the House won't vote to impeach unless they are reasonably sure that the Senate will vote to convict. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? You honestly think the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton "reasonably sure" that at least 12 Democratic senators would vote to convict him? Regardless, the analogy is still utterly inapt; in the CCP system at issue here, the "investigating" and the "convicting" are essentially by the same body, and they don't publicly announce a formal investigation until they already found that the subject is guilty of some "violations of discipline". T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Balangiga bells

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 11:37, 26 July 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: Balangiga bells (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte asks the United States to return the Balangiga bells taken during the Philippine–American War. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post, United Press International
Credits:
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 23

[edit]
July 23, 2017 (2017-07-23) (Sunday)
Armed attacks and conflicts

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] RD: Flo Steinberg

[edit]
Article: Flo Steinberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News
Credits:

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: Comic publisher. Article looks OK. LukeSurl t c 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: John Kundla

[edit]
Article: John Kundla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [17]
Credits:

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: 5-time NBA Champion GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

got that one, don't see any other concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so. Added citations for the NBA & NBL, college is cited already. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Bob DeMoss

[edit]
Article: Bob DeMoss (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox 59, Purdue Sports
Credits:

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: High-profile college football player and coach with legendary career at Perdue University. Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Embassy attack in Amman

[edit]
Article: 2017 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Amman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A shooting at the Israeli embassy in Amman, Jordan, leaves two Jordanian and an Israeli wounded. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Attacks on embassies is not common in Jordan. Article still needs to be updated as possible connection with recent tensions at Jerusalem Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Open Championship

[edit]
Article: 2017 Open Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Jordan Spieth wins the Open Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Stormy clouds (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup

[edit]
Article: 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Women's Cricket World Cup concludes with England defeating India in the final. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article (and associated articles) is now fully updated. Anirudh tope (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I noted that ITNR only covers the men's cup, Cricket World Cup. Should we assume that also implies the women's cup, to avoid the gender systematic bias? --MASEM (t) 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say we should assume so, or even ignore ITNR and post this anyway; we have enough men-only sporting events, as it is. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just thinking we should make that explicit at ITNR, just wanted to make sure. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say no seeing as the ITN/r for football specifically states Women's World Cup. AIRcorn (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance, wait for the article to come up to scratch after the final is over. I've never been a fan of this type of wording, though. Why can we not go with "Country X defeats Country Y in the final of the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup", which seems more natural? Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree we don't need the "In cricket", since the event's official title has it. It's not like, say, Daytona 500 that's its not clear its a car racing event, so we need that "In car racing" prefix. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: We deliberately avoid that phrasing, because of the WP:ENGVAR issue on teams being plural or singular. British English uses 'defeat' whilst American English uses 'defeats' in that situation; both varieties think the other is ungrammatical and complain at WP:ERRORS. To avoid argument ITN has adopted a specific phrasing that all varieties of English agree makes sense. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance (you beat me to nominating this 😜!). I don't think the current ITN/R item covers this. Obviously we need to wait until the match is over and the article is updated adequately. --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket)... it's hardly "globally significant". STSC (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Tour de France

[edit]
Article: 2017 Tour de France (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Chris Froome wins the Tour de France (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In cycling, Chris Froome wins the Tour de France for the fourth time
Alternative blurb II: ​ In cycling, (insert name of winner) wins the Tour de France.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I know it hasn't finished, but the last stage is largely ceremonial. In the unlikely event Froome fails to finish then we'll have to go with altblurb2. Article looks in good shape too so should be ok to post on completion of the stage. yorkshiresky (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lau Wong-fat

[edit]
Article: Lau Wong-fat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): South China Morning Post Hong Kong’s ‘King of New Territories’ Lau Wong-fat dies at age 80; Hong Kong Free Press ‘King of New Territories’ Lau Wong-fat dies at 80; RTHK Rural leader Lau Wong-fat dies aged 80; Apple Daily 「新界王」劉皇發逝世 享年80歲; Oriental Daily News 鄉議局前主席劉皇發逝世　享年80歲
Credits:

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: High-profile figure in Hong Kong, arguably the most significant indigenous Hongkonger prior to his death. feminist 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shall put my support on hold. STSC (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

[edit]
July 22, 2017 (2017-07-22) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Jim Vance

[edit]
Article: Jim Vance (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A bit of a local story, but a pioneer for black journalists and a remarkable life. Article seems pretty good as is. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Stubbs

[edit]
Article: Stubbs (cat) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [19]
Credits:

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: I think it's been a while since we had an animal on RD, so here's the Alaskan cat mayor. Article doesn't look bad. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose amended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that wasn't offered before. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the questions about the notability of the article remain in question enough that the DC aspect should not apply here. (Arguably if the bulk of the article is sourced to obits, that fails BLP too). --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the article isn't sourced to obituaries and it has just been kept at AfD so I don't think that notability can be said to be in question. 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't see how the notability is still in question. It's mostly just the same few people who wanted it gone beating that drum. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something feels wrong with how this article developed, though I have to admit before the cat's death, it did have some notability (the obits pushed it over, but we generally avoid notability of people that are only notable for their deaths). To that end, I'm changing my !vote to neutral. I recognize the RFC, this fits, there's no technical reason not to post, but with a spat of RDs of actual people, displacing one for a cat seems wrong. And maybe that's the issue to address in talk. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the point of having animals in RD if it's just going to be ignored every time? We went through the same thing with Pedals the bear.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question. Consensus was clearly in favour of individual animals with standalone articles being eligible for RD on the same terms as humans (i.e. subject to article quality alone) - and it's even mentioned in the nomination template. There seems to be a lot of IDONTLIKEIT around this cat for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree with that. It seems like a game of chance if you're going to nominate an animal, and it probably shouldn't be.Nohomersryan (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: John Heard

[edit]
Article: John Heard (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, is start-class. I've listed this under July 22, but sources seem to be in dispute over his date of death. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] National Council of the Judiciary

[edit]
Laws were vetoed, so nothing has changed. BencherliteTalk 11:16, 26 July 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: National Council of the Judiciary (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The upper chamber of the Polish parliament approves controversial legislation to restructure the National Council of the Judiciary. (Post)
News source(s): [20] [21]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The European Union has suggested it may suspend Poland's voting rights in the European Commission should the legislation pass. This would mark an historic, first-time use of the EU's Article 7 powers. Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's a lot of "ifs" here, the issue would be if the EU evokes Article 7 (suspending Poland's vote in the EU). Passing this does not assure that Article 7 will necessarily be enacted. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the EU does invoke Article 7 then that's definitely ITN-worthy, but let's wait until it happens, if it does. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Article 7 is invoked, which would merit posting(suspension of a nation's vote in a major international organization). This is just one step. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - isn't this a bit bigger than just the Council of the Judiciary? If I'm understanding this correctly, the controversial law includes sacking the entire supreme court.[22] Rami R 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rami R there are actually three separate bills. The article on the National Council of the Judiciary, which I wrote and to which my nomination links, only mentions the first of them (which would restructure the Council). The Supreme Court measure is in a different bill. TIME has the essential nature of the legislation correct, but they've played a bit fast and loose with the details and seem to have reimagined several distinct bills as a single piece of legislation (sort-of how authors sometimes create composite characters out of real people, I suppose). Chetsford (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If all these laws are being advanced, I believe they are collectively significant enough for ITN. Chetsford, would expanding Judiciary of Poland to include these developments be feasible? Rami R 07:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 21

[edit]
July 21, 2017 (2017-07-21) (Friday)
Armed attacks and conflicts

Arts and culture
  • Salvador Dalí
    • The remains of surrealist painter Salvador Dalí are exhumed following a Madrid court order on settling the paternity claim of a woman who is allegedly the painter's natural daughter. Various experts contest the claim, noting Dalí's sexual eccentrism (including a public boast about his "impotency") and that the action being against the state (Dalí bequeathed his estate to Spain). If proven, this woman could assume part of Dalí's estate. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and election

[Closed] India train food declared to be unfit for human consumption

[edit]
Strong consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 24 July 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: Indian Railways (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India train food declared to be unfit for human consumption (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user may be saying that this should be posted to address systemic bias, but that doesn't override the need to update the article and better explain why this should be posted on its merits. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 Aegean Sea Earthquake

[edit]
Happily this doesn't appear to have been as bad as it might have been. In any event the nomination doesn't look like it's going anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 22 July 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: 2017 Aegean Sea earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 6.7 magnitude earthquake strikes Greece and Turkey (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 2 killed and more than 200 injured due to an earthquake striking Greece and Turkey
News source(s): [23] [24] [25]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Ongoing event, but should be put ITN ASAP for relevance. User:Ravivyas16 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until it can be determined if there are large scale casualties and/or damage. Nothing needs to be posted ASAP; only when it's ready to be. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As it stands 2 killed, 200 injured and no significant damage reported this is nowhere near significant enough to post. If things significantly change from that it might merit ITN, but not yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 20

[edit]
July 20, 2017 (2017-07-20) (Thursday)
Armed attacks and conflicts
  • Syrian Civil War
    • Syrian rebels, who have benefited from the "covert" CIA military aid program, say they have not been officially informed of the U.S. decision to stop this aid, and add that its full impact depends on whether U.S. allies Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey continue to support their fight. A Free Syrian Army commander warns this decision risks triggering the collapse of the moderate opposition. (Reuters)

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: John McCluskey

[edit]
Article: John McCluskey, Baron McCluskey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, The Scotsman, The Herald, The Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A 'Giant of Scots law'. He was a former Court of Session and High Court judge and Labour Peer. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: I have added further references to the article and I think the issues that you had picked up on have now been addressed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I now Support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majorana fermion

[edit]
Article: Majorana fermion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Majorana-like state in a quantum semiconductor-superconductor interface is found (Post)
News source(s): [26] [27]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article currently not updated + tagged as technical. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... so source it to something else? Really, I don't think it should be compulsory for the nomination to give the best sources. You can fill in the blanks yourself. In the same way a scientific paper never explicitly tells you where the relevant sentences are in the reference, they just give you enough information to identify the source and leave the rest to you. [28] [29] [30] [31] found all that in under a minute. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is incumbent upon the nominator to update the article, which you have not done. Telling me to do it is asinine. And the reason I lay into the press release is that that piece of garbage is taking credit for the discovery done by researchers at other universities. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is factually wrong. There is no requirement that the nominator has to update the article (there's a reason the "nominator" and "updater" are separate fields) That said, if someone says "this should be ITN" and repeatedly argue that point, and do nothing to help the article, that's poor behavior. It's also on the nominator to show reasonably strong sourcing to support the ITNC if the article is not properly updated. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so let's pretend that we can all nominate articles that haven't been updated, because they will magically get updated. The reason the "updater" is a separate field is so that the updater can get credit, not so that users can nominate articles that haven't been updated. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I used the Stanford press release is in this nomination. Are you criticizing me for not updating the article because I used the Stanford press release in this nomination? That doesn't even make sense to me. Also, when you're done updating WP:ITN to specify that nominators must update the article, let me know. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm criticizing you for asking us to believe a load of malarky put out by an overeager, attention-hogging PR operation run out of Stanford. Abductive (reasoning) 15:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for you to submit a rebuttal to Science arguing that the original article should not have passed peer review. If you don't like the Stanford PR release, look up another source. I did not "ask" you to believe the PR release, but if you're going to say "it's a Stanford PR release, therefore it is fake news", I'd call you unscientific. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still split on my opinion for this, but it is also to be published today in Science, so it is the result of a peer-reviewed paper. I would suggest, following Jamez's comment, the statement needs to be "dumbed down" to explain what this is to the layperson. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not updated. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Blurb is too technical and needs to change. However the whole article needs a re-write to go on the front page. I cant understand a word its talking about even in the opener. I had to read the linked pages and then still didn't understand what it is only the odd word here and there made any sense. It requires a level of knowledge far in excess of what you can expect the average reader to have in order to understand what its talking about. As such until a layman's explanation is adder explaining what it is and why we should care its a bad idea to post this. 85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We posted the discovery back in 2014 Brandmeistertalk 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a conflict of interest here so won't !vote. However, I will point out that this is not the discovery of a Majorana fermion, but a Majorana-like state in a quantum semiconductor-superconductor interface (i.e. a form of quasiparticle). That's interesting but far from being a discovery of a particle, and related quasiparticles have been seen before. See the actual paper. Modest Genius talk 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any comment on the importance of this recent in the field? Would help someone who isn't familiar with the topic assess its notability, even if you have a COI. Best, SpencerT♦C 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what I get after looking through the recent news and comparing it to the 2014 one ([32] link, as given by Brandmeister in the original nomination). What's new this time is that the Majorana fermions are mobile ("chiral"). The signal for non-mobile Majorana fermions have more confounding factors so this presents a cleaner detection of the Majorana fermions. If chiral Majorana fermions are significant in other ways, I didn't see anything about that (perhaps Modest Genius can explain?). In terms of possible applications the only one given is to stabilize quantum computers, which the researchers concede is "far in the future". Banedon (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that the latest Majorana fermion finding is of individual moving chiral quasiparticles. Whether these three adjectives; "individual", "moving", and "chiral" (but still "quasi") are worth posting is debatable. I strongly object to mentioning Stanford in the blurb, as the experiment was conducted elsewhere and the profs are from three different universities. Abductive (reasoning) 15:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Jadwiga Szubartowicz

[edit]
Closed pending the outcome of the AfD. If the AfD is withrdrawn or closed as keep before this news is stale then the nomination may be reopened by any editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 21 July 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: Jadwiga Szubartowicz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kurier Lubelski
Credits:

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: Poland's oldest woman. No sources in English but I don't think that's a requirement. Article was a recent DYK Harambe Walks (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Chester Bennington

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Chester Bennington (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.tmz.com/2017/07/20/linkin-park-singer-chester-bennington-dead-commits-suicide/
Credits:

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 musician and singer who died today (Linkin Park and Dead by Sunrise). Should be in the recent deaths section at least. PootisHeavy (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, under the old criteria, not sure if he'd pass the notability bar.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be instructive for us to go back to the old RD method for a month and see how many endless arguments over these kind of nominations we'd see....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bennington would have passed the old criteria quite easily ("key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically"). Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] HIV/AIDS

[edit]
Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 21 July 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: HIV/AIDS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UNAIDS finds that 1 million people died of AIDS in 2016, down from 1.2 million in 2015 (Post)
News source(s): Search your favourite search engine for the title "Amid turning tide, AIDS claimed 1 million lives in 2016: UN". Example: [33]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Debatable whether or not to use "According to a UNAIDS report ..." in the blurb or to leave out attribution entirely "1 million people died ..." Banedon (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest leaving the attribution, otherwise it just seems like a random opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an ITN blurb needs to reflect the addition of at least a new paragraph of information, rather than simply a change in some numbers - for me this helps distinguish big events from incremental changes. At present Banedon's updates are in the latter category (and even those have presently been reverted due to reference-breaking technical issues in the article). --LukeSurl t c 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we featured the death tolls for major diseases every year in ITN, it would be a constant stream of them. Whilst the fall is welcome, this report is not an event of major encyclopaedic interest. Modest Genius talk 10:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced Yes treatment for HIV/AIDS has become way better over the years. The price is also coming down. So not unsurprising that deaths have dropped. HIV/AIDS is now a chronic disease. The fact that rates are likely going to rise because the US is pulling back from supporting aid for these medications in the developing world is likely more newsworthy IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for your bizarrely off-topic anti-American soapboxing. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Indian presidential election, 2017

[edit]
Article: Indian presidential election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ram Nath Kovind has been elected as the 14th president of India (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Ram Nath Kovind is elected as President of India
News source(s): India Today
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Results out today, we can edit blurb after we get to know the result. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with you giving your views on something you updated. Many people do the reverse(give their views then update). 331dot (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done This may take a few minutes before the update appears. I've noticed ITN is not always super fast in reflecting the latest update on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just have to purge the main page. It take 2 seconds to do manually. --Jayron32 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do that routinely. For whatever reason my updates still seem to take a few minutes to show up on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] John McCain

[edit]
No point in keeping this open, it's fairly clear that a diagnosis of an illness in pretty much any living person is not going to reach consensus for posting. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 20 July 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: John McCain (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ United States Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with glioblastoma—a very aggressive brain cancer. (Post)
News source(s): Sen. John McCain has brain cancer, aggressive tumor surgically removed
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: McCain is known worldwide and "John McCain" is a well-written article. NightD 06:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't just a Senator, he was the guy Obama beat to become President. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So losing a Presidential election is a ticket to having one's medical diagnoses posted to ITN? Would that be the case worldwide? 331dot (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and I'm thinking of a parallel universe where ITN emphasized article quality, with the only other requirement being if the event is covered in the news. We would totally be posting this then. Banedon (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you actually support this, then? I just want the real answer. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed it. If I support, it'll be highlighted as such. Banedon (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a medical diagnosis of a notable person(while sad); if we posted this, we couldn't say no to every other one, turning ITN into a medical news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 19

[edit]
July 19, 2017 (2017-07-19) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • 2017 Doklam crisis
    • Amid a stalemate between India and China over Doklam, disputed between the latter and Bhutan, China renews a call for India to withdraw its troops from Doklam. It follows reports claiming China held live firing drills in the region. (Arab News)
  • Comfort women
    • South Korea plans to establish a national memorial day (set to be celebrated on every 14 August) to remember and honor the country's comfort women victims. (The Korea Times)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] Blaoui Houari

[edit]
Article: Blaoui Houari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Décès de Blaoui Houari, un géant de la musique algérienne". La Dépêche du Midi. July 19, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2017.; Hamidouche, Mustapha (July 19, 2017). "Décès de Blaoui El Houari, une légende de la chanson oranaise". L'Humanité. Retrieved July 19, 2017.; "Algérie : décès du chanteur Blaoui El Houari, icône de la chanson oranaise". Jeune Afrique. July 19, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2017.
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A bit short, but a start. I created the article today. His obituaries describe him as a "legend", "giant" and "icon" of Algerian music. Zigzig20s (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

[edit]
July 18, 2017 (2017-07-18) (Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Red West

[edit]
Article: Red West (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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: Best friend to Elvis Presley, a well known stuntman with his works including Road House, and article is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

[edit]
July 17, 2017 (2017-07-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics

[Closed] Russian hacking scandal

[edit]
Closing. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 18 July 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.

