Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former President of Brazil
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions[edit]

July 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 20
International relations
Politics and elections

HIV/AIDS[edit]

Article: HIV/AIDS (talk, history)
Blurb: UNAIDS finds that 1 million people died of AIDS in 2016, down from 1.2 million in 2015
News source(s): Search your favourite search engine for the title "Amid turning tide, AIDS claimed 1 million lives in 2016: UN". Example: [1]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

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)

  • Oppose the report clearly shows the trend has been downward for many years now. This is good news but more DYK than ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. While a mere report, it does seem to be hitting news outlets and the fact that this involves a well known disease which gets much attention and funding leads me to come down on the support side. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving the attribution, otherwise it just seems like a random opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose – Per Modest. Not surprising. Sca (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good statistical trend, not a newsworthy breakthrough. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian presidential election, 2017[edit]

Article: Indian presidential election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ram Nath Kovind has been elected as the 14th president of India
Alternative blurb: Ram Nath Kovind is elected as President of India
News source(s): India Today
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

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)

  • Support Not sure if I can vote because I'm the updater, but the article is well sourced at this pre-results stage and I will work on the article when the results become known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Article doesn't adequately explain the system to an uninitiated reader. "As of 2017, the electoral college comprises 776 MPs and 4,120 MLAs. The total strength of Electoral college is 1,098,882 votes." is confusing to me. --LukeSurl t c 07:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've fixed this to my satisfaction now. --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As an event listed on WP:ITNR, there's no need for support/oppose votes. However, I agree that this isn't ready for posting yet. The article has a bare minimum of prose, and leaves the non-expert reader scratching their head. I certainly struggled to follow it and remain rather mystified. Surely the election of such an important office deserves more than 250 words of explanation? Modest Genius talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    Also I've added a simpler altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The article will need a table of the actual results now that they've been announced. --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a table with the "headline" results. --LukeSurl t c 12:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is now adequate for posting. --LukeSurl t c 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly much improved. Before supporting I would still like to see some discussion on the selection of candidates, their campaign positions, and the inline tags addressed. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The inline tags are now dealt with. --LukeSurl t c 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Because this was an indirect election by already-elected people, and the ruling coalition was always going to get their candidate elected there wasn't really a campaign with positions to discuss. --LukeSurl t c 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood, but they surely said *something* about why they wanted to become president, if only while seeking the nomination from their parties. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An important event that has enough information to be posted on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.122.133 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)
Blurb: United States Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with glioblastoma—a very aggressive brain cancer.
News source(s): Sen. John McCain has brain cancer, aggressive tumor surgically removed
Nominator: Nightdevil (talk • give credit)
Updater: Anythingyouwant (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: McCain is known worldwide and "John McCain" is a well-written article. NightD 06:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Sad for his family but this is not significant at all on a global scale. If/when he dies, we'll post an RD.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tragic, but not globally significant. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the death of a parliamentarian (who wasn't head of govt or head of state) from natural causes would rarely, if ever, be a blurb. Even less likely for such diagnoses. --LukeSurl t c 06:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
So you actually support this, then? I just want the real answer. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I opposed it. If I support, it'll be highlighted as such. Banedon (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

July 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 19
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)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Posted] Blaoui Houari[edit]

Article: Blaoui Houari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
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. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also 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)

  • Support Article well sourced and I do believe (can be wrong) that size of the article does not matter as long as it covers the basic notability of the subject. I believe that the article did cover it well, though a little expanding wouldn't hurt. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, a bit short, but finely sourced. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too short and bare-bones. 1779Days (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weakest support barely above stub but on a relatively niche subject so it would be unforunate to penalise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is short but covers the basics adequately enough and I see no referencing issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 18
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

July 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations

[Closed] Russian hacking scandal[edit]

Closing. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once again, consensus against adding this. BencherliteTalk 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

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]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 16
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)
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)
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."
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. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a stub but it seems significant. Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose foreigner imprisoned, seemingly unfairly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also saw it in the news, but it does not seem important enough for ITN. Besides, the Iranian court has allowed him to appeal the sentence, so it's not the final verdict. -Zanhe (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not unusual at all; the only reason to post this is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I mean in general. [2][3][4] 331dot (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Oppose because the article is barely a stub, and honestly might not survive an WP:AFD. The story, however, is making headlines and is as notable as any other. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
User:CosmicAdventure: Can you please expand it? Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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)
  • Oppose - Unless the event is leading to a serious diplomatic crisis between the US and Iran. STSC (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