Once again, consensus against adding this. BencherliteTalk 19:02, 17 July 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: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Russian hacking scandal has been a major part of the US news for months now. For any national news outlet in the US, the main headline for any given day will be, just as likely as not, something about Donald Trump and the Russians. The news coverage, especially the 24-hour cable channels, is beginning to match the coverage given to Watergate (before the hearings) almost 50 years ago. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It has been going on since Nov , and is a story that is being pushed by the media that is hostile to Trump. (and I myself do not care for Trump, but I absolutely detest how the media's behaving in all this). It's all still allegations, nothing has been verified, and what is "news" (such as the recent bits about Trump Jr's meeting) is very much hostile. If there is a point where the situation is resolved, then we can post it, but definitely not now. This is the type of topic that WP does not do a good job at covering per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS, and definitely should not be ITN ongoing. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Nothing new under the sun. Potentially "fake news"! POV-pushing. If anything comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post it--but right now nothing's happening. It's just clickbait and fundraising malarkey.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a very real and important story, in spite of all of the attempts to discredit it, but it could be continuing in this manner for a long time, probably too long for ongoing. If and when we start getting closer to impeachment, or charges against Kushner/Manafort/Flynn/Don Jr./etc., I could support a blurb or ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why is this getting nominated now? Instead you should have participated in the earlier discussions when it was actually relevant and timely. Also I do not agree that this wouldn't be the content that WP is doing a good job at - it's better than all the news organizations that I know of in properly and neutrally informing the public about this and there are several measures for protecting against misinformation and the like such as the levels of page protection. Also I'd oppose inclusion as Ongoing instead of a shortly appearing, elaborative and non-implicative blurb at the time that it's most appropriate. This time is over now. --Fixuture (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should be reopened. One might argue whether this should get posted or not, but at the least the discussion should have remained open for a reasonable amount of time. This topic is in the news, globally, with new developments emerging in the last few days. Which indicates that notwithstanding a previous nomination (a while ago it seems), this (re-)nomination had merit. Deserving of a serious discussion (i.e. not the shrill nonsense by Zigzig20), not a closure after just 77 minutes. Poor admin decision. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:BC43:B2E7:865E:F5E7 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I wouldn't have mentioned it except that I'm new at this. I ran a few searches of the archives and turned up nothing. Where can we find articles that have already been turned down for ITN? When was the last time this article was turned down before this iteration? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time was May, about Comey's firing. The search box is in the expandable box just under "Suggestions", though I think hiding that box is not helpful, it should be visible. I will see to fixing that. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can find them in the archives. Here: 1, 2, 3. Concerning early closure I agree with that and here I suggested establishing a minimum amount of time nominations are guaranteed open debate. (Maybe you can get this going?) While there might sometimes be good reasons for early closure such as saving time and efforts of people and preempting canvassing or alike I don't think they outweigh the benefits and need for proper discussion-times (even if that's just 1 day) − especially when considering ways short open-discussion-times could be exploited or result in biased outcomes and ways we could manage problems such as parties canvassing participants (I'm not implying that this would be a major problem as of right now). --Fixuture (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: As I've just posted to the talk page here, minimum discussion times have been rejected in the past. If a user new to the discussion believes in good faith that the nomination merits posting, they can reopen an discussion like the above. You are again seeing a problem that isn't here as far as I know(with regards to canvassing for a brief discussion). 331dot (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The box specifically says "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.". So no, discussions cannot be reopened or at least that is very strongly discouraged. Specific to this nomination, I would hope that the closing editor will reopen and allow the discussion to take its course, all given that this nomination has merit and deserves consideration. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 16

[edit]
July 16, 2017 (2017-07-16) (Sunday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections
Sports

[Closed] Chinese-American student's 10-year prison sentence in Iran

[edit]
Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 18 July 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: Xiyue Wang (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Iran sentences Xiyue Wang, a Chinese-American graduate student at Princeton University, to 10 years in prison for espionage; the US responds by calling for the release of "US citizens and other foreigners on fabricated national-security related changes." (Post)
News source(s): Cunningham, Erin; Morello, Carol (July 16, 2017). "Iran sentences Princeton graduate student to 10 years for espionage, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2017.; Redden, Elizabeth (July 17, 2017). "Iran Jails Princeton Ph.D. Student as Spy". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved July 17, 2017.; Dehghan, Saeed Kamali (July 16, 2017). "Iran sentences Chinese-born American to 10 years in jail on spying charges". The Guardian. Retrieved July 17, 2017.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a stub but it seems significant. Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RS I cited did not wait for us to "right wrongs" and why do you think this is not unusual? CNN suggests this is somewhat unusual!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CNN can publish whatever they want or advocate for whatever they want. Iran is not a fan of the US and detains Americans not infrequently. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many are there? CNN suggests there are only 3 plus Xiyue Wang. If you are able to provide us with a reliable third-party source on the number of US citizens currently detained in Iran, please let us know. Facts please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in general. [34][35][36] 331dot (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry. These links are about the two Namazis and Shahini (who are counted in the CNN article), and the journalists were released (also mentioned in the CNN article). If there are only three US citizens currently detained in Iran (including Xiyue Wang) and only a fourth one awaiting appeal, it's not "not unusual".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that in general Iran is quick to detain Americans, not just at this specific time. There was the 10 US sailors a few years ago, and I think some British ones before that. If you see it as unusual, fair enough, I don't and have nothing else to add. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:CosmicAdventure: Can you please expand it? Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: I read the nom articles, I don't contribute to them. The reasons are none of your business. If there is some WP:ITN/MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing, please let me know. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No but anyone is welcome to expand articles. If you think it's too short, you can expand it. Or someone else will. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2017 Venezuelan referendum

[edit]
Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 20 July 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: Venezuelan referendum, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than seven million Venezuelans take part in an opposition-organised unofficial referendum, overwhelmingly voting against the government's approval of a Constitutional Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An unofficial referendum organized by the opposition takes place in Venezuela, rejecting the Constitutional Assembly.
Alternative blurb II: ​ More than seven million Venezuelans take part in an opposition-organised unofficial referendum, with a strong majority rejecting the Constitutional Assembly.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First time I nominate an article and English isn't my mother tongue, so the blurb might need slight rewording. This is an important event in the context of the current Venezuelan protests and constitutional crisis, as well as the only electoral rejection of the Assembly (since referendum to ask for the approval or rejection of the Assembly didn't take place previously). It should also be noted that because of the results the National Assembly, the institution that organized the process, announced today the election of new judges of the Supreme Court and a national strike. Jamez42 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The article states that the referendum is "unofficial"(which suggests the government is not involved) but it was authorized by the National Assembly. Do you mean that it is "nonbinding"?(as in only advisory)? 331dot (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There was a similar question in the talk page of the article and it's something that needs to be clarified in the content of the article, something I'd like to help with both in the Spanish and English versions. In short, it is binding for the opposition controlled Assembly but nonbinding for the government, including the Executive, Judiciary and Electoral branches. Opposition spokespersons argue that article 70 of our constitution states explicitly that a "popular consultation" is a method of participation and that citizen decisions are binding, and that the consultation is organized based on articles 333 and 350, which calls upon civil disobedience. However, government officials dismiss the consultation, even going as far to call it as a "poll", and have defined it as a plebiscite that is not in the constitution and that the last time a plebiscite took place was under the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The binding status of the referendum is part of several arguments made by government and opposition alike and is an example of the current polarization that the country is going through. The Constitutional Assembly won't be cancelled, but the National Assembly will continue to organize protests and legal actions based in the results. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The plebiscite went 98% against Maduro. That's a sure sign of an invalid result. Especially because Maduro's vote on July 30 will go 98% in favor of him. We posted dissolution of the assembly in March. We also posted and pulled an item on protests in April. There's a story to tell, and it probably belongs in ITN, but not sure this is how we will frame it. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lost me at "unofficial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The popular consultation went 98% because it was summoned by the opposition, but it doesn't mean it is an invalid result: it was supervised and assisted by several Venezuelan NGOs, a commission of five former foreign presidents and five rectors of different universities. The only reason it's "unofficial" it's because it wasn't organized by the Electoral branch, but international reactions and petitions to stop the Constitutional Assembly, including from the UN and the European Union, prove its relevancy. In any case I understand it may not be the best way to portray the current situation in the INT and it may be better to wait until the July 30 election. I'd like to suggest the article is included in the current events portal if possible. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support the concept, weak oppose this nomination - Venezuela's going through a defining moment in its history, so I feel something from the ongoing crisis should be on ITN. This, however, is skirting the edge. It's an unofficial referendum, the voter sample is clearly extremely biased, and the turnout is less than 25% 40% of the total Venezuela population. I would prefer to put something like 2017 Venezuelan protests in ongoing, but that's unfortunately not going to happen. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking 25% since it's clearly wrong (thanks Jamez42). 40% is much more respectable, but still not sufficient. I might consider supporting if it's 51%. Banedon (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dislike posting a comment for the third time because I feel I'm overdefending the nomination, to put it in some way, and that it may be annoying, but as a Venezuelan I think this is a landmark event and it would help to illustrate the evolution and the future of the crisis: After announcing the results, the National Assembly declared that today it would start nominating new judges for the Supreme Court and create tomorrow a new "government of national unity" (I apologize for the Spanish sources), asides from summoning a national strike this Thursday. Of course, these events don't have an article on their own and would need to develop a whole new series of events to deserve one, like the new opposition cabinet, for instance. Maybe the blurb could be changed accordingly to mention the events and said article; After the unofficial referendum in Venezuela, the National Assembly names new judges of the Supreme Tribunal and creates a new government, for example.
I also wanted to clarify that only 19,805,002 persons of the population are in the Electoral Registry of Venezuela, or in other words, the people that are allowed to vote, including being over 18 years old and having a Venezuelan nationality. In an official election this would mean a 39% turnout. Although low, this is more than half (53%) of the voters that participated in the last elections in 2015 (14,385,349 voters), almost as many votes received by the opposition that won the election (7,728,025 votes) and more than the votes received by the opposition candidate in the last presidential election (7,363,980), even though there was only a third of the voting centers of an official election, the electoral campaign didn't have any exposure in the television or radio networks and that the referendum was organized in two weeks. Once again I'm sorry if I'm being too insistent in any way, I understand that there are reasons to disregard the results and there's still a week left to see how events develop, but the most important part of the referendum is that it marks a new phase of the protests and the crisis, the so called "Zero Hour". --Jamez42 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I think as things develop, we will see a more notable event in the news. Though this drew plenty of international attention, it is so controversial and unofficial that there will always be those skeptical of the event.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is all rather complex and took some time to disentangle, but as far as I can tell this poll isn't recognised by anyone except the opposition and won't lead to any concrete action. The wording and turnout sample are clearly highly biased. This is obviously part of a power struggle within Venezuela; that may well be worth posting at some point, but this poll isn't it. The article doesn't really help to clarify the situation for readers unfamiliar with the story, and promoting it on the Main Page would be a POV nightmare. Maybe if/when the new constitution is put to a referendum, or enacted without one, we could feature the story in ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius - an unofficial referendum that changes nothing shouldn't be posted. BencherliteTalk 21:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Nar Bahadur Bhandari

[edit]
Article: Nar Bahadur Bhandari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
Credits:

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: Ex Sikkim Chief Minister of India Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer X Games 2017

[edit]
Article: X Games Minneapolis 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Summer X Games conclude with the United States winning 11 gold medals. (Post)
News source(s): The Sun Daily SB Nation
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The X Games are one of the biggest extreme sports competition held in the world. Earlier this year, I nominated the Winter X Games for ITN after doing quite a bit of updating to the article, and I have done the same now. While the X Games are obviously not the Olympics, a majority of the summer events are not events at the Olympics so this is the top event for these athletes/this is the premier event for these sports. For anyone confused with the blurb (there was a little confusion when the Winter games were posted), the United States won the most gold medals, hence why they are featured in the blurb. Andise1 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: George Romero

[edit]
Article: George A. Romero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): THW
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs major work to be RD ready. MASEM (t) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Director that brought us the zombie movie genre. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] New Doctor

[edit]
Consensus will not emerge to post. Stephen 13:54, 17 July 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.

Proposed image
Article: Jodie Whittaker (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jodie Whittaker (pictured) is announced as the next actor to play the role of The Doctor in Doctor Who. (Post)
News source(s): BBC USA Today CNN ABC Australia
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Expecting this to be a contentious one, as we tend not to post many entertainment stories, but here goes:
  • We don't post enough entertainment stories, especially TV, even though it's a huge industry
  • Millions of people will be coming to Wikipedia to find out who Jodie Whittaker is
  • This is big news. Yes, it's in the entertainment section, but that doesn't stop this being big news.
  • The first female Doctor makes this an even bigger story than it otherwise would be

Bold article could be Jodie Whittaker or The Doctor (Doctor Who). I assume Thirteenth Doctor will only become an article once Whittaker's episodes come to air. LukeSurl t c 15:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: Global significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. I also disagree with your premise, Doctor Who is known worldwide, and I say that as a non fan. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – Riding a very fine line with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and/or WP:ADVOCACY; however, it is indeed true entertainment news is almost completely exclusive to awards and deaths. Doctor Who has a large global fanbase and this appears to be a significant change of pace for casting. This appears to be part of the ongoing trend/push for prominent female roles in TV and movies rather than something novel or unexpected. Long story short, I don't see any harm including this but am a bit hesitant with singling out this one show. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral - leaning on the fence here. Yes, this is big news and will have significant worldwide impact. However, one could very reasonably argue that, if this were posted, the fact that Game of Thrones is back again tonight would also be of note and worthy of a blurb given its worldwide impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per reasons above and article quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@STSC: Neither are The Guardian, The New York Times and TIME.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point... Have they put the story on their front page? ITN is on Wikipedia's front page, for God's sake. STSC (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, take a look here, where you'll see she's very much featured on the front page of 85% of all major British newspapers at least. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Support but blurb should note she is the first woman in the role. This is an internationally watched and very popular and long-running show, and this role always attracts scads of media interest when it is periodically recast. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: nowhere near global media coverage. A re-casting in a TV show isn't front-page of Wikipedia noteworthy. DrStrauss talk 17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Neutral, leaning support: I pretty much echo Cyclonebiskit's views. Notability is fine but the blurb needs to be worded carefully to avoid WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DrStrauss talk 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perfect for ITN - big news and many people will be coming here to find out who Jodie Whittaker is. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - entertainment news is popular for sure, but in the big scheme of things, it's simply too trivial by ITN standards. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN is not meant for BBC casting press releases. This is the equivalent a sci-fi version of James Bond. Over the past two decades, only two have officially played Bond yet this is the fifth person to take this role. Quality-wise, her stage and radio credits are unsourced. Half of her filmography is also unreferenced, since her BFI page does not list minor roles or short films. And a pitiful one-line update sums up this event: Whittaker becomes the 13th person to play popular TV character, also happens to be first female. Woo? Fuebaey (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on merits and article quality. This is far below the level of importance we generally look for in nominations. This ranks right up there with the latest updates from "Game of Thrones." And as noted above there are some significant shortcoming in the article, including glaring gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. Rami R 19:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the series has global appeal, and she is the first woman to play the role. This is Paul (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the BBC's flagship television series; normally not newsworthy but the fact someone female will be playing the role is, for whatever reasons, huge. It would be completely ridiculous not to include it, especially as the article is decent. Aiken D 20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As much as I like Doctor Who (though I'll admit I'm behind on the current season), I don't see how this is significant enough to be on the front page. That said, if it does get posted, the blurb should mention that this first female Doctor Who otherwise the blurb doesn't make sense unless you're familiar with the show. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A minuscule percentage of the human race/English-speaking world/Wikipedia readers watch Doctor Who or care about this topic. Even as a viewer of the show myself, I have no interest in seeing this story here. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the case with 95% of what we post. So this amounts to not liking the idea of posting this. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strictly because of article quality. Filmography is unreferenced. Otherwise I'm fine with this going up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disposable entertainment news getting undue attention because the show's carrier is also a news behemoth and can thus use its news outlet as an instrument for promoting the show. The chief reasons given for posting this appear to be that Doctor Who is very popular, and that a female was cast - but so what? This is so far from being a milestone for women that nobody is even bothering to seriously argue that, which makes this no more significant or interesting than who gets cast in Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other wildly popular entertainment franchise. - Lvthn13 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm equally disappointed you're calling it a "pointy threat". It's like saying anyone who opposed the RD reform should not make any RD nominations of people who would've failed the old criteria, or it's a "pointy threat". Have you ever considered that I'm going to nominate this for ITNR because I value consistency? Banedon (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I take you at your word but I call them as I see them, as we all do. "We must post X because we posted Y" is a poor argument unless you support your proposal on the merits. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That must be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've heard for an ITN nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for your suspicions? That seems to be another argument that boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. According to Doctor Who the show "has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964"(how many programs can you say that about) and that it "has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries"(contratry to your "most people don't know" argument) 331dot (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. "At the time of Season 19's broadcast in 1982 the show was being watched by a global audience of 98 million, 88 million in 38 foreign countries, and an average of ten million in the United Kingdom." Then compare world population. I can support this if we set some kind of arbitrary standard on number of people affected, and that number is greater than 10 million. But we didn't post the iPhone 8 release (~300 million active iPhones) or Windows 10 release (1.25 billion Windows machines in the world). These two events also reached every country in the world, much more than Dr Who does. Comparatively, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm biased but I'm seeing few policy based arguments in opposition(some opposition on article quality). 331dot (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been watching this show religiously since 1978. I cried when Sarah Jane Smith Died, and Romana I. But it's a SHOW. We don't do cast changes at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A casting change in a TV show is not INT worthy material. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand both sides. I do understand and see the significance of Doctor Who having its first female Doctor especially seeing how the series itself is a cultural icon, but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) this is suitable for Wikipedia: In the News since it is a show after all and it is a casting change in summary. This is, me personally, seeing a show being nominate for a possible blurb in Doctor Who. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An announcement about cast change on a TV show does not qualify as one of the top half dozen news stories in the world. I also suspect newsworthiness is mainly limited to majority-white, English speaking countries, of which there are only a handful. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost half a billion people live in "majority-white, English speaking countries". Rami R 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the only people this is really "news" to are those kinds of people to whom we should not be pandering. This is a perfectly logical sequitur in casting these days, and as we all know that Doctor Who is an alien and regenerates periodically, this is of no real newsworthiness other than a "oh?". Perhaps try for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I love Doctor Who, but in no way do I think we should start posting casting decisions and other entertainment news to ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we post first female in a particular fictional role, then would we post the first black, Asian etc. in a typically white role? It's not real news. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: It depends on the role(as is the case with any posting here). If Idris Elba were cast as James Bond,[38] I think that would be big news and merit posting. Some very few roles have the interest and widespread knowledge to merit this sort of attention. For not being "real news" this is making news. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW you can expect me to nominate the casting of the next James Bond, regardless of who they are. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: Not to debate that here- I understand doing so but I probably wouldn't support it unless it was a first of some kind(like Elba or even a woman). 331dot (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussions about RY issue elsewhere, thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, and ironically it easily meets the WP:RY guidelines for inclusion in 2017! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you work that out? Casting decisions are never featured on RY articles.Jim Michael (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the criteria. Globally significant event covered in at least three continents. Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not - it's by no means globally significant. As you know, the 3CR is only part of the inclusion criteria. 2017 in British television is its proper place. Jim Michael (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's the minimum requirement, not "part" of it. And yes, globally significant, Doctor Who is broadcast globally, the story is being reported globally, RY here we come! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if that were the case, why isn't "January 26 – Scientists at Harvard University report the first creation of metallic hydrogen in a laboratory.[4][5]" just listed in the 2017 in science article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filmography (including television, stage, and radio) is now fully referenced. Pinging @Stormy clouds:, @Ad Orientem:, @CosmicAdventure: whose !votes were partially based on this issue. --LukeSurl t c 10:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I resolved to nominate this before the announcement happened. I think James Bond and The Doctor are the two regularly-re-cast roles for which the casting is significant enough for ITN regardless of who takes the role. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Pawnking and LukeSurl, it easily falls into the criteria as far as ITN's purpose goes, and there are very few famous creations which continuously get recast *and* that recasting makes significant headlines. James Bond, Dr Who and Batman/Superman/Spiderman being the only ones off-hand I can think of. Dr Who being the only one where that recasting is actually part of the character background itself. Many of the oppose votes above are just 'its not significant enough' which when faced with the many articles around the world covering it, is laughable. Its TV, and its pop culture, but its clearly in the news and of interest to a significant number of people. My question to the above oppose voters (excluding those who have quality concerns) is where were you when the Turkish March for Justice was approved? An event that is largely insignificant to anyone outside Turkey or who is not of Turkish heritage. That you feel the need to deny so strongly its significance, clearly indicates the opposite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unexciting casting decision in a long-running television programme. That's fine for the tabloids and rolling news channels, but has no real long-term encyclopaedic impacts. ITN is not a showbiz news ticker. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know if you would ever support an entertainment news story for ITN? This is receiving coverage way outside tabloids and rolling news channels, and we would not be fulfilling the role of a showbiz news ticker but be "helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is part of ITN's purpose. Many people who have heard that a female Doctor has been cast may not know much about Jodie Whittaker or even recall her name.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to imagine an entertainment story that is truly "news," and not press release. The ouster of the head of Disney, maybe? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Can I propose that the article update has to be more substantive than the blurb itself to warrant highlighting it? "Oh, they cast a woman as DW? Let's read more about that...Oh, there's nothing more to read." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few lines - I will try and expand it more. She's just given her first interview since the announcement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wimbledon 2017

[edit]
Articles: 2017 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (talk · history · tag) and 2017 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, the 2017 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Garbiñe Muguruza winning the women's singles and Roger Federer winning the men's singles. (Post)
News source(s): Women's Men's
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Both singles tournament articles pretty light on the prose right now. LukeSurl t c 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The '2017: Wimbledon champion' section - which is the update - has only one reference for five paragraphs of text. I'm amazed this is still awaiting decent article updates six days after she won. Modest Genius talk 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

[edit]
July 15, 2017 (2017-07-15) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents
  • At least eight people are killed in a stampede at a football stadium in Dakar, Senegal, that started after police used tear gas to break up a fight between the rival teams' fans. (Reuters)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] RD: Martin Landau

[edit]
Article: Martin Landau (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox 8
Credits:

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: Renowned actor, more sourcing needed in the Film, television and theater section but otherwise looking good. EternalNomad (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big issue but I had posted the nom under the 16th because the news was only just announced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We generally put the nom on the day of the death, even if the news was delayed a day or so; only if the case that the death was purposely kept quiet by family until they had their chance to mourn or pay respects do we then post on the day the news broke. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll

[edit]
Article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The marine ecosystem is thriving despite persistent radiation from nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Scientists have found marine organisms that are highly resilient to the radiation from previous nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.
News source(s): I first saw coverage in The Guardian (Australia) on 15 July 2017. It also received coverage in The Independent [40] on that date, at Newser [41] and in The Stanford Daily [42]. There was earlier coverage at Radio New Zealand [43], Xinhuanet [44], Phys.org [45], and USA Today [46]. The story was also covered by PBS in an episode of their Big Pacific series.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I read about this on 15 July and have added a new section to the article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll#Recovery of marine ecosystem. This has added 13 new references to the article, and the cumulative update amounts to 592 words (according to DYK check). The content could easily be added to the Bikini Atoll article, too, and either could be the target. The difficulty that I see is whether the recent news coverage is the relevant date or the older coverage from the last few weeks. Any / all comments and suggestions welcome, including for alternative blurbs. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support When I first saw the title of the nomination my immediate reaction was that this was about 60 years stale. However I have been pleasantly surprised with a well sourced and very interesting update to an article that was already both detailed and in reasonably good shape. There are a handful of spots that could use a cite but not enough IMO to stand in the way of posting. Good job to the updating editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Technically coverage started on July 6 (from USA Today) so this could be considered stale, but also as the USA Today article points out, this is unpublished research, so there's no peer-review confirmation. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see this as of sufficient significance and it is unpublished research. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on "unpublished research": It is true that the findings of the genetic studies are not yet available nor peer reviewed, but the basic facts in the update are observational. In this environment where humans cannot live because all of the biosphere except the air is contaminated with radiation, there is a flourishing marine ecosystem. The evidence is not only the observations of the researchers, it has been broadcast on PBS and substantiated by photographs in some of the noted links - this Radio New Zealand article includes a 12 minute interview with Stephen Palumbi and a series of photographs. I have yet to add this reference to the article, but I plan to later today (irrespective of how this ITN nomination turns out). Claims about how the ecosystem manages to be healthy in substantial radiation would need publication and peer review, I agree, but that the apparently healthy ecosystem exists despite the radiation is an observation that is substantiated, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some recovery of corals was reported already in 2008: [47]. Brandmeistertalk 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Interesting, but not a news story in the usual sense of the term. More of a feature. Sca (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I stand by my support but if it doesn't make it at ITN I'd definitely suggest sending this up as a DYK nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what did we learn from Bikini Atoll that we didn't already know from Chernobyl? Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportProfoundly interesting information and article is well sourced and update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a nice story but it's not really something I'd expect to see on the top five or six global events covered at ITN. It's not so much an event, more a confirmation of what we probably already knew, and has been known for a while, so I'm not even sure of its "newsworthiness". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted as blurb] RD: Maryam Mirzakhani

[edit]
Article: Maryam Mirzakhani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Iranian(-American?) mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani, the first woman to be awarded the Fields Medal, dies aged 40. (Post)
News source(s): [48][49]
Credits:

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: First (and thus far only) female winner of the Fields Medal. She died after fighting breast cancer. The article is in a pretty good state, though a few details might still need citations (including the date of death). Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards RD only. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Would prefer blurb rather than RD for being the first female to win Fields medal. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is fine for RD posting. I don't think this needs a blurb, as the Fields medal is not the same as something like the Nobel, and we should avoid focusing too much on recognizing "first X to win"-type importance for blurbs, if that's the only reason to have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - Fields award. while important, lacks the recognition of the Nobel prizes. RD exists for a reason. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either of RD or blurb. We should really promote RDs rightaway, as soon as there is consensus for an RD listing. RDs may still be later turned into a blurb as soon as there is consensus for that as well. Can't believe discussion on blurb-or-not is holding up a plain RD listing. --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The Field's medal is essentially as prestigious as the Nobel Prize for other subjects (the Abel Prize is comparable, but is awarded more frequently than the Field's medal). Combined with the fact that she is the first and only female mathematician to receive the prize in 80 years, and the fact that she died very young and while still very active, I am inclined to support a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a blurb, given the significance of the Fields Medal and the fact that she was the first woman to win one. Howver, no-one has written a blurb so I support a RD. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD for now; discussion for blurb still open. SpencerT♦C 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. As I have previously stated, I believe blurbs are only called for if there is–or there could be–an article on the death, such as Death of Osama bin Laden. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, wrote blurb I would not go as far as to say that they must need an article on their death to deserve a blurb. Given the magnitude and uniqueness of her achievement, and her young age, I'd say she deserves a blurb. I furthermore posit that opponents should reflect on the well established documentation on gender bias and editing on Wikipedia before making reflexive statements and keep in mind WP:AVERAGE. --Varavour (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb This is what the RD section is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb First female Fields medalist is a highly important milestone in mathematics. This is also notable as she won the Medal so recently, so her name is recognizable, unlike a Medalist from the 1970s or something. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per EternalNomad. Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people above are saying that the Fields cannot be compared to the Nobel (for which Liu Xiaobo was just posted). However, since there is no Nobel for mathematics, there is virtually universal agreement that the Fields is the 'Nobel for mathematics'. I would go further to say that it is more prestigious, because it is awarded four times less frequently and also has an age limit of 40. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to blurb per (weak) consensus above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really caution about using weak consensus to move an RD to a blurb; we already had RD, so it should require a stronger consensus to make that a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - first woman to win the prestigious Fields Medal, which says it all. And she died so suddenly so young. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - because, in general, I think EternalNomad has made a convincing case (above). That is, I lean more toward posting this as a blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb a mathematician few people have heard of won a prize few people have heard of and has pushed off the Battle of Mosul (2016-17) which is still getting updates. Absolutely absurd. The quest to find some way to bicker about notability is bringing back the same problem RD was created to solve. It needs to stop, now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb these cavalier postings are beginning to undermine the purpose of such blurbs. This death will be easily covered by a couple of sentences and have no ongoing ramifications whatsoever. Pull it back to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (post-posting) Support blurb - untimely death of an extremely significant person in the field of mathematics. As others have noted, the Fields Medal is comparable to a Nobel Prize in terms of its prestige. Being the first and only female winner is a big deal, and her death at such a young age is a very (sadly) newsworthy event. I have a feeling Fields Medals wins have been in the blurb before, and this is a bigger story than a Fields Medal win. Adpete (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (post-posting) Support blurb - Definitely notable enough for Blurb. Untimely death that has been covered nationally and internationally.
  • Support blurb belatedly. Thank you to the posting admin. Very sad to lose her so young. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb post-posting support. The possibility of purging a previously published post is a poor basis for berating a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - (post posting support). Besides the many other good reasons already offered by others, the claim above that the blurb should be pulled because "her death will have no ongoing ramifications whatever" (presumably a Crystal Ball is the Reliable Source for this prediction) appears to be wrong already - The Guardian is reporting (here) that, contrary to normal practice, Tehran state newspapers are carrying large pictures of her without a hijab on their front page, and that the relatively liberal President Rohani has tweeted a similar picture of her, while 60 Iranian MPs have called for a change in the law so her daughter can visit Iran without hassle (the daughter has had problems because her mother was married to a non-Muslim). And that's just Iran. Others have said her impact for women in Maths is likely to be comparable to Marie Curie in other sciences (though, given our well-known gender bias, I suspect there'd also be plenty of opposition here to a blurb for Marie Curie if she had died today).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If she is really that important, why is her article barely of size for posting to the main page? This is why the RD was perfectly fine, we have very little beyond "only woman to win the Fields" as a reason for a blurb, and that's a really bad reason for posting. This is what concerns me more is that we're posting something that, while of sufficient sourcing quality, fails the expected level of detail one would expect for a person that supposedly has great reknown. Maybe it could have been improved, I don't know, but it should have been before elevating an RD to a blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Systemic bias. When Chinese architect Wang Shu won the Pritzker Prize, he did not even have an article. It was posted to ITN regardless. Non-Western topics are seriously underrepresented on English Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are going to be articles that can probably be expanded for non-Western winners of international awards like this. RD is a means to not worry about getting these up to GA-quality or the like so that we're not ignoring such deaths. But when we are talking about blurbs, that's a much higher metric that has to be reached, and a woefully short article - which probably can be expanded readily with her winning the Fields, moreso about her death, should have been done before a blurb was considered. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Concur; there is far too much focus on the importance of the subject and not the quality of article in general for blurbs. There is only one comment on the quality of the article pre-blurb posting that called it "pretty-good." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Tragic as her death is, this is exactly what we have RD for. This is not a world-changing event with massive implications; instead it is the unfortunate death of a notable person. Ergo this should be on RD, not a blurb. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

[edit]
July 14, 2017 (2017-07-14) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] 2017 Temple Mount shooting

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 05:05, 17 July 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: 2017 Temple Mount shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Friday Prayers on Temple Mount were canceled following shooting that kill two near Lions' Gate. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Gunmen kill two Israeli policemen at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
News source(s): (Al Jazeera), (Haaretz), (Jerusalem Post), (BBC), (Fox news)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major event: "Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was arested after called on Muslims to march on al-Aqsa and hold Friday prayers wherever they are stopped." This is wery sensitive spot. Jenda H. (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently this editor has not read WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS - closing admin should discount this vote. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shoud we open this now? This is not just going away soon. Mayor international development. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jenda H.: This nomination is almost stale (it will be automatically archived in less than 12 hours) so I suggest reopening at this point will be essentially pointless. However, if there has been significant related development that has occurred after the nomination was closed, then I suggest starting a new nomination for a blurb or ongoing might be fruitful. I have not looked at the story or article so don't currently have an opinion about whether I'd support or oppose such a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

[edit]
July 13, 2017 (2017-07-13) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Abdul-Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

[edit]
Article: Abdul-Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Credits:

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: Senior member of the House of Saud and former Saudi Arabian deputy minister of defense and aviation Sherenk1 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Calibri font in "Fontgate"

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:03, 15 July 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.