2017 Venezuelan referendum[edit]

Article: Venezuelan referendum, 2017 (talk, history)
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.
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
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

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)

  • 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)
 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose lost me at "unofficial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

RD: Nar Bahadur Bhandari[edit]

Article: Nar Bahadur Bhandari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Rupesh Adhikari (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Bhawani Gautam (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ex Sikkim Chief Minister of India Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Summer X Games 2017[edit]

Article: X Games Minneapolis 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: The Summer X Games conclude with the United States winning 11 gold medals.
News source(s): The Sun Daily SB Nation
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

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)

  • Oppose I looked back over previous such articles (last year's doesn't exist) and discovered that the event was rated of "low importance" to the Dallas Texas wikiproject. If that's the case, I'm not really sure why it would be of sufficient importance to the English-speaking world to feature amongst the top five news stories across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Much as I hate to disagree with you, TRM, I don't really see why the Dallas WikiProject's view of a previous event's importance has any real relevance here. Link to Winter Games discussion. BencherliteTalk 08:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
      • If such an event is considered of little to no importance to the host US state city, I'm not sure why anyone else would be bothered. That we don't have an article for the last running is somewhat indicative, and as such I oppose based on the low importance of the event. I didn't see it anywhere near the BBC Sport homepge (for example) whereas I did see Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Tour de France, Mayweather/Connor, Teat cricket, women's Euro 2017, US Women's Golf etc... And fewer than a quarter of the medal recipients appear to be notable enough for an article. Is this really significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Dallas is a city, not a state. A lot happens in a city, let alone a state, and it's no particular surprise to me that it's of low importance to that particular WikiProject. After all, WP:LONDON has assessed the Boat Races 2017 as "low importance" but that's equally irrelevant. Your other arguments about notability of participants, level of coverage etc are stronger, so focus on those! BencherliteTalk 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I don't need any further focus on this story though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Which edition has Dallas Wikiproject? This event has never been held in Dallas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
              • I meant Texas. All the same to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                • Ireland and Belfast. All the same, right?--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                  • If you say so chief. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                    • Texas is the #2 US state by land/population and bigger than 5 Englands. Is it that hard to recognize it's stativity? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                      • Is that even a thing?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                        • No, but Texas's statehood is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                          • No doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
                            • Texas secession.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
                              • Great moves, lonely star. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
                                • That's less likely than Basque independence, Catalonian independence and maybe Argentine Falklands though. Anti-EU parts of your nation becoming a full UN sovereign and giving the nukes and security council seat and part of the military to the rump UK might be more likely​. I don't think Texas is going to become a sovereign nation again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like American Ninja Warrior; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficiently comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not see the significance of this in the larger scheme of things. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Regardless of it being the highest level of event for these sports, if we posted the highest level of every minor niche sport, ITN would be overrun. Also, it hardly appears to be covered in mainstream media. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough influence and coverage in mainstream media. -Zanhe (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: George Romero[edit]

Article: George A. Romero (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): THW
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

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

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

  • Support Major influence on the horror movie genre. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article quality not up to par; orange tag present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the orange tag was added after I nom'd this, though I don't disagree with its concerns. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There were only two CNs left. I added some citations, not sure if they are up to snuff. Can someone take a look? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    At a quick glance, the Books and Awards and nominations sections are in need of proper references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you; tagged those. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Should we make sure he's dead for good first? He might arise and start attempting to eat our brains ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per notability. Additionally, he died more recently than the other names in the "Recent deaths" box, having passed on the 16th, while the current most recent passing shown in that box is Martin Landau, who died on the 15th. –Matthew - (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Notability is not in question. See above: Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Hm. Well that's a bit silly. –Matthew - (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    I addressed TRM's notes. Can one of the vet's recheck the citations? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    The sections "1970s-1980", "1990s", and "2000s" are still predominately unsourced. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very well sourced article for a man who is extremely notable. 1779Days (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @1779Days:: He is notable no doubt but the article still needs sourcing from the 1990s and I believe 2000s subsections in the Career section. Some entire large paragraphs don't even have sources. That shouldn't be an issue though since this man is heavily well known finding sources shouldn't be an issue, but the article is in not the best shape for posting due to lack of citations thus why adding refimprove template for the 1990s and 2000s section was needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality There are sections (mainly 1990s and 2000s) still very unsourced with chunks of paragraphs that go unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] New Doctor[edit]