Articles: Calibri (talk · history · tag) and Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Microsoft Calibri font used in a 2006 document becomes the center of controversy in Panama Papers case against Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Newsweek
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is notable news involving head of state, scandal, courtroom, IT, and forensic science. STSC (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Calibri finding is not a trivial allegation but a vital piece of evidence; the investigators actually concluded that the document of "2006" was forged based on that finding.[51] STSC (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By making the blurb focus on the font issue, you are trivialising the story. And as Banedon says, this isn't the end of the line anyway. BencherliteTalk 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the blurb is fully based on the sources; the sources just highlight the surprising Calibri finding in the scandal investigation against a head of state. That is not "trivialising", and it's newsworthy. STSC (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything about this story was to be posted - and at present you are the lone voice here - it should be along the lines of "In the Panama Papers case against Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a court-ordered report concludes that his daughter falsified evidence to the Supreme Court", or "A report commissioned by the Supreme Court of Pakistan during its consideration of allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, concludes that he and his family cannot justify their income and assets", or something like that. Absolutely no mention of fonts, because that obscures the conclusions. But these blurbs simply ram home Banedon's point that this is not the end of the story - it is not the Supreme Court finding corruption or forgery, but a step towards possible outcomes. BencherliteTalk 08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the points above, but this is a case where I really wish DYK could accept these type of once-in-a-while oddities of interesting but trivial stories regardless of the article's age. (a type of blurb you read and have to double take to see the humor or irony of it) --MASEM (t) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose feels like this is an incremental piece of news. If this leads to a verdict in which this is the crucial piece of deciding evidence, then sure. As it is it's not the end of the story; certainly it's possible the court finds Nawaz Sharif not guilty in spite of this. I don't think this is appropriate to ITN (yet). If there's a verdict that specifically mentions this, then I'll support. Banedon (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted as Blurb] Death of Liu Xiaobo

[edit]
Article: Liu Xiaobo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Chinese pro-democracy activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Chinese pro-democracy activist, political prisoner, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61.
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes
Credits:

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: Globally renowned human rights activist whose incarceration has hit top headlines lately. EternalNomad (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, he wasn't a politician. STSC (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody claimed he was. But the editor above claimed that not even Merkel, the world's (or at least the western world's) most prominent leader as of 2017, would qualify. If not even Merkel would qualify, I don't know of any politician who would. So the issue appears to be a general opposition to posting death-related blurbs at all. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela and Thatcher: Iconic leaders known worldwide well after retirement, state funerlas that generated days of news, subjects of major motion pictures. That's my bar for politicians for example. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher does not rise to the level of Merkel and never did. Nobody called her the leader of the free world or the western world's most important political leader. Mandela's main claim to fame was his Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid activities, not his later service as president for five years in a country that is a small player on the world stage. Liu, like Mandela, also received the Nobel Peace Prize. So he could be said to be the Chinese equivalent of Mandela. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Mandela had the whole first black president of post apartheid South Africa and "Father of the Nation" thing going for him. Merkel is still alive, I have no idea what your problem is there. Thatcherism vs Merkelism? Doesn't seem to be a way to compare. Anyway, I don't mind that Xiaobo pushed off the staggeringly irrelevant rugby game, but the whole point of RD was so that obit blurbs wouldn't push off stories for things that are actually happening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

[edit]
July 12, 2017 (2017-07-12) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and incidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Many websites, including Amazon and Netflix, join an online protest in favor of net neutrality. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Many websites, including Amazon and Netflix, protest against the Trump administration's plans to repeal the Open Internet Order.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/12/net-neutrality-fcc-day-of-action-protest-internet
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Even though this appears in the news portal, this "largest online protest in history" should appear on the front page as well. On January 17, 2012, the Wikipedia community had its act together by deliberating on this one day in advance. This time, I am a day late. Connor Behan (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - was going to nominate this. Large protest on a topic which Wikipedia famously stood for a few years ago. In the news rather prominently. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except please include the Internet Archive (pictured) in place of Amazon. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Not a question of being in the news, and while US-centric, adoption of a non-Net Neutrality stance here will slowly affect the rest of the world. But we're talking a single day of protest which amounted mostly to companies reminding their readers to submit comments to the FCC to state their urge against their new rules. Contrast that to SOPA where many many websites blacked out making them unusable, a much more pro-active stance to demonstrate the resistance against SOPA. The issue on Net Neutrality is less about free speech compared to SOPA, and more about dollars and bottom lines. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The fact of the matter is that this simply did not generate as much Internet buzz as the SOPA protests.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps worth consideration if this law is actually passed. SpencerT♦C 23:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable news with significant press coverage. One might argue that it's US-centric however due to three things it also has a global angle which imo is sufficient here:
    • It was called the "Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality" with "Internet-Wide" implying also non-US citizens to participate; which at least some have done
    • Due to the global nature of the Internet unneutrality of it in any country can have effects also on citizens outside the US. This is by the communication and content from US citizens and potentially companies available/present on the Internet and due to potentially influencing the ways multinational corporations and other nations act on this issue.
    • The protest also reached out to citizens of other countries due to the way those (most?) companies participated (such as by showing a banner to all site-visitors regardless of country).
While it did not generate as much buzz as the SOPA protests it did gain quite some attention & coverage which should be enough for posting.
However I oppose both blurbs and suggest to remove all specific company names as ITN is no advertising space and as (as of right now) it's hard to best assess which of the many to name (e.g. their impact/reach of participation).
--Fixuture (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Chuck Blazer

[edit]
Article: Chuck Blazer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Banned ex-Fifa official Sherenk1 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Lula da Silva sentenced

[edit]
Article: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is sentenced to 9 and a half years of prison over the Operation Car Wash corruption scandal. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Head of state sentenced for a corruption scandal. Clearly notable. Cambalachero (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Larsen Ice Shelf

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Larsen Ice Shelf (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A giant iceberg covering approximately 6000 sq km breaks away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf (pictured) in Antarctica. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Telegraph, Reuters, The Guardian, European Space Agency
Credits:

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not clear that this particular breakoff is linked to climate change − or at least: that it's caused by it. Dr. Daniela Jansen, the glaciologist from the Alfred Wegener Institute who discovered the break, suggests it might have to do with climate change though. But as said that's not clear and the news articles linked above also make that clear. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 • QUESTION: Do "strong support" or "very strong support" count as more weighty, i.e. having more votes, than just "support" – ?? Sca (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 • I think it just means that the participant is more firm in their support due to what they asses as good reasons. If you use "strong support" too often and(/or) without a firm backing/rationale you could potentially decrease the weight of your vote by a bit and certainly "strong support" would be assessed as just your 'ordinary' support. I'm not sure where WaltCip got that from: pretty sure that this is false. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made it up.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
 • Seems to me the adjectives are merely emotional embellishments. One user, one vote – or half a vote in the case of a "weak" support or oppose. Otherwise, it would be like the old Tammany Hall slogan, "Vote early and often," no? Sca (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

[edit]
July 11, 2017 (2017-07-11) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

First Chinese military base abroad

[edit]
Article: Chinese naval base in Djibouti (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ People's Liberation Army Navy ships depart from port in Zhanjiang, China to the Chinese naval base in Obock, Djibouti, marking the ceremonial opening of China's first permanent overseas military base. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ China's PLA Navy opens its naval base in Djibouti, China's first permanent overseas military base
Credits:

 Muzzleflash (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Gangnam Style usurped on YouTube

[edit]
Erm, no. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 12 July 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: List of most viewed YouTube videos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following a five-year reign, Psy's Gangnam Style has been overtaken as the most viewed video on YouTube by See You Again. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NPR
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Is this trivial? Absolutely. However, YouTube is the world's second largest site according to Alexa, five years and the accumulated fame around Gangnam Style are significant in internet terms, and this is getting worldwide attention from reputable media. It is at least worth consideration in my view, especially given the current state of the ITN items. Speedy-close if this nom is frowned-upon. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

[edit]
Clearly not going to get consensus. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:46, 12 July 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: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sponsor a poverty reduction summit that plans on raising funds for family planning in developing countries. (Post)
News source(s): (TIME), (The Hindustan Times)
Credits:
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 10

[edit]
July 10, 2017 (2017-07-10) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime
  • Crimes in Ireland
    • A 3 year-old boy is stabbed to death in an incident in the Poddle Park area of Kimmage in Dublin, Ireland. The child's mother, believed to be an Iranian national, is being treated for knife wounds in hospital. (RTÉ)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Ready] Terrorist attack on Amarnath Yatra

[edit]
Article: Terrorist attack on Amarnath Yatra (2017) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Atleast 7 people are killed and 19 injured during the Amarnath Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir. (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant due to number of people killed and of happening after a long period of time. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on significance: I was considering nominating this myself, but won't have the time to see it through. The article has problems, though. Too many accusations from policemen and involved individuals, too much coatracking of past incidents. Also, as with any article about a terrorist attack, I'd like to see coverage from media sources outside that country; those within get caught up with the general hysteria all too quickly, and start throwing around statements which mean little. This is particularly true of conflicts in south Asia, and within those, of Kashmir. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Insignificant incident of regional conflict between India and Pakistan. STSC (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about where the incident occurred. My point is that a relatively small-scale incident of a regional conflict would not be significant on ITN. STSC (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia presidential election

[edit]
Articles: Mongolian presidential election, 2017 (talk · history · tag) and Battulga Khaltmaa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Battulga Khaltmaa (pictured) is inaugurated President of Mongolia following the July presidential runoff election. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera EnglishChannel NewsAsia
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: First new president of Mongolia since 2009. Significant election for the country (first ever presidential runoff), but has received minimal attention on Wikipedia so far (I just added links in Portal:Current events today). Also, inclusion in "ITN" will increase views for the Battulga Khaltmaa bio page, which may lead to fixes for some of the page issues. --> Scanlan (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] C-130 Hercules crash in Mississippi

[edit]
Strong, near unanimous consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:13, 11 July 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: 2017 United States Marine Corps KC-130 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 16 people are killed in a C-130 Hercules crash in Leflore County, Mississippi. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Disaster with significant number of casualties. EternalNomad (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Liu Xiaobo

[edit]
Withdrawn by nominator BencherliteTalk 13:05, 12 July 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: Liu Xiaobo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo is in "critical condition," according to Chinese doctors. (Post)
News source(s): (The New York Times)
Credits:
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough of that, STSC. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you serious? STSC (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK,... are you a comedian by trade? STSC (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 9

[edit]
July 9, 2017 (2017-07-09) (Sunday)
Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Anton Nossik

[edit]
Article: Anton Nossik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Known as 'godfather' of Russian internet Sherenk1 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Brexit may never happen

[edit]
We don't post comments from minority politicians. Stephen 23:23, 9 July 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: Brexit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Brexit may never happen (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: "Sir Vince Cable - the likely next Lib Dem leader - says he is "beginning to think Brexit may never happen".

He said "enormous" divisions in the Labour and the Tory parties and a "deteriorating" economy would make people think again. "People will realise that we didn't vote to be poorer, and I think the whole question of continued membership will once again arise," he said." Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose and recommend speedy close. If Brexit never happens, we'll post that, but this is purely a speculative article. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I would dearly like it if Brexit were never to happen, it will happen unless Britain actively uninvokes Article 20 (probably not correct terminology). We would obviously post that, but this is speculation and we essentially never post speculation of any kind on ITN - we post when something happens (or, less often, when something predicted or scheduled to happen doesn't happen). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article 50, but I'll endorse the sentiment. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Also open to speedy closure. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Battle of Mosul

[edit]
Article: Battle of Mosul (2016–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Battle of Mosul concludes with the city being recaptured by the Iraqi government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Iraqi government declares victory in the Battle of Mosul
News source(s): Al Jazeera, NYT
Credits:

 TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs some updates (infobox etc.) but otherwise support. There is a yellow-level tag on the top but it is not problematic at the moment (long article). --Tone 15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Altblurb suggested. Considering the vast size of the article, and the fact that it has dealt with an ongoing war where facts are somewhat sketchy, we should be forgiving when it comes to tags and the like. --LukeSurl t c 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the principle of the topic, but boy does that article fail WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:PROSELINE in how it is written. We shouldn't have day by day summary but described broad pictures of the events (eg taking historical context like the Normandy landings). I doubt that that can be fixed in reasonable time, so consider this only a light oppose !vote only that I think we can definitely do better, but not to take away from the ITN timing. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. I see there were some updates. --Tone 16:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ya'll got suckered by an Iraqi politician; the battle is not quite over. Abductive (reasoning) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be some cleanup operations but I'm not seeing any RS disagree with this stance by the Iraqi PM. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • After you chumps posted, 'Al-Abadi said the battle is settled and the remaining pockets of ISIS are encircled in the last inches of the city," the statement said. "It is a matter of time before we declare to our people the great victory."' Suckers. Abductive (reasoning) 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per the article, they have forced the remaining ISIS to about 50-100 homes that they still need to defeat and rescue the hostages, but the implication is that the number of ISIS left in the city and the number of allied troops they have stationed, there is no way that what's left of ISIS there can retake the city in the near-term. It seems a fairly reasonable ITN point (particularly since they don't know exactly all the places ISIS may be hiding in the city or nearby, and its impossible to prove they got every last one of them). --MASEM (t) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and uncivil
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
            • You are justifying a bad posting, making yourself look both biased and foolish. Never trust politicians. This Iraqi fucker just raped the truth, and you are helping him gouge out your own eyes. Abductive (reasoning) 08:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ignoring the blatant BLP there, even if it were the case that the battle was long from over, we're attributing the claim of victory to the Iraqi gov't, which all other western RSes also report without question. Is this their version of "Mission Accomplished"? I don't know, but the media doesn't seem to think so. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing event: Battle of Raqqa