Consensus will not emerge to post. Stephen 13:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Jodie Whittaker (talk, history)
Blurb: Jodie Whittaker (pictured) is announced as the next actor to play the role of The Doctor in Doctor Who.
News source(s): BBC USA Today CNN ABC Australia
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)
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)

  • Support Subject to her article being sourced and all BLP issues addressed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant milestone in entertainment news. Show is known worldwide and has aired for decades. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, big news. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Yes, entertainment news is typically not ITN, but DW has international appeal, and this being the first female in the lead role is unique. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Not every recasting of a notable role would merit posting, but this role has such wide notability and is so long-running that this sort of change meets the bar IMO. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No way this rises to global significance. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@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)
  • 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)

*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)

Oppose per reasons above and article quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A woman being cast in the typically male role? It's still a TV show. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The news about the lead role in a TV drama is hardly significant news. ITN is not a tabloid. STSC (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@STSC: Neither are The Guardian, The New York Times and TIME.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. Rami R 19:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Agreed. If we were to post this, casting changes at the CCTV New Year's Gala would deserve to be made an ITN/R. Considered the most popular TV program in the world, its average audience of 700-800 million dwarfs the 10 million for Doctor Who. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is posted I'll go ahead and make the nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disappointing to see pointy threats just because you don't like a potential posting. The two programs are very different. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Believe it, I've done this before [5]. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - By virtue on the number of comments this has received. Clearly, no one can claim that this is not notable after this. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That must be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've heard for an ITN nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zanhe. Unexpected casting decision, but fleeting and niche in global affairs. Brandmeistertalk 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect most people don't even know what Doctor Who is, let alone care who is acting in it. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose. A casting change in a TV show is not INT worthy material. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Almost half a billion people live in "majority-white, English speaking countries". Rami R 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
@Jim Michael: It depends on the role(as is the case with any posting here). If Idris Elba were cast as James Bond,[6] 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)
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)
@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)
Please keep discussions about RY issue elsewhere, thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
How do you work that out? Casting decisions are never featured on RY articles.Jim Michael (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It meets the criteria. Globally significant event covered in at least three continents. Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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) and 2017 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: In tennis, the 2017 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Garbiñe Muguruza winning the women's singles and Roger Federer winning the men's singles.
News source(s): Women's Men's
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

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

  • Support, not too bad. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on lack of prose. While not every match needs a blurb, I would expect these two specific matches have some prose for them. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Men's Singles final also notable as being a record 8th win for Federer. Dramatic when Cilic broke down and had to take a medical break. Both finals were decisive straight sets wins. So maybe an enhanced blurb would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support if the blurb just concentrates on Federer's record 8th title at Wimbledon (beating Pete Sampras' record). STSC (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I propose an alternative whereby Roger Federer is the linked article and, as STSC says, note that he's won in 2017, thereby surpassing Sampras. DrStrauss talk 17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable because he's set a new record by winning it for the eighth time. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the target articles appear to be simply tables of results. Where are the summaries of the finals? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R. If the event articles are too barebones, we could highlight the articles of the champions. Garbiñe Muguruza is not well referenced, but Roger Federer is a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, that's allowable but only once Mururuza's article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 15
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)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox 8
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also 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)

  • Oppose on quality Woefully undersourced. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Ready. I've removed the unsourced roles. If anyone has a problem wit this, they should add specific CN tags. Otherwise Landau is quite legendary as a character actor and the lead of Space 1999. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree that pushing the filmography to a separate page to ignore the sourcing issues there , particularly with how short the bio is and there's no SIZE issue, makes this ready for posting. I expect the filmography to be reasonably sourced. (eg [7]) --MASEM (t) 04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been updated and sourced well enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll[edit]

Article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll (talk, history)
Blurb: The marine ecosystem is thriving despite persistent radiation from nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.
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 [8] on that date, at Newser [9] and in The Stanford Daily [10]. There was earlier coverage at Radio New Zealand [11], Xinhuanet [12], Phys.org [13], and USA Today [14]. The story was also covered by PBS in an episode of their Big Pacific series.
Nominator and updater: EdChem (talk • give credit)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose I don't see this as of sufficient significance and it is unpublished research. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • Comment Some recovery of corals was reported already in 2008: [15]. Brandmeistertalk 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Question what did we learn from Bikini Atoll that we didn't already know from Chernobyl? Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportProfoundly interesting information and article is well sourced and update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Maryam Mirzakhani[edit]