[edit]
Article: Battle of Raqqa (2017) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC Guardian Reuters AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: something notable to fill the 'ongoing events' section. the recently-finished Battle of Mosul was displayed on the 'ongoing events' section. the Battle of Raqqa is just as much of an important geopolitical event who's outcome will have region and global effects. also, my first suggestion, so apologies if any errors made. the article linked is sourced, has an updated map, and should be sufficient. thank you :) Cavanan (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this has already been placed on and removed from Ongoing. (no reflection on the nom, just merely pointing it out) Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] March for Justice (Turkey)

[edit]
Articles: 2017 March for Justice (talk · history · tag) and Kemal Kilicdaroglu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 450km Turkish March for Justice concluded in Istanbul at a mass rally attended by hundreds of thousands of people (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 450km Turkish March for Justice led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu concluded in Istanbul at a mass rally attended by hundreds of thousands of people
Alternative blurb II: ​ A 450-km protest march to Istanbul is held against mass arrests in Turkey.
News source(s): GuardianReuters
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Very significant protest has concluded successfully in Istanbul with a huge rally. The story has been covered in depth by major international press sources. I've also updated the Kemal Kilicdaroglu article for recent events, and it includes a short section about the protest that was added earlier today by another editor. I think both articles are in suitable condition. Seraphim System (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on principle (100,000s rally is a good size to be notable). I'd recommend if you can get a map of the march, as well as adding some background to the event. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a (free map), if there are sources for the route I might be able to make one. I'll look into it.Seraphim System (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a preliminary map it's not free but it's a start , and it clearly follows major highways (E80 and E89 from Google Maps). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used a basic one from NTV as a source, it just shows the provinces they passed through. We can't really use google as a base map, as far as I know, and I've never been able to download that large a map from OSM so I just use an outline, like most of the maps I've seen in our articles. Seraphim System (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as we are required to follow WP:RS, this March has been compared to Gahndi's Salt march and the term has been accepted by the vast majority of sources, aside from Daily Sabah which is a staunchly pro-government paper. This is sourced to mainstream media sources like Guardian, Reuters and Washington Post (which we do not usually treat as biased sources that require attribution.) Quotes from Ak Parti officials have been included in the article, and attributed. WP:NPOV requires that we follow the majority view of WP:RS. Anyway, I have added a map and expanded the background a bit. Seraphim System (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The past seven years have seen dozens of protests involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Spanish anti-austerity protests, Brazilian anti-corruption marches, Occupy movement, Montreal, Wukang, and practically every country in the Middle East come to mind. Therefore, more information is needed to establish the notability of this one. How does this compare to the Catalan Way or Baltic Way for instance? Also, I've removed the [New] tag because it's not really one of the tags we use. 112.65.191.171 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP please read the criteria before commenting, as it is pretty explicit that this kind of thing is not grounds for exclusion.Seraphim System (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article is not up to par. My biggest concern is not notability per se, but whether the article is clear enough to establish notability. Gezi Park protests is a good article to compare it with. The article needs an infobox. I've suggested an alternative blurb II. 112.65.191.171 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that your removing the tags looks extremely suspicious, and looks a lot like abusive sock puppeting, not to mention you should not be editing my posts at all, so I am replacing the tag. Please do not edit my posts in my the future. Since you presumably have an account and are an experienced editor who knows about which tags are regularly used here, maybe it would be better to strike your above comment and post while logged in. Seraphim System (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, per the good advice above, I have added an infobox to the article. I also do not mind the alternative blurb that is proposed. Kilicdaroglu is a central figure in today's news stories, but I was considering the 2016-17 Turkish Purges article as a possible secondary article also. I think they are both in fine shape, and either one would be acceptable, as is the change to "protest march" per above comments. Seraphim System (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I have several problems with this article. One, it seems awful short for ITN. Two, I see some POV problems in the infobox ("Diverse group of Turkish citizens from different political parties and religious backgrounds" vs. "Ak Parti" seems to suggest everyone in Turkey is resisting the government). And "'Hundreds of Thousands' to one million" participants is a very wide range. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaryllisGardener: Regarding expanding the article, I can certainly expand it more, but I don't really think it is necessary because it covers the main issues. Longer doesn't make it better. It is possible that I can add some content about AkParti's responses to balance the article. As for the content in the infobox, that is what the WP:RS say. I can't really do anything about that. One of the last articles by Carlotta Gall reports "hundreds of thousands" and then says that the police are reporting 1 million. I can remove the one million if that would improve the infobox, as both Reuters and Gall seem to be going with the hundreds of thousands figure. As for "diverse citizens" that is what it was. Basically everyone in Turkey, who isn't Ak Parti (or their supporters) is resisting the government. The only thing tilted about it, is that the press is reporting that some Ak Parti members may be supportive too. One of the emphasized points of the protest was that there was no clear party affiliation. It wasn't only CHP, and HDP was not mentioned much. MHP was not mentioned much. This is how the WP:RS have reported it - I could follow Gezi and say "Informal, including political officials and ordinary citizens" - I don't really think it's necessary to oppose over any of this, these are pretty minor details and we should be trying to improve the article and get it posted—considering the uproar around here when Wikipedia is blocked, I was really expecting more support for hundreds of thousands of people protesting for free press and free speech in an authoritarian country where it is very dangerous for them to do so. I've already worked in all of the suggestions other editors made above ,and I can definitely work with you as well to address your concerns. Seraphim System (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmaryllisGardener: I updated the infobox, I will try to expand the length to at least 1500 words, I just ran DYK check and you are right, it is still rather short. I hope you will reconsider opposing. Seraphim System (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to AmaryllisGardener I have expanded the article (it is now over 1000 words, and I am still working on it). While reviewing the national press sources I did find out that MHP/Devlet Bahceli had supported AKP, at least during the early stages of the March. I have added this to the article, and I have also updated the infobox to reflect this. I hope this addresses some of the issues that were raised above. I am sorry if the article wasn't up to standard when I first posted, I am still very new to ITN and I hope that my inexperience won't be the cause of a very significant historic event being excluded from ITN. I will certainly keep improving the article based on the comments that I receive here. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This has received significant global coverage. The article is of adequate size and in decent shape. I'm not seeing any glaring gaps in referencing. Is there room for improvement? There almost always is. But I think this meets our quality standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem, although I'd argue that the absolute numbers isn't as important as the relative numbers vs. the country's population. A 10000-man protest in Iceland should be more significant than a similarly-sized protest in the UK. This shouldn't matter though, since relative to the Turkish population (~80 million) this is still pretty big. Banedon (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a slightly modified version of the original blurb, because highlighting one individual's name seemed questionable in the circumstances. Further discussion is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] World Heritage Sites

[edit]
Stale. Older than oldest current posted item. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:52, 14 July 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.

Proposed image
Articles: Lake District (talk · history · tag) and Yazd (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UNESCO declares eight new sites as world heritage sites; including Lake District in North West England and Iran's Historic City of Yazd (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (UNESCO)
Credits:
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose UNESCO is doing it's job, it's not news. (IIRC, the bigger news item out of UNESCO's recent actions was not declaring the Great Barrier Reef as a in-danger site, which surprised many, but still not ITN). --MASEM (t) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is worth posting, given that 1) it's an international agreement involving multiple countries 2) getting listed as a world heritage site leads to a tremendous increase in tourism for that region 3) at once a year, it doesn't happen that often. Would still prefer to see a blurb that treats all eight new sites on an equal footing, although I guess if some people are very concerned about article quality then it should be easy to skim the articles for each site and pick the best ones. Banedon (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 8

[edit]
July 8, 2017 (2017-07-08) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] 2017 G20 Hamburg summit

[edit]
Stale. Older than the oldest current post. Dragons flight (talk) 06:23, 14 July 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: 2017 G20 Hamburg summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2017 G20 summit ends in Hamburg, Germany. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The G20 summit concludes in Hamburg, Germany on July 8th.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The G20 summit in Hamburg concludes with a communiqué, compromises on trade and discord on climate change.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The G20 summit in Hamburg concludes with a communiqué, compromises on trade and a disagreement on climate change following violent protests in the city.
News source(s): [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is notable, global news. It's of very high significance and affects many − at the order of billions − people worldwide. It was a very significant meeting of many very influential global parties including heads of major world powers and on topics that are important on the level of civilizational survival. It gained tremendous press coverage as with most G20 meetings.

This is WP:ITN/R and it's a shame it hasn't been posted yet. This says much about the current state of ITN/C. Due to severe doubts, reinforced by the non-inclusion of the G20 summit thus far, about the compliance to WP:PAID and potential, problematic conflicts of interests of commenters I hereby explicitly ask everybody − nobody and no party in particular − taking part in this discussion (at least beyond non-vote comments & questions) to disclose if they are paid / coordinated by any agency / state / organization or to simply not participate. Participation is fine but manipulation / unfairness is not. Nor is bias of course. Furthermore I want to remind people that this nomination fulfills all the criteria and is even ITN/R so there must be very good reasons to not include it. I suggest the blurb or altblurb as they're more neutral / only shortly inform about the event having taking place.
All that said please also consider that even if you subjectively consider the results to be slim the conference itself as well as the slimness of the results and those slim results would definitely still be notable enough. Also consider the other items we feature in that section such as sport events. We can decide on the blurb together here too. Fixuture (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion took place at a bad timing, while the conference was still ongoing and had no good blurbs. Furthermore this is a new discussion here. Also in that other debate people oppose due to rationales such as "'Some people go to a meeting' is not news" which I addressed above and some only opposed the blurbs and the state of the article both of which should be good enough now. In addition that discussion for removal, which incidentally was created after this nomination and which only has a small circle of participants thus far is not yet closed. --Fixuture (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ITNC was posted on the last day on the summit, maybe a few hours before it was officially over. It definitely wasn't too early and there was plenty of time to digest what resulted from it. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An event's presence on the ITNR list is not a guarantee of posting; it only means that the merits are not in dispute. It can still not be posted for any number of reasons, such as consensus changing. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that if you have specific accusations to make about undisclosed paid editing or bias or any of the other items from your laundry list, that you do so in the proper forum with any direct evidence you have. General requests are unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What TRM said. The reason the previous ITNC wasn't posted was due to the lack of anything of significant action/resolve from this particularly G20. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is addressed in my nomination-comment above:
please also consider that even if you subjectively consider the results to be slim the conference itself as well as the slimness of the results and those slim results would definitely still be notable enough
If in your opinion the outcomes of the meeting were slim that's no reason to not include it. A clear indication of notability and significance despite of any perceived (and potentially biased) slim outcomes was the intense press coverage.
--Fixuture (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of press coverage is not a metric we use for inclusion here, otherwise, every other ITN would be a Trump-based topic. Yes, G20 was well covered, but there was very little of any new global-affecting results that fell out from it; it was still a Trump-centric coverage from the press due to the meeting with Putin. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we disagree on the level of global-affecting results which I seem to assess higher than you even though I wouldn't consider it particularly high either. But as stated earlier even if that level is low that lowness itself is a global-affecting result. I don't see why the focus of press reports would be a reason for non-inclusion. And related to that we could decide for a blurb that does not highlight anything and jsut informs about the meeting having taken place. --Fixuture (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixuture Unless you have direct evidence of undisclosed paid editing or a COI of a specific user or users I call on you to withdraw your accusations. I have no COI with this issue and I find the suggestion that I or others here do, without evidence, to be offensive. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have such evidence and very likely never will. However I also did not make any accusations - I just expressed doubts about the policy-compliance and decision-making-process-integrity and asked for everyone to comply with the policies. Sorry if anything of it sounded offensive - it wasn't meant to be provocative but to improve this debate's neutrality, validity and fairness. --Fixuture (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:AGF. Unless you have evidence of a problem you shouldn't preemptively request that people comply with policies that aren't even at issue. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, the event should be mentioned because of the leftist riots in Hamburg alone. But alas, it's probably the reason it's not.--Adûnâi (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Adûnâi: If you want to propose a blurb focusing on the riots, please do so, instead of attacking other users with unfounded accusations of bias. If you would review the discussion, you would see that's not the reason at all. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Nelsan Ellis

[edit]
Article: Nelsan Ellis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety E! News Entertainment Weekly
Credits:

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: Nominating for recent deaths. Andise1 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been Start class since 2014, and has just been raised to C-class. The length looks adequate to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Length is fine, it's the width that's the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, other editors here told me the articles have to be much longer then what the main page says, because they won't be posted otherwise. I had to expand to almost 1500 words! Seraphim System (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate, length is fine, it's the width that's the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with the width? It has an infobox, it looks fine on my display. It would be nice if the template could be removed also. Seraphim System (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the quality I'm referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to strike my oppose and support but I agree with above comments that there should be some improvements to the article first, in particular the prominent template and the many citation needed tags should be addressed before posting. Seraphim System (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 British and Irish Lions