Article: Maryam Mirzakhani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Iranian(-American?) mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani, the first woman to be awarded the Fields Medal, dies aged 40.
News source(s): [16][17]
Nominator: Dragons flight (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also 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)

I lean towards RD only. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Posted to RD for now; discussion for blurb still open. SpencerT♦C 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose blurb This is what the RD section is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support blurb per EternalNomad. Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Moved to blurb per (weak) consensus above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • (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)
  • (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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
  • 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)

July 14[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • At least three people are killed and two hospitalized, one in serious condition, from a fire in a condominium tower in the U.S. city of Honolulu, Hawaii. An unknown number of residents are reportedly still trapped in their apartments. (AP via Fox News) (Reuters)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] 2017 Temple Mount shooting[edit]

No consensus. Stephen 05:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Temple Mount shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: Friday Prayers on Temple Mount were canceled following shooting that kill two near Lions' Gate.
Alternative blurb: Gunmen kill two Israeli policemen at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
News source(s): (Al Jazeera), (Haaretz), (Jerusalem Post), (BBC), (Fox news)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

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)
  • Oppose Not seeing which part of this is noteworthy. 2 fatalities (please do not include perps to goose the body count) in this area does not seem especially unusual. Is the Mufti's directive or Israeli response unusual? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 13:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Violence in a known area of high violence (Ala mass gun shootings in the US). Per BBC "Forty-four Israelis and five foreign nationals have been killed in nearly two years of such attacks. At least 255 Palestinians - most of them attackers, Israel says - have also been killed in that period, news agencies report. Others have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops." I don't see what makes this any different. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a significant shooting incident. STSC (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article quality is good. Shooting has recieved coverage in national and international media. And has already lead to restrictions and political comments. To say that it is insignificant is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Business as usual in the ongoing conflict in that region.--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - highly symbolic location, strong repercussions. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty routine, doubt it will have any significant impact. Seraphim System (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS. — fortunavelut luna 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • Support This is an internationally covered incident that is on the front page of most newspapers' websites. Our article is in good condition. Mamyles (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's possible this could escalate, but at the moment we are talking about two people murdered in a part of the world where religiously motivated homicide is sadly routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - par for the course. To feature this would amount to WP:UNDUE, something we should avoid in a topic so inflammatory. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - moreover, only the second alt blurb would be considered factually accurate given agreed upon convention per death tolls. Perp deaths do not count. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Corrected. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible - Holiest site in Judaism, third holiest site in Islam further more holiest site of Five Eyes countries. As well, Jumu'ah prayer at Al-Masjid al-Aqsa was cancelled because of entry restrictions by the Government of Israel. Worldwide coverage. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another relatively minor hate crime in Israel. Sca (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced the location outweighs the low death toll and the frequency of such incidents. Neljack (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Ad Orientem. Christian Roess (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as sadly routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per IP and ongoing coverage [18]. It's also an international incident which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 July 13
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)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also 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)

[Closed] Calibri font in "Fontgate"[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Calibri (talk, history) and Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk, history)
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.
News source(s): The Guardian; Newsweek
Nominator: STSC (talk • give credit)

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)
  • Maybe Panama Papers case is/will be notable enough for a nomination. But ITN is not the right place to highlight this detail. --LukeSurl t c 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose perhaps DYK, but certainly not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. Strongly recommend DYK, unless we've seen this before. ... and what's Sharif doing with a cocktail anyway?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a trivial allegation in the grand scheme of things. Both articles also draw attention to Wikipedia's article about Calibri, which suggests a danger of self-obsession if we post this. BencherliteTalk 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
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.[19] STSC (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Chinese pro-democracy activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61.
Alternative blurb: Chinese pro-democracy activist, political prisoner, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo dies aged 61.
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also 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)