[edit]
Article: 2017 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, the test series between the British and Irish Lions and the New Zealand's All Blacks concludes in a draw. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very notable event in rugby union, made even more remarkable by an unprecedented result. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but the article needs significant update, at least summary of all three test matches. Note: In 2013, some editors opposed to post because they mistook the Lions tour for only exhibition and promotional event. 61.245.25.3 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not ITN newsworthy. STSC (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@STSC: Why? You can't simply say that something is not newsworthy without giving a reason - doubly so when it has been demonstrated that it is in the news in countries that take no part in it, and is far more important and prestigious than most sporting events that get posted. At the moment this looks like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is relatively not a significant event. Besides, getting mentioned by some little known publishers somewhere does not make it more newsworthy. STSC (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "little known publishers" do you mean globally significant publishers like The New York Times, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc? Or did I misinterpret your post? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to those news sources given in Thryduulf's comment. STSC (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but those aren't the only sources. It's a globally noted series. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the exact same reason that the NBA Finals, the Super Bowl and America's Cup are notable. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on update. More than just two national groups getting together to play a few games. It is the best players from four strong rugby playing nations coming together to play currently (and what has been for a while) the strongest rugby playing nation. Lions tours only happen once every four years, and tours to New Zealand once every 12. It has been dominating the press in New Zealand for months, and will for a lot longer given the results. There is also a lot of history here with the first tours starting in 1888. This one has its own little bit of history as it is the first time since 1971 that New Zealand has not won the series and only the second time this has occurred since the tours started here. AIRcorn (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support importance (I haven't evaluated the article). This is a top-level international series that occurs only once every 12 years - New Zealand players will only get to play the Lions once in their career. To put it in a context Americans might understand, this is approximately equivalent to the top ice hockey players from the US and Canada playing as a single team (an even greater honour than playing in the national side) in a series of fully competitive matches (not exhibition matches) against the strongest national team in the world - for the only time in 12 years. Only it's possibly more important than that because of the century and a half of history. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not denying that die hard rugby fans are excited about this, but as these are just test games, of little significane otherwise. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AD97:8206:730C:929C (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood everything about this event. "Test" in this context does not mean "practice" or "trail run" or something like that, it means "to test the skill", "to challenge" - they are the most significant matches. As for "little significance otherwise", where on earth do you get that idea? The Lions tours are more significant than anything else in Rugby (with the arguable exception of the World Cup). And for the record I'm not a "die hard rugby fan" by any stretch of the imagination - I'm not even particularly a rugby fan (it's been several years since I last watched a match, and even then I didn't watch all of it). Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update this is easily getting page hits like the America's Cup, no reason to deny our readers the opportunity to highlight things they might be interested in, despite the users here declaring they believe otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per The Ashes, Boat Races, and various other ITNR things that aren't world championships. LordAtlas (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The Lions tour is the most prestigious event in the rugby calendar every four years, people start predicting the next Lions squad almost as soon as the last tour finishes, and this Lions team claiming a drawn series against the best team in the world right now is bloody impressive. If Boat Races etc get in, then this absolutely has to. – PeeJay 23:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Boat Race mention, yay!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Dragons Flight, I grant that this captivates the public in countries like New Zealand but it's still only a few of the world's many countries playing non-championship games in one of the world's many sports. Post the World Cup, leave this out. Banedon (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this into perspective Super Rugby, a championship competition involving the Southern Hemisphere and Japan (which is ITN/R), is paused and largely forgotten about to accommodate this non-championship series (three tests and seven other games against some pretty decent provincial teams). As far as rugby events go this is second only to the world cup, some might argue that it is even greater given its history. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it ended in a draw, it is not significant because no one won. Seraphim System (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I agree with above comments that the significance of that is likely to be lost on anyone without a specialized interest in this topic. If ai ubderstand the above discussion, your point is that it is more notable because the team is so good that they should have been pwned. Its still a draw. Seraphim System (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe a very British thing, but an honourable draw is actually something to be celebrated, rather than ridiculed. Perhaps history is on our side. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rugby already has an astonishing 6.25 events every year on ITN/R. American football only warrants 1 post a year, despite a large and rapid audience. Association football gets <5, and its the largest sport in the world. You'll never satisfy everyone, and you shouldn't index the number of posts directly to the following of that sport, but you can't keep saying "but THIS one is really big!" It strains credulity. El Clásico is big. The Game is big. Let's limit ITN to biggest.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is rugby union, which has 4.25 events per year. Rugby union is a global sport, American football is a one-country sport. Association football has one pan-continental contest, the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) No strong opinion on this nomination, and I do see your point. However, you can't lump together rugby league and rugby union - they're two different sports. They have less in common than, say, Canadian football and American football. You're doing the equivalent of combining tennis & badminton here. Modest Genius talk 18:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as one of the most prestigious events in rugby. Article looks fine.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a great example of the "big divide", there are plenty of support votes here and well-reasoned arguments to post this, yet we won't post it because others don't like it or don't get its cultural significance. With so many supports, this should be posted. Let's start making ITN more relevant to our English speaking readers and less divisive to prove points within Wikpiedia policy (which our readers couldn't give a shit about). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, sports don't fit cleanly in ITN. One could argue that sport, like weather, is not news at all because it is periodic- why report who won when someone always was going to win? I would argue that no one who cares about this event (or any of the sports results that make it to ITN) will be coming here not knowing the result. I think we should post a lot more sports results, or none. It would be nice if we could have a civilized conversation about how to best handle this at ITN, but literally 20 minutes prior to this post, you rejected the "cultural significance" of American football because of the oft-repeated lie that it is a one-country sport. You are correct in that we are quick to reject the significance of events that are not significant to us, but you do so in support of an event that is culturally significant to you, and while insulting that which is not. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how stating that American football being a one-country sport is rejecting its cultural signficance or being insulting. I watch the Superbowl (after the event so I can fast forward through the adverts) and fully grasp its cultural significance (just look at the wardrobe failure debacle). But I am unaware of all those other countries playing with top-level American football teams who then play against one another in a world championship (for instance). Please let me know more about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a straw-man argument and you know it. Canada, Mexico, and HELLO! the UK all have viewership in the millions for American football, but that is utterly beside the point. We need to have a standard by which persons who are not culturally impacted by an event can objectively evaluate it's significance. We don't post an event because it is watched by millions of people in dozens of countries; every ManU match meets that. There has to be a standard, and we already have one: it's notability, AKA uniqueness. The logical rule to apply to sport is to only post a select number of premier level events. Otherwise each new nom will be supported by it's fans and only opposed by those who "don't know what they're talking about." Masem rejected my oppose as ill-informed. IT WAS ILL-INFORMED. I have no idea which rugby UNION events are the biggest. But I do know there is always a limited number that can be considered premier, and we already have 4+ in ITN/R. Is this one bigger or smaller than the other 4? How many events can you have of one sport before you must acknowledged the reduced significance of some of them? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not a strawman argument. I'm not seeing any premier worlwide American football competitions. That's a fact. If you don't like the ITNR rugby union events, nominate them for removal from ITNR. The community was in favour of this story, so that's obviously why it was posted. End of story I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you choose to exclude the Super Bowl, there is no worldwide American Football competition. The community was not in favor of this story; it had differing opinions that Masem reasonably adjudicated (with an rationale and through explanation). I don't object to any of the ITN/R Rugby Union items. I objected to THIS item for the very specific reason that as the number of stories on a single topic increases, the notability of each item definitively decreases. We address this very cleanly in American Football in particular, because of the clear supremacy of the Super Bowl. But in my opinion, we should not post more stories on a given sport because there is ambiguity on which is the premier event. I think most would agree with that, but deciding where to draw the line is difficult when each event on its own is significant. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Superbowl is a domestic competition. A popular one, but still a domestic one. Don't forget that ITN is here to provide items that may be of interest to our readers. This clearly is, which is why it has consensus and why it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted While there are a few opposes, some of them are not valid (eg misunderstanding that "test" here is not the same as a preliminary match, that a "tie" is a non-result, or the confusion between rugby league and rugby union) . Also persausive is the arguments of how infrequent this event is and how other rugby events are put on hold to allow this event to happen. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I support this and commend your reading of the discussion, it is still not sufficiently updated with prose to be posted. I was working on it, but do not really have much time to edit here at the moment, so am hoping someone else interested in this topic will be able to help. AIRcorn (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same thing. There are three tests; none of which have a prose summary (of what happened during the match). Note that neither the Stanley Cup (NHL) or the NBA Finals were posted last month for the same reason. If consensus is now that stats and trivia are all that's needed for a sport update then I would expect more similar nominations in the near future. If not, I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls of bias from the other side of the pond. Fuebaey (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

[edit]
July 7, 2017 (2017-07-07) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Health and medicine
  • According to the World Health Organization, antibiotic resistance is on the rise in strains of gonorrhoea. It says that there is a need to prevent the spread of these bacteria, recommending usage of condoms and an increase in research and development funding. (WHO)
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

[edit]
Article: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After 4 weeks of negotiations at the UN headquarters, 122 out of 193 states have adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
News source(s): UN, NY Times, The Guardian, Independent, TASS
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The treaty is legally binding and was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the UN members. Brandmeistertalk 22:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak weak oppose Partially on the situation: only 133 member countries voted, and those that have major nuclear weapons programs (US, Russia, most NATO states, etc.) did not participate. As the treaty only affects those that sign on to it, this will not affect the major problems in the world (read: North Korea). However, it is a positive step and to this end, if the article was in better quality to make sure these distinctions are made and noting which countries did not participate, among other details to note this is more "ceremonial" in the sense that few nuclear world powers are participating, then I would think it okay to post. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me through another !vote out there: Wait until the necessary 50 member-states sign it which then actually puts it into effect and makes it legally binding. This will be starting around Sept 20 when countries can sign onto it. Reading the articles, I get the impression that if they get the 50 member-states to sign on, it might coerce the bigger players to consider stepping onto it, but all recognize NK is going to be the last country to abide by this. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, at present it is in the news - the very new content is most important! Signature is not sufficient, only after 50 ratifications the treaty will be legally binding. This can take up to two years. Then we can put the information on the start page again - for now, please don't let our readers with old news like America's cup finished on 26 June. - By the way, I just updated main arguments of the civil society against the principle of nuclear deterrence defended by the nuclear powers and their allies, as well as arguments related to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now, the article of course is not excellent (the treaty is 9 hours old!), but gives a compact overview on history, content and discussions. --Jwollbold (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to still oppose on article quality. What exactly the treaty does should be clear (it should be a section unto itself), and the body needs to really include a full list of UN member states and how they voted, because the importance stressed by other !opposes here is the lack of any participation by current nuclear states - the article presently sweeps this under the rug with the last sentence of the lede. I don't dismiss this as purely ceremonial, but this factor about non-participation is very very important to understand that this is not going to be worldwide binding and likely to do little to current tensions with NK for example. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just wanted to nominate this article too. Brandmeister was faster - which demonstrates again, together with the world-wide press echo (see 3 other recent sources above), the relevance of the news. This is what counts most - in Wikipedia, we don't have to judge if the treaty is effective or purle symbolic (it is not, but a strong impulse towards disarmament and de-escalation of international conflicts; financing of nuclear weapon research and production is hindered, see this comment). In the respective German article, I have extensively described the discussions there. I will extend the English version too, during the next days. Anyway, today the subject is in the news, and we should hint on the start page at our valuable background informations regarding the content and history of the treaty. At least, the positions of different groups of states are listed, as desired by MASEM. --Jwollbold (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A great step towards world peace. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implacably opposed. Opposed to this for both objective and Wikipedia-related reasons. As far as substantive reasoning is concerned, the actual countries that have nuclear weapons are unanimous in their lack of support for their exctinction, and a majority-of-country position to the contrary is not going to change that. Those countries who have never developed nuclear weapons saying that nuclear weapons should not exist is neither new nor news.

    Wikipedia-related, if we're not going to post the country far and away most likely to actually launch a nuclear strike when able, successfully testing its first ICBM, with experts based in its most likely target confirming that they consider it a long range missile, then the idea that we post any type of missile or nuclear related story short of unilateral disarmament or nuclear war is utterly absurd. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This so called treaty is not worth the paper it is printed on and has less geo-political relevance than what I had for lunch. Otherwise what StillWaitingForConnection wrote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • StillWaitingForConnection (even if I don't understand you well) and Ad Orientem, it seems to me that you are superordinating your personal opinion over objective criteria of world-wide relevance. Only one correction: The treaty is not about negating nuclear weapons, but about precise steps towards disarmament. In Germany, for instance, nuclear sharing is in question and disputed among the main parties in the beginning Bundestag election campaign. Hence, no idealistic statement, but a realistic instrument in political debates. Very relevant, as the immediate statement of the US, United Kindom and France demonstrates (see TASS source above). --Jwollbold (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons#First_session_of_negotiations_and_first_draft_of_a_treaty, second paragraph. Also in the Netherlands, the parliament urged the government to participate in the negotiations. Hence, the treaty is much more than a paper expressing idealistic wishes, but strengthens and explains the position of groups of the civil society and of political parties claiming destruction of the stationed weapons. A realistic perspective for the next years - we can contribute to democratic discussions by clear information. At Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance, the positive criteria help to decide if such discussions are relevant; they deal with the type of media coverage - it is high and deep, since the treaty is adopted. --Jwollbold (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is a subjective judgement that this particular news item lacks any credible claim to relevance and therefore does not merit posting on ITN. Just because something gets news coverage does not mean it gets posted here. From a diplomatic point of view it has less importance than the Kellogg–Briand Pact, which as far as I am aware the United States has never formally withdrawn from. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please judge after the objective criteria of Wikipedia:In_the_news. Good night!--Jwollbold (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of my oppose is objective, and the fact that I have supplimented this with (and clearly labelled it as) personal opinion is immaterial. Zero nuclear weapons states have signed up to this treaty. This is a non-starter for any reason other than to make a political statement about nuclear weapons being an inherently bad thing (a political statement which I happen to agree with, except that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to make it).

You are accusing me of ignoring objective criteria, and therefore I would simply like to make the point that "nuclear weapons state successfully tests ICBM" – a story which I supported – is in my judgement an objective milestone with greater relevance than "treaty between non-nuclear states to ban nuclear weapons" (which I don't deny is also an objective milestone). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The countries that actually need to sign onto this treaty, aren't signing onto it. Quasi-symbolic feel-good garbage.--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this one is fairly straightforward as all treaties carry some legal weight, and the arguments for oppose seem to be based on things like personal POV that it doesn't count unless such and such country signs it. Seraphim System (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one's signing up yet (not open for signature until Sept.), but that technicality aside, South Africa was among the countries voting in favour of adoption. Kazakhstan voted for adoption, too (inherited 1400 warheads after the collapse of the USSR). So, "lack of anyone" is a bit of an overstatement. Iran voting in favour of adoption struck me as interesting: remains to be seen whether they ratify, of course. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first five words would seem to me to sink this nomination. Will consider the rest of what you say at the appropriate time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't find these arguments persuasive. This doesn't mean a persuasive argument couldn't be made, but so far I haven't seen any. A treaty can certainly have broader effects. For example, one might not be able to travel to the nations that have adopted it. This would be hugely significant, as it seems many nations have signed it. I don't really think these off-the-cuff predictions about international law are credible. Seraphim System (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The question is whether it is news, not whether we think it is going to rapidly result in permanent world abandonment of nuclear weapons. It's an agreement endorsed to some degree by more than 120 countries (122 countries in favour, 1 opposed, 1 abstention – of course not counting the countries who were not present) to prohibit nuclear weapons. That's news. (Grammatically, I suggest it should be "The United Nations adopts ...", since the UN is a single organization.) I'll certainly take this over the current ITN main page news of a yacht race and the explosion of an oil truck. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the trivialization of other items, as it has little relevance to your support here. And, given that the "yacht race" has community consensus given its listing at ITN/R, and the "oil explosion" resulted in over 200 fatalities. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the truck explosion accident killed 200 people, which was very tragic, and I'm not saying it wasn't. Around this time of July in 1945 and early the following month, some other things happened that directly killed about a thousand times that many people in the short term, using very primitive weaponry by today's standards. I'm not expressing an opinion about the wisdom of those actions or this one, but they seem potentially rather newsworthy – even if the UN action seems likely to have little near-term direct impact. I'll admit I don't personally do or watch a lot of yacht racing, although I suppose a lot of people find that really interesting and important, and I'll try to refrain from commenting further about that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem and WaltCip: Exactly, due to what you have mentioned, this issue should be added to the first page. Please, Imagine the non-slavery states have banned slavery and the slavery ones have opposed them. Do you think it is better to promote the non-slavery position or neglect it?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian: We shouldn't be promoting any issue or position; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I know the policies but, we will promote one of these two positions by our vote.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is WP:NOTAVOTE either.--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue of boycott by nuclear powers could be resolved by stating how many countries joined, which the altblurb does. Alas one can't reasonably expect that the US or Russia would disarm themselves altogether, especially unilaterally. This has been a problem for decades and reflects their mindsets. Maybe under new future governments this will change, but what's there is there. Brandmeistertalk 07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it seems to be a notable international treaty among many nations(even if a lot of them haven't or won't join it) 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - pure procedure. Having a treaty about nukes where none of the nuclear nations attend is rather pointless. It would be like if us Wikipedians held a conference condemning rogue admins - it is utterly irrelevant if none of the admins in question attend or heed any of our statements. Also agree with User:StillWaitingForConnection that this is the second most important nuclear-related story on ITN/C (and I opposed the first). Stormy clouds (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction, I added three sentences clarifying the relation to the disarmament obligation of the NPT as well as the specific prohibitions. You can see: The treaty has massive impact for signing states, also if they don't possess nuclear weapons themselves, e.g. for transport or assistance like financing or common maneuvers, even more for nuclear sharing as mentioned. Hence, it has also effects on nuclear armed states by inhibiting, e.g., their weapon production or deployment. That is well explained in the last third of an interview for the German television ZDF - I apologize for the translation making it difficult to understand the English original. --Jwollbold (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if, against my better judgement, a consensus were to emerge for posting this (there certainly isn't one yet), surely the appopriate time to post would be when countries actually sign the treaty? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The subject's important enough making it eligible for the ITN. Nuclear issues are nowadays making the subject of multiple international controversies including those involving US, North Korea, Iran and etc. I would post it fresh. The alternative blurb is more appropriate, in my opinion. --Mhhossein talk 16:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The altblurb however is wrong. No country has adopted it yet, that can't happen until September. They have come to an agreement on wording that they can take back to their home countries to get signatures. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if alt1 were accurate, and you have succintly demonstrated that it is not, then the validity of the statement in the original blurb would still be in question. But hey, let's not let trifling things like factual accuracy, or the complete lack of scrutiny of the condition of the article, get in the way of this democratic exercise. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, major advance in nuclear disarmament per Moscow Mule, relevant now rather than waiting for ratification per Jwollbold, and although the major nuclear powers aren't going to sign it, this will reduce their ability to host weapons in other countries (as with NZ's long-standing refusal to host potentially nuclear weapon bearing US Navy ships).-gadfium 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is there no map of signatories vs. non-signatories in the article? 140.207.161.230 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done (w/r/t to states voting for adoption; signatories come later). Kudos User:Jwollbold. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Internationally significant event. STSC (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Masem: the article now makes even more clear that there is strong opposition - the introduction and "Positions" are revised. Regarding your request for explaining the content of the treaty: I prepared the article for the day of signature as well as possible - you will find major subjects in the history section. But I - and nobody else - really didn't have time to restructure the article by introducing a large content section. For now, readers can have a look on the ten small pages of the treaty and read themselves how the few open questions were finally decided (most decisions are already mentioned in the history section and in the introduction). How to procede otherwise? In these days, the treaty is hot news and should finally be placed in the ITN section, instead of one of several old news.
One supplementary hint to the political impact of the treaty: The ennemies Iran and Saudi-Arabia voted in favour of the ban - and Saudi-Arabia financed Pakistani nuclear weapons and is supposed to have some control over them! The significance of the treaty also lies in the debates on it. They are real, have high social and political relevance. 122 governments of UN members states as well as many political groups, journalists or scientists believe the treaty has a strong impact on disarmament. We should objectively notice that and give our readers the opportunity to participate in the worldwide democratic debate. I think it is not useful to prevent consensus based on the personal opinion, that the treaty "has less geo-political relevance than what I had for lunch" (@Ad Orientem:). This kind of objections has its place in the article, it is not ignored.
The discussion here slowly evolved in direction of support. What means consensus in the english wikipedia? Is a single "oppose" vote sufficient to block it, or should we weight the reasons? Really, I don't see strong arguments against the relevance any more. Also @Stormy clouds:, @WaltCip: and @StillWaitingForConnection: could you now resolve to change your oppose to a weak oppose or to acceptance of publication with reserve? I see that also for other news it is very difficult to be posted without such a sense of compromise. Regards --Jwollbold (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fucking disgrace of a post. Even putting aside the question of whether there was vote counting. Even if we put aside the question of whether there was blind supporting on principle rather than looking at the article, even if we put aside the disgraceful, disingenous, downright fucking dishonest attempt to take quite serious neutrality concerns, edit one and a half lines, wait four hours on a Sunday morning European time and while the US is completely asleep, and claim there's unanimous consensus. Even if we forgive and forget all that. THE BLURB WE HAVE ACTUALLY CHOSEN TO POST IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE AND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SUCH IN THE DISCUSSION WITHOUT A SIGNLE ARGUMENT TO THE FUCKING CONTRARY.

    Apologies for holding back. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it doesn't seem quite accurate, although I'm not sure all that cursing and boldface and all-caps formatting is necessary. Adoption of the treaty by member states is not what happened. What happened is the adoption of the treaty by the UN as a text that countries can adopt in an individual basis in the future. I suggest changing "After four weeks of negotiations, 122 out of 193 United Nations member states adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons." to "After four weeks of negotiations, the United Nations adopts the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with 122 out of 193 member states voting in favour of the proposed text." (Note that the UN spelling of "favour" includes the "u".) I might also suggest dropping the phrase about the four weeks of negotiations, as that doesn't seem so important. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be simplier: "...adopt the text of the Treaty...". Brandmeistertalk 16:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems like it suffers from the original problem, since it seems like it might be saying that those member states adopted the treaty. They didn't. They only voted to create a treaty that could be adopted later, on an individual basis. Some of those who voted in favour of the text might not ultimately adopt the treaty. Some of them might have no intention or no plan of adopting it for themselves and may have just voted in favour of the text to enable it to become something that would be adopted by others. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The official UN conference page uses the wording "Treaty adopted on 7th July 2017". "Adopt" is justified, since many decisions were made during the redaction process, which will force the signing states to accept the treaty as it is or to reject it. And please understand: the important news now is the text and content of the treaty, it is a new contract filling a gap in international law and inspiring discussions as well as political decisions. Signature will be important, but it will be a simple factual news, not as complex as the negotiation of the treaty. --Jwollbold (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 G20

[edit]
Stale as conference is long concluded, and no consensus to post has developed. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:15, 11 July 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: 2017 G20 Hamburg summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2017 G20 summit is held in Hamburg (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The G20 summit in Hamburg concludes with the world leaders vowing to protect the Paris Agreement and to fight protectionism and terrorism.
News source(s): BBC[83]
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
 JennyOz (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing We don't know what the biggest news story is from this conference yet, but it's already significant news. We can make it a blurb once we agree on a blurb. Article is almost ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing. Yes it's ITN/R, but "important people meet" isn't much of a blurb, and the posting of such a blurb will only invite blurb creep without appropriate discussion when something happens that might or might not be worthy of mentioning in the blurb (be that protests, comments by a certain leader, a particular type of agreement, and so forth). Quality wise, I'm aware of the orange tags, but they're indicative of an OCD approach to article development, rather than allowing the article to develop organically. Article content absolutely fine.

    Swift ongoing with no prejudce to a blurb, with a debate should a particular flashpoint be considered the blurb moment, seems the right approach to me. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as main page news: "Some people go to a meeting" is not news. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this is ITNR, the consensus is indeed that "some people have a meeting" is news. For not being news it is certainly in a lot of news outlets. If you don't believe this should be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the G20 leaders are "some people" is absurd on its face. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will support alt blurb, but article is still laden with tags that need attention.
  • The simple blurb is fine. The wikilink allows people to find out details if they wish. --LukeSurl t c 10:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ITNR but is there any resolution or major matter that was discussed that could be included? I'm not finding anything clear that can be said in just a few words (eg all G19 but the US reaffirmed committment to Paris Agreement, but that's a bit too long winded). The short blurb is okay to post, but it would be nice to highlight a positive result. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Couple of big-name pow-wows but largely a meh outside of the puerile Krawalle in Hamburg. Sca (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current alt-blurb is problematic. Firstly, the article doesn't even discuss the outcome of the meeting / their closing statement. That needs to be addressed before posting. Secondly, the prominent inclusion of the Paris Agreement in the blurb is awkward without somehow mentioning that the US refused to join that part of their communique. The tensions between the US and other countries over Paris and other issues was one of the big narratives of the summit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those three items were taken directly from their discussion in the closing statement (see source and amend if necessary). Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 • It's over. As Goethe said, Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh. – Whew! Sca (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why cant I see DYK on my phone? But really "G20 summit" gives no indication of "why these people meeting is important"? Seraphim System (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 • The real story was the idiotic "unfettered violence" of the riots, an embarrassment to Germany, the EU and the West generally. The Summit changed virtually nothing. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. I don't object in principle to posting with the altblurb as this is ITN/R, but I would like to see the empty "Refugee crisis" section dealt with before supporting. It's not appropriate for Ongoing, though.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 6

[edit]
July 6, 2017 (2017-07-06) (Thursday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Xi

[edit]
Stale. Older than oldest current item. Dragons flight (talk) 16:39, 12 July 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: List of baryons (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new baryon composed of two charm quarks and an up quark is discovered (Post)
News source(s): [84]
Credits:

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - significant breakthrough in particle physics, of major importance and significance. There is an accessibility tag on the target article, but given the subject, I fail to see how this could be ameliorated. Unfortunately, there exists no corresponding Simple English page, so hands are tied. I would propose neglecting it altogether. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to !vote on this one since the subject is one where I lack any competency. So I will confine myself to opining that if this is in fact deemed a highly significant event that I would also support ignoring the tag at the top of the article. I also note that the list is FA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: let me try to explain this. There are six known quarks (up, down, bottom, top, strange and charm) each of which has their own antiparticles (antiup, antidown ... etc). Baryons are made of three quarks. Up to certain technical restrictions, any combination of three quarks makes a new baryon, but some are easily detected (protons for example) while others much harder to synthesize (especially those involving the exotic quarks, bottom / top / strange / charm, since they're unstable). This discovered baryon is ccu, which is why it took so long to synthesize. However it's possible to argue that while these missing baryons are hard to synthesize they're certainly expected to be there, and this discovery doesn't change anything fundamental in physics. @Modest Genius: might know more about this. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be an accurate description. Modest Genius talk 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changes nothing, fifth such discovery in past decade, wrong target. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM as well as the fact that there has yet to be peer review of this result. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the grounds that the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed. CERN has jumped the gun here, announcing the discovery when the paper has only been submitted (not yet accepted). It's also expected physics so I think the significance is borderline at best, but the peer-review status should be a big red flag for us. Modest Genius talk 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty much becoming standard operating procedure for particle discoveries at CERN. The Higgs Boson discovery was publicized when it was submitted (not accepted). As was the first pentaquark observation. As were the Xib*- and Xib'- particle discoveries. As was the discovery of charge symmetry breaking in B0s decays. Etc. Etc. (Both the Higgs and pentaquark discoveries were posted to ITN, despite the lack of peer review.) It's not that CERN never waits for a paper to be published. They did wait to publish the CLOUD experiment results as well as the observations of the light spectrum of anti-hydrogen before promoting those results. However, we shouldn't be shocked that CERN publicized a new discovery before peer review since they have a long history of doing just that. Dragons flight (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Ab initio synthesis of horsepox virus

[edit]
Stale. Older the oldest current item. Dragons flight (talk) 16:40, 12 July 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.

Articles: horse pox (talk · history · tag) and smallpox (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists synthesize an extinct horse pox virus to demonstrate that smallpox can be recreated in the lab using modest means (Post)
News source(s): Science magazine
Credits:

Second article updated, first needs updating
Nominator's comments: "Eradicating smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases in history, took humanity decades and cost billions of dollars. Bringing the scourge back would probably take a small scientific team with little specialized knowledge half a year and cost about $100,000." Count Iblis (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the first time smallpox has been synthesized. I have certainly read about the threat of it before from RS's (can't find specific ones). If I am correct in this assertion, I don't see this development as ITN-worthy, and would oppose. Moreover, the first target article is intense, even for someone with a passing interest in microbiology, and is considerably too dense for the main page in my view (hence the tag I added). Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viruses have been synthesized before, but they were much simpler viruses, e.g. polio which has a genome that's just 1/30th of the pox virus. Smallpox has never been synthesized, but as the years have passed, it has become much easier to actually do so. Horse pox is the same as smallpox as far as the difficulty to synthesize is concerned. To prove the point that it's now possible to synthesize smallpox in a small lab by a team of people who don't need to have a lot of competence in biotechnology, the scientists chose to synthesize hors pox (synthesizing smallpox would have been illegal, there are obvious biosafety hazards involved here). So, a clear threshold has now been passed, the whole discussion on whether or not US and Russian labs should destroy their stockpiles of smallpox is now moot as it can be recreated quite easily. Kim can do it and even ISIS could do it if they were not in the verge of defeat. More worryingly, it's also possible to create viruses that have never existed before that will cause a global pandemic. Count Iblis (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Count Iblis's argument. Would prefer to bold link smallpox, as well as see more of an update there (will DIY). Banedon (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose things got cheaper and easier to do? Not even sure this interesting enough for DYK..... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While a necessary step towards a vaccine for smallpox, it is not yet a vaccine for smallpox. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is your comment, then I don't think you understood the significance of the report. We have an effective smallpox vaccine. Maybe we could create a better one using similar techniques, but main reason this work is getting attention is not about vaccines. Synthesizing horsepox from raw DNA and other easily available materials demonstrates a high likelihood that viable smallpox virus could also be synthesized (at relatively low cost) from the published genome sequences alone. That result significantly increases the risk that smallpox could be developed as a terrorist or biowarfare agent, since the bad actors would not require access to live cultures of smallpox, but could simply build the virus themselves given enough equipment and resources. Dragons flight (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The researchers are not interesting in weaponizing smallpox; their studies are aimed at being able to create smallpox strains in secured lab conditions so that they can study it and create more effective vaccines, particularly if there are other strains. The news articles on this show no interest in trying to scare people about this discovery. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bringing the scourge [of smallpox] back would probably take a small scientific team with little specialized knowledge half a year and cost about $100,000." - That's literally the second sentence in the news article linked above. Later in the same article: "But the new work ... is raising troubling questions about how terrorists or rogue states could use modern biotechnology." No, these researchers aren't trying to revive smallpox, but by showing how easy it could be it informs the bioweapons debate in a significant way. For my money the potential bioterror implications are the story, and in my reading the linked article seems to agree. The possible legitimate research uses are rather less interesting. Dragons flight (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The researchers are aware of the dual-use (for good or for nefarious purposes), but the reason to post something like this is not to be a scare tactic in that one can cheaply make a pox virus. I do note that they have struggled to actually get a peer-reviewed paper as the work itself doesn't seem groundbreaking, only that they found a way to it cheaper. So I'm still opposed to this story. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Joan Boocock Lee

[edit]
Article: Joan Boocock Lee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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: Wife of Stan Lee Sherenk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

[edit]
July 5, 2017 (2017-07-05) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Society
  • A group of people are arrested in the Peruvian village of Muqui, located in the Andes, after they painted a wall with allusive symbols and messages to the far-left terrorist organization, Shining Path, responsible for crimes against humanity in Peru from 1980 to 1992. Police later clarified that the true intentions of the arrested, some of them students of a technical training institute, were to make a short film. (La República) (Diario Correo)

Science and technology

RD: Card. Joachim Meisner

[edit]
Article: Joachim Meisner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Cardinal Joachim Meisner, one of the four 'dubia' cardinals, has died aged 83". Catholic Herald. Catholic Herald. 6 July 2017. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
Credits:

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: Archbishop of Cologne for 25 years, voted in the last two papal conclaves. Cato censor (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Hobby Lobby pays $3 Million dollar settlement for artifacts smuggling

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 06:23, 10 July 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.

Articles: Hobby Lobby (talk · history · tag) and Cuneiform (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hobby Lobby agrees to pay $3 million settlement and return 5,500 cuneiform tablets that were illegally smuggled into the United States. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Hobby Lobby is a well known Christian firm that has been involved in high-profile litigation in the past, this is the latest news about them. The article has already been updated by multiple editors. Seraphim System (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I can't remember another occasion since the Iraq War started where 5,500 stolen cuneiform tablets have been returned. Stolen artifacts are an important issue for many people, and have been since the outbreak of the conflict. Good faith nomination implies I've made some kind of good faith mistake, but that doesn't really make up for the fact that the statement "run of the mill" is patently false (or that you destroyed the subheading with your revert, making this a separate section. I added New because other editors added it to my first posts.) (I see you've fixed the subheading.) Seraphim System (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who put the [New] in any earlier nomination. If it were at or near the bottom of the page I could understand it but it's not normally done. In any event I am not going to get into a snit over it. Run of the mill is pretty much what this is IMO, which is no more, or less, valid than your interpretation. A $3 million fine for trafficking in smuggled artifacts is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, certainly from a global perspective. I note that it currently has all of one paragraph and an additional sentence in the main article about the company. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me some of these other routine examples of 5,500 artifacts being seized by the United States government? Is there some kind of criteria for how long an update has to be, like the 5x expansion for DYK? Is this some arbitrary rule that we cover terrorist attacks in ITN, but we don't cover artifact seizures because artifact seizures are "too run of the mill." It's unfortunate that more editors aren't involved in these discussions, because it seems like there is a lot of arbitrary POV guiding these decisions of what is suitable for ITN inclusion, like whether a settlement figure is high enough (even though the settlement figure is really not the point here.) Seraphim System (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone has nominated something like this before. When I am labeling it run of the mill I mean it's a corporate crime story. Corps do worse things almost every day. As for length criteria, as far as I know there is none in writing which leaves it to the judgement of the editors participating in the discussion. I can state that in my experience articles that are nominated that are stub length and relevant updates to larger articles that if they were a stand alone article would be classed as a stub, are rarely posted at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "corporate crime" story, it is a story about a seizure of artifacts, in this case a very large one. Usually, this is considered an international crime issue. This is not a common occurrence, though it does happen, and large seizures are a big deal every time they happen. Many scholars and researchers are interested in the outcome of these investigations. In particular, artifacts smuggled from Iraq and Syria have been a point of interest in recent years, and a seizure of thousands (in this case 5,500) is incredibly significant. I'm not sure that a longer add (about the owners and other details from recent news stories) would be appropriate to add to Hobby Lobby, so common sense should prevail here. I will consider this for future nominations since our Antiquities trade article is not in good enough shape to serve as the second article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too much to ask that you read the entire blurb before commenting? They have agreed to pay $3 million and forfeit 5,500 tablets. Seraphim System (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a slap on the wrist. If there were actual executives from Hobby Lobby going to jail over this, indicating the severity of the situation, that might be something, but that's not here. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't feel this is sufficiently in the news to merit posting(no sources seem to be offered here either) aside from the other issues raised. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not convinced that this story is important enough for ITN, as it seems to be a mere slap on the wrist (and a small one at that). Also surprised that Jesus didn't give them a dig-out in this case. You would think that discriminating against homosexuals would buy you enough brownie points for some legal aid. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

July 4

[edit]
July 4, 2017 (2017-07-04) (Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: John McKenzie

[edit]
Article: John McKenzie (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Bàs am "Firhill Flyer"". BBC News (in Scottish Gaelic). BBC. 5 July 2017. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Simple but sufficient article about a Scottish footballer. Appears to be well-referenced. Apologies for the non-English reference. LukeSurl t c 13:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not sure where I stand at the moment, still checking the references. The problem here is that there's hardly anything here. This article is in some kind of limbo between "stub"↑→ and ←↓"start"- class, without being either one, or the other. Maybe we need to start an RfC about the "class" of article for RD nominations, or something. Christian Roess (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - it looks like there may be some inaccuracies which can be fixed: it looks like he made 52 appearances with Dumbarton (not 28, as stated in the infobox). So maybe the infobox needs some citation, too. But I don't follow this sport, so I'm unsure if I'm reading the stats correctly after going thru the references. Also, I would suggest a citation is needed after the sentence that states "during his Partick Thistle career he helped the side to three League Cup finals, in 1953, 1956 and 1959, but they lost on each occasion." But even with these fixes, some expansion of the article is needed before I can cast my "support" vote. Christian Roess (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the accuarcy issues noted above (but no, we definitely do not need to discuss article classes, they have no governance and are frankly pointless between "stub" and "GA"). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statistics in the infobox are based on this source. For the Dumbarton number this is flatly contradicted by this. Not sure how to resolve this. --LukeSurl t c 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes only list league appearances, so the 28 figure is correct. The 52 figure includes league and cup appearances.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Daniil Granin

[edit]
Article: Daniil Granin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Schriftsteller Daniil Granin ist tot; Fallece a los 98 años el afamado escritor ruso Daniil Granin
Credits:

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: award-winning Russian author. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Reclosed] 2017 North Korean missile tests

[edit]
Still no consensus to post, and no chance this will change. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 8 July 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.

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:02, 7 July 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: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ North Korea test launches its first ICBM that it says could reach Alaska (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first ICBM that could reach Alaska
Alternative blurb II: ​ North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first ICBM that experts believe could reach Alaska.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Experts claim that the successful test by North Korea of its Hwasong-14 ICBM shows it could reach Alaska
News source(s): http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/04/c_136416688.htm; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN19P02W
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: ICW 7/4/2017 Current Event item. Expect thorough article will be uploaded shortly. This is an early alert. .... This ICBM test is a threat to the United States (reach Alaska claim), on America's biggest holiday (Fourth of July/Independence Day); few days before G20 meeting; push back against series of United Nations condemnations. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness though, this is mere sabre-rattling. If the petulant baby is crying for attention and demanding that we worship him, we can feel free to ignore him. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another source. Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's hard to see this as less significant than some of the things that we've posted in the past month. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Opposers fail to convince. This remains headline news across the board. U.S. and South Korean response is notable. Should be posted at once. Jusdafax 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is the same old bluster, and the same old story, we've been hearing from N. Korea since...well, forever. And frankly, it"s the same-old-same-old we've been hearing from the United States, too. Hey, I used to live in Seoul, so I know. I mean, talk about your "fake news." Alas, this nomination needs to go the way of all flesh. For real. Christian Roess (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which appears to have happened after every NK successful test launch such as in Feb and Aug of 2016. Again, this is standard reaction all around. (And I'd call this more sensationalist news rather than fake news - it's overblowing the immediate danger by focusing on the prediction a missile could hit the US, where this has actually yet to be shown and that it can carry a payload that survives re-entry). --MASEM (t) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, likely not after every test, but they are frequent enough that just because the UN calls an emergency session shouldn't make this specific test more important than any other test. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm afraid so Martinevans123. In my opinion, "fake news" is just the latest "catch-phrase" for what has gone by other names in the past: like, "propaganda," or "spectacle," for instance. And in my opinion that kind of falls under the umbrella of "manufacturing consent"... or the "engineering of consent"...yep, so in that sense: "fake news". No two ways around it. But maybe Masem is showing more discernment here. And so I'll agree that this news is "sensationalist." Christian Roess (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I hear you, and it's a relentless media blitzkrieg, who has time to sort it all out, fake, real? But I think we can all agree that, when it comes to N. Korea and the U.S., both of their leaders have lousy haircuts. Christian Roess (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is a worrisome technological development, but until something happens as a result it's all bluster politically. U.S. options are few. What are they going to do, nuke Pyongyang, 90 miles from China? I don't think so. Thus, in effect it's just more hot air from Kim Jong-un as he plays Godzilla of the Demi-Despots. Sca (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Seriously? We're using the response to the test as a baseline for notability? Nothing's going to be done. Nothing ever has been done. What are they going to do; sanction them? Because that worked so well in the past, didn't it?--WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unmoved by the opposition here. A first ICBM by a confirmed nuclear state - whilst acknowledging that there is no suggestion that they are yet capable of launching a nuclear strike - and over a period of decades North Korea has been considered one of the only countries on earth likely to launch a first strike attack outside of wartime. The question of whether it could hit New York, Washington D.C. or Los Angeles is an (understandably followed) red herring. ICBM is an objective measurement of a missile's minimum range, and a missile considered capable of hitting Anchorage from Pyongyang passes that measurement. All too frequently there is a temptation to post about North Korea, but on an objective basis I believe this is the time where that temptation is justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support about a thousand times more significant than MOAB which gained a lot of support. It seems very easy to deny the fact that North Korea are now able to strike Alaska, but add this technological step forward to the nuclear testing then we're not far away from that reality. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 • This event is referenced once, in a paragraph to be found 3,165 words into a 7,000-word article. Not what one would classify as user-friendly. Sca (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info, it's also now been added at Hwasong-14. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...from which I've just excised a load of copyvio, so that article is in no state for the main page at present. BencherliteTalk 14:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although I'm not sure there'll be any rush to fix it now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - this is a genuine question which will shape my opinion on this piece greatly. Even if (and I would still consider it to be an if) the DPRK is capable of hitting Alaska with an ICBM, does this really constitute an escalation. As far as I am concerned, nowhere in Alaska would be a strategic target for North Korea, so they will not waste one of their (relatively few) nuclear weapons on it. Russia also have ICBM's capable of hitting Alaska, but their development was not newsworthy as they would never use one on the state. Is this scenario similar? Stormy clouds (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is this the first time that American territory is in range of North Korean nukes? I ask considering it is almost twice as far as the crow flies from Anchorage to Pyongyang as it is to Guam. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair questions. NK certainly isn't stuck in the 50s. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
@Stormy clouds: In answer to the original question, Alaska is a point of convenience for the media, as Anchorage simply happens to closely align with the distance from North Korea at which a missile is considered an ICBM (>5500km). By contrast, Russia theoretically had the ability to hit Alaska with a nuke years before the first ICBM was launched in 1957, purely due to geography.

The reason I support this particular escalation is not so much the practical significance, as much as the fact that it is the only objective opportunity I can envisage (other than a war going hot) at which to post a story on the North Korea situation. I fail to see how it would be in keeping with NPOV to not post North Korea successfully testing an ICBM, but then subsequently post that they have a missile with the range to hit either the capitol or simply somewhere in the US mainland. I make this point because this seems to be the general tone of the opposition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect some editors might be reluctant to support this in case it lends any credence to the NK regime's propaganda machine. Imagine how much more impact this would have had if there had been no euphoric July-4th-gift-to-Uncle-Sam announcement, and the news had just leaked out via Reuters from Japanese and Chinese monitoring agencies? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sabre rattling by a country with a half century history of this kind of behavior is not something that warrants attention from ITN. The details may be different but the underlying story is the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the first ever successful test of an ICBM by North Korea. This is a major game changer as it allows NK to directly attack the US. To those dismissing this as mere saber rattling or that this has been going on for a half-century, this is different. NK has never had an ICBM capable of directly attacking the US homeland. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. North Korea successfully testing an ICBM is a historic event and definitely ITN worthy. --bender235 (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 • Suggest close – Fairly even vote split. Getting stale. Sca (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think we might want to let User:bender235 restore his comment that was removed by an anon IP. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if my math is wrong, but 6 of the last 9 !votes are in favor of inclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to upload it, we should at least change the headline so that it is not misleading. Saying that the"ICBM" "can" reach Alaska is often interpreted by most readers as meaning it "will" reach Alaska, and thus would potentially cause another Red Scare like what happened back in the 1950s and 60s. We should say something more accurate like it "may be able to" instead. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is more than sabre-rattling - it is a major development that has made worldwide headlines. Seems ITN worthy to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This nomination is getting really out of hand, I oppose this not because this is saber-rattling (which it is Supporters, get over it.). But also because you all are acting like Pessimists, thinking that "Oh, it IS going to hit Alaska" or "America is doomed". The thing you supporters need to know is that while I don't disagree that this may have been an ICBM, it's standard trajectory was not tested, only estimated and thus is technically still unknown. While North Korea should not be underestimated, they should not be overestimated either, because their failures outweigh their successes, and they only recently began to succeed in using missile technology. Martian, I do agree that North Korea "isn't in the 50s", but neither are they "in the present/2010s" either, and you need to realize it too. Their technology is largely outdated from the rest of the world, including their "allies" in China (not the quotation marks), and it is often said that North Korea's missiles' accuracy is nothing special. I'm against this nomination because of the fighting you users are already doing right now over just one nomination, you all should be ashamed of what you have gotten yourselves into. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to be ashamed of, and I don't think America is doomed. I just think this is a major story in which our readers would be interested. You should stop trying to second-guess other editors reasons for supporting. And I know what pessimism is, thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politically and culturally, of course it's still totally trapped. That's the real tragedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Is there life in Pyongyang?" [reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • (re-opening) @Spencer: As a non-admin in good standing I'm reopening this.

    With a neutral hat on, clearly this is more likely to not be posted than to be posted on the basis that I'm sure significant weight is being given to the opposition. With a non-neutral hat on I question the strength of the oppose votes, which in the main amount to "yes it sounds big, but this is North Korea we're talking about".

    Regardless, the decision to close was a needless one. The debate was not bad-natured – it was not descending into personal attacks, mud-slinging, motive questioning, and furthermore was not being disrupted by a particular side. Where loaded comments were made in either the support or oppose column, the bait was not being bitten by those replying other than to disagree and explain why. Furthermore, the trend of later comments was materially different to earlier ones, suggesting a slight possibility of a consensus to post emerging. This is particularly relevant given that if posted it would have been (and at the current time, would still be) the most recent story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert this since I am INVOLVED, but for the record I disagree with it. The close was good and it was an ADMIN action. Acknowledging NOTAVOTE there is no reasonable likelihood of a consensus coming out of this. You would have to have one or a combination of a massive shift by opposing editors to support and or an avalanche of new support votes with no new oppose votes. Aint happening. Strong support speedy reclose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed There is no chance of consensus to post this emerging before it becomes stale, so there is no point in the discussion remaining open as it takes editors' time and energy away from newer stories and articles that need attention. This is standard practice for ITN nominations where discussions are time sensitive, getting consensus is important, ensuring quality is even more important and eyes are relatively few. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 3

[edit]
July 3, 2017 (2017-07-03) (Monday)
Armed attacks and conflicts

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

2017 China floods

[edit]
Article: 2017 China floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Floods in South China kill at least thirty three people over the last few days with thousands being relocated. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over 48 people are killed in southern and central China following severe flooding.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: People have died and many have been displaced. Appreciate if someone can add a blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sherenk1 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the '48' claim? The Reuters story says 33. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had read it online somewhere, cant seem to find the link, reverted blurb to 33. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose At this stage, deaths from flooding in China at this time of year is not unexpected, similar to deaths from torandoes in the US or from hurricanes/typhoons. It's sad news, but also something that does happen regularly. If the floods worsen, then that might be valid to post. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I think we should let this one play out before making a decision. At the moment, the article is not of a sufficient quality irrespective of opinions about news-worthiness. Currently 48 are reported dead, and at this level, I would oppose. However, if this death toll rises to triple figures (which it may well) and the article receives significant improvements which I lack the expertise to implement, then I would unabashedly support. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - neither of these criteria have materialised, and I am beginning to doubt the long-term international impacts of this, so I'll oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

[edit]
July 2, 2017 (2017-07-02) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sport

[Posted] RD: Jack Collom

[edit]
Article: Jack Collom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KGNU News
Credits:

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: U.S. poet and teacher. Christian Roess (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

[edit]
July 1, 2017 (2017-07-01) (Saturday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Tour de France

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 21:06, 2 July 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.

Proposed image
Article: 2017 Tour de France (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I know that this is on ITN/R. However, I feel that an ongoing listing would be superior to a blurb at the race's conclusion. If the article receives frequent updates (and it is not an invocation of WP:CBALL to assume that it will be), then ongoing will work. Significant media attention is being directed to the race. It would also render the currently barren ongoing list more useful. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress except for the multi sport Olympics. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 331dot. It's guarenteed an ITNR posting when its all done. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nom's rationale is that ongoing would be superior to a blurb at conclusion. I happen to agree with that for this particular event, given the anti-climax that is the final stage, compared to the drama that happens in the mountains and stages that have a major crash in them. Such as today's. But all that said, are we really going to refrain from posting the yellow jersey? Because if not then ongoing + blurb would be the start of a new fad. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neither of the opposes seem to have reasoning other than "this isn't what we've done before". The nominator's rationale is solid - this is an ongoing event that is in the news with stage-by-stage updates in the articles. The "cost" of using the ongoing section here is slim, this space is literally blank right now. Replacing the ongoing item with the blurb once the Tour finishes seems perfectly fine to me. --LukeSurl t c 16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with the Tour de France is that there is only one effective winner, despite there being many segments. It's an extremely long event for all purpose. Contrast with the Olympics where there are numerous events and winners every day, or with FIFA World Cup where there's elimination matches every single day so there's significant complete events to discuss. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would this set precedent do same with Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under et al? JennyOz (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those events are listed on ITN/R, and they lack the significant international attention and prestige of the Tour de France, so no. They are not news-worthy enough for ITN in general unless something extremely unusual occurs (which would result in a blurb nomination). Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see what would conceptually distinguish the Tour de France from other multi-day single sport competitions such as FIFA World Cup, America's Cup, Wimbledon, MLB, NBA, or NHL finals, etc. Once you go down this road, it would seem like there are way too many multi-day competitions that one might similarly argue in favor of putting in ongoing. For that reason, my preference is to stick with just using a blurb at the end. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reservations. However, precedence is not binding, and the daily staging of the Tour (which is a solitary event with one winner) demarcates it as unique. I would not necessarily propose the nomination of many of the other events which you have listed as they are often too disparate, and do not receive the same type of media attention as the Tour. Most media treats it as an ongoing affair, and it would also conveniently fill the ongoing slot which is currently vacant. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For those of us who like the process of WP as much as the result, I love the nom, because I want to see where everyone comes down on this in re: the various norms and policies. But this does not meet the qualifications for ongoing UNLESS there is someone who is going to own it; and post ITN-worthy updates daily. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not because it is a sporting event, but because the updates will be just filling in the table of who's ahead by which stage. This is not like other ongoing where articles are getting regular prose updates. Abductive (reasoning) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Cuz it's a gol-dang bicycle race, gol-dang-it! (And this user goes bicycling almost every day.) Sca (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40752120
  2. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/28/charlie-gard-tragic-case-short-life/
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/28/charlie-gard-dies
  4. ^ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-charlie-gard-hospice-20170727-story.html
  5. ^ http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/charlie-gard-to-be-sent-to-hospice-today-where-lifesupport-treatment-will-end-35972561.html
  6. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/baby-charlie-gard-dies-after-parents-legal-battle-for-treatment-1.3170300
  7. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charlie-gards-situation-calls-for-more-discussions-on-end-of-life-care/2017/07/26/093962de-708c-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.1f9fa19c433d
  8. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-baby-idUSKBN1AD0NT
  9. ^ https://apnews.com/255f49c827ac44649ef17b8422243830
  10. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/world/europe/charlie-gard-dead.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017&oldid=1148110916"