  • Article needs updating and sourcing (four "cn" tags at present). RD, certainly, when article is in better shape, but not presently convinced of blurbability. (edit conflict as I was in the process of nominating this for RD but EternalNomad pressed "save changes" before I did...) BencherliteTalk 13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD (but oppose on present article quality), Neutral on blurb The RD is obvious but too many CNs floating around in the current, article. I'm not sure on the blurb. The fact that he had just been released from prison about 2 weeks prior due to having terminal cancer might make this a blurbable story, but at the same time, this isn't a former world leader or the like who's death is going to be recognized in major fashion across the global. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • To expand, on reading the NYtimes obit, it is rather important to recognize that he was still a prisoner, only released on medical parole and effectively under close guard while they tried to treat him. I would support a blurb that addressed that facet, and not just that he passed away. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ready for RD yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Highly prominent figure, "China's most prominent human rights and democracy advocate" as the BBC describes him[20], extensive worldwide coverage of his death (current main front page story of the BBC for example). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That may depend where you are: I'm UK-based and the BBC News website's main story here is a Theresa May interview; the Charlie Gard story is also on the top row, with Liu Xiaobo on the left on the second row of stories. BencherliteTalk 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Article quality is not horrible, but it needs some work before we can post this to the front page. There are some gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that will need to go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is what this is for, RD is fine. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, once the article issues are addressed. A notable figure, but nowhere near the world-changing standard we should apply for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. At the very top level among his field, and even if not, his death seems to be notable itself. Top news from what I see. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, once the article is properly cleaned-up. An international pro-democracy icon, whose death is being covered as such. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Both the individual and his treatment by authorities in the period leading up to his death are highly notable. Dragons flight (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The death of a Nobel Laureate prisoner of conscience in political custody, certain to attract world wide discussion, makes this story worthy of a mention above RD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Just RD is fine, let him quietly rest in peace. STSC (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - that's what RD is for. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:4485:289:24C1:749C (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as I would for any Nobel Prize winner. Connor Behan (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Any Nobel winner? Every dead physicist, chemist, writer etc who won a Nobel prize deserves a blurb? That's far from being the current view. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
      • True, the argument I gave is not good. The fact that he received the prize while in prison was what made it unforgettable though. Connor Behan (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, considering he died in prison and never received his prize. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's about the ninth story on the BBC homepage. It's really not going to create a Death of Liu Xiaobo article, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Nobel laureate status does not guarantee a blurb. Given that the entire European Union was awarded the prize, awardees die daily. I don't think the news worthiness of his death given his imprisonment separates him from the crowd either. Fails to qualify per the self-imposed Mandela-Thatcher-Kohl paradigm. Firm support for RD, however. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • We're in the minority, but I'm with you. In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high. German Chancellors and Chinese dissidents don't top it. Neither did Carrie Fisher or that dead boxer. We have to stop with the "Posted X, therefore we should post Y" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
      • What you are saying is clearly that you don't want to post any death-related blurbs at all, not even for the most notable politicians on the world stage. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
For God's sake, he wasn't a politician. STSC (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • "In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high." I'm of the exact opposite opinion. In a paradigm where everyone gets an RD, a blurb is how we can indicate a notable passing. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 100 times more important than Carrie Fisher and the other nobodies that got posted 172.56.6.25 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not so. (Just to make it clear, I support as well, but for the circumstances surrounding the death, not the importance of the person.) I would hardly call Carrie Fisher, David Bowie, Prince, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher "nobodies". See Google results- about 7 million for Liu, about 40 million for Fisher, about 50 million for David Bowie, about 15 million for Margaret Thatcher, about 36 million for Nelson Mandela, about 28 million for Prince. See also David Bowie discography, this, and 92 kB of readable prose size for Nelson Mandela, 63 kB readable prose size for Margaret Thatcher, and 57 kB readable prose size for Prince, versus 25 kB for Liu. These people were definitely not nobodies. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb And there are still some CN tags that need fixing before posting to RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - very important figure. Award/prize winner. Top field.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Mostly because it becomes non-neutral to omit the information that he died from cancer in custody. 112.65.190.108 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb very prominent Chinese figure. starship.paint ~ KO 02:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, he is only the second person in Nobel history who has died with his prize uncollected. The most recent Nobel laureate to die (before Liu) appears to be Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov (a Physics laureate in 2003) on March 29 of this year; he was aged 88. So this is by no means a 'common' occurrence, especially considering Liu's much younger age. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb it's not an usual death of a Nobel laureate. He died in state custody, and it's the first time a Nobel Peace laureate died in custody since Carl von Ossietzky died in 1938 in Nazi Germany.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Death show's great significance with his death being in custody while being a Nobel Prize winner and article has been in good condition upon his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest immediate post to RD, discussion on blurb can continue. Nobody seems to be complaining about the quality of the current article, and nobody disputes that his death isn't a significant news story. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb, as per the majority of people in this discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: