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.

Halszkaraptor escuilliei fossil
Halszkaraptor escuilliei fossil

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 secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. 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.


  • 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 a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


December 12[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 12

December 11[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 11
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

Resignation of Indonesian legislative body speaker[edit]

Article: Setya Novanto (talk, history)
Blurb: Setya Novanto, speaker of Indonesia's People's Representative Council, resigns from his post amidst a corruption scandal.
News source(s): Reuters, ANTARA, Straits Times etc.
Nominator: Juxlos (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is following a multi-week news coverage involving a raid, manhunt and a car crash plus hospitalization, receiving pretty much 24 hour national plus significant external news coverage. Juxlos (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks in good shape. --Jayron32 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An unusual occurrence, especially when this is the second time he has quit due to scandal; we don't often post Indonesia, either. Article seems fine. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Generally we do not post political scandals that don't touch a head of state or government, but this is so bizarre I'm inclined to support with the understanding that this is an exception (sine exemplo) and should not be viewed as precedent for lowering our usual standards. I have no issues with the article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support because of how much it has captivated the Indonesian population. The main problem is as Ad Orientem pointed out, it doesn't involve a head of state or government. Banedon (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics, it's not clear why this is really something we should be posting at ITN and not at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, corruption is so common in third-rate hellhole countries that ITN should only post when it doesn't happen. Additionally, this goes against years of consensus here that such low-level political news is not postworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If you oppose this, fair enough, but I don't think the leader of a national legislative chamber being arrested and subsequently resigning is "low level political news". 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vera Katz[edit]

Article: Vera Katz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Gate
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Keith Chegwin[edit]

Article: Keith Chegwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC's Twitter
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Martinevans123 (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Insufficient lead section per WP:LEAD, much of body text is uncited. --Jayron32 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose there's zero chance of the blurb "Cheggers goes pop.", is there? Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    I did consider adding a note to the effect that "Cheggers finally went pop" but considered that it might be very lost on our non-Brit readers who no doubt would have found it incredibly offensive and sought my excoriation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support having added sources (Jesus H Christ TRM, you're using The Sun for this - I think not); I think it's all there now. So, on the main page - one, two, three .... [whistle] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    I "Jesus H Christ His Lord Saviour Our God" used The Sun because it was the only source available at the time, plus the BBC Twitter link which my company firewall rejects. That was about six hours ago. JESUS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll send you a donation by way of an apology - is the number still 01 811 8055? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
01 811 8055, a number etched in our brains. I liked Gervais' Twitter send off, "Pop Knob In Fanny"... (should be safe enough for those who get it and sufficiently mystifying enough for those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You can't beat a bit of Festive Fanny, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article now meets ITN standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian troops withdraw from Syria[edit]

Nominator's comments: It would by nice if we could put this right above the Iraqi announcement which also deals with the defeat of Daish --Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose None of the three articles cited has been updated to include the relevent information. --Jayron32 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War needs to be bold. This is the one article specific to this news item. Regardless the BBC report this as a partial withdrawal, which probably puts this in oppose territory for me. --LukeSurl t c 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Russia is keeping its base in Syria so the "withdrawal" is more of a troop movement than a pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A withdrawal's still a withdrawal even if some bases remain. Sort of like how the US finished with WW2 years ago even though it has bases in Japan to date. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, purely an announcement by untrustworthy politician (and murderer, according to John McCain) Putin made to promote his reelection. Politicians are all filthy scum and ITN should not enable them. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 10
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Lalji Singh[edit]

Article: Lalji Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Article updated and is a Good Article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Only books are not referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support - now only one book unreferenced. Not much on Google either. Is it correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Simeon Booker[edit]

Article: Simeon Booker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support A short but adequate article that is decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support yup, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Max Clifford[edit]

Article: Max Clifford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Well sourced, ready to post.LM2000 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support appears to be ready. --LukeSurl t c 13:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, can see no sourcing gaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready - good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 9[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 9
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy

[Attention Needed] RD: Grant Munro[edit]

Article: Grant Munro (filmmaker) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tombs discovered in Egypt[edit]

Articles: Kampp 150 (talk, history) and Kampp 161 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two ancient tombs, Kampp 150 and Kampp 161, are uncovered in Thebes, Egypt.
News source(s): BBC, The New Indian Express, The Boston Globe, Deutsche Welle, Sputnik, etc.
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Two stubs, but only because there isn't much detail to be added yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose notable or not, we cannot put stubs on the main page. Suggest waiting until something substantive is found in the tomb, causing an update to the article, prior to posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose if something notable is discovered in these tombs, I'm all in, but we need notability and quality, neither of which seem present right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The state the articles are in now is not sufficient for the main page. Needs a serious expansion to be useful for readers. --Jayron32 12:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor discovery hyped by politicians to try to revive their moribund tourism industry. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraqi Civil War victory[edit]

Article: Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL after capturing the group's remaining territory in Iraq.
Alternative blurb: Iraq declares its civil war is over after capturing all remaining territory controlled by ISIL in the country.
Alternative blurb II: Iraq declares victory over the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
News source(s): BBC Washington Post Stuff
Nominator: Karl.i.biased (talk • give credit)
Updater: Inatan (talk • give credit)

  • Support if we can make the article better Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due to orange tags. Otherwise I have no objection on its importance. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I have examined the tags, and they seemed excessive to me, so I removed them. Inatan (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - Major event. The article still needs a little work though. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the conflict continues, it is limited enough that the head of state has declared the war to be over, and this is the proper time to announce the end in the news. This is a major event, and the article is already well written enough to post, though it could use some polishing, with a number of uncited claims (most of which can be supplied from the separate articles on the timeline of the war). Inatan (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely ITN worthy. Major event.BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is not in question. The article has been updated and improved. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Clearly notable, but I don't think the article is well developed enough to post at the moment. In particular the section for 2017 is a list of largely unreferenced bullets in a timeline format with a mixture of tenses, which needs to be rewritten & condensed, with at least some added commentary. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for now: (meaning Oppose on quality for now, still unsure about notability) Have I just walked into the Twilight Zone? The target article currently doesn't even mention our story (or at least the only mention of Abadi I found was in the list of commanders (Find Abadi here)). And it's admitted the conflict is continuing, but none of us 'amateurs' has been questioning the ITN notability of a story that the target article's editors (presumably the 'experts') seemingly haven't seen as notable enough to add to their article in over 12 hours.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there has been no surrender or peace treaty, Al Baghdadi is still uncaptured and presumed alive, guerilla action continues. This is a unilateral declaration whose accuracy will not be known for some time. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I suspect ISIL will neither officially surrender nor sign a peace treaty. It's too civilized for them, so they would fight until the last soldier or something like that. Brandmeistertalk 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just watched BBC News. Its (2nd or 3rd) headline was "Iraq declares the war with IS is over, but is warned the group still poses a threat from across the Syrian border". Later it quotes the British Defense Secretary as saying "the fight is not over" as IS can continue it in all sorts of ways. That version is a lot more pessimistic than our current blurbs, and seems a lot less misleading to our readers, and thus also a lot less potentially damaging to our reputation.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning towards the second alternative blurb. What do you think (regardless of support)? Inatan (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
See my reply below in my (first of possibly several) Post-posting Comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major event and I don't see any issues with the article. --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a quick look on my mobile makes the issues obvious: 2017 has bullet points missing refs, 2017 proseline really ought to be actual prose (2015 section is decent example) and worst of all, there is no update explaining the "victory". Just one bullet point "reinstated full control of the country" whatever that means. As a reader, I'd demand better from a main page link. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I will see if I can add references to the bullet point list, and then leave the rest up to the regular writers. Inatan (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. I went beyond what I said I would do. The sections for 2015-2017 still need significant expansion, but apart from that, it should be ready to post. Inatan (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment (and reply to above question by Inatan). Thanks for all your hard work, Inatan. In answer to your above question, I think the blurb should now be changed to something like "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, ...", with the "..." being something like either "whose supporters vow to continue a guerilla war" or "but is warned that the fight is not over". The guerilla bit is in the article but backed by a citation that seemingly says nothing of the kind. I didn't see the UK Defence Secretary's comment there, though I may have missed it somewhere else in the article. I think both those qualifiers need to be in the article, correctly cited, and some such qualifier also needs to appear in the lead. We may need that quite soon to avoid calls for pulling on quality grounds (but I'll probably soon have a go at fixing them myself, though I'm not sure how easy that will be). Assuming that gets fixed, I'll probably ask below here for such a blurb change (but not at wp:errors, except perhaps eventually as a brief informatory message about developments here, as it's not an error).Tlhslobus (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment 2: (and continuing my above reply to Inatan)
  • 1) I've now added cited warnings by the Australian Government, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, and Reuters, to both text and (in a shorter form) to lead.
  • 2) I've replaced the incorrect source for ISIL supporters promising to fight on by guerilla war with a 'citation needed'. With a relatively brief google search, I have not managed to find such a source, at least not in the last 24 hours (anything earlier may be out of date now). Maybe more searching might find one. Or maybe we should just delete the statement due front-page quality concerns, but I'd prefer somebody else to tell me so, or to do it themselves (as little time has yet been given for a search, and I'll now be moving on to other topics for a while).
  • 3) I think the blurb should ideally be changed to something like "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means"
  • 3b) But I'm a bit worried that by doing so we may be inviting some censorship by editors working for the powers that be, that might be quite a bit worse than the limited self-censorship of not changing our blurb. Yesterday morning UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson's statement was part of item 2 or 3 on BBC News (and was implied in their headline, see my comment yesterday), whereas now I get just 10 relatively obscure sources when I google Gavin Williamson “The fight though isn’t over". This suggests that he was 'off-message', and that a British Defence Advisory Notice may well be at work (perhaps along with its equivalent in other countries). As the saying goes, truth is the first casualty in war. Though it's always possible that I'm just not using the best google search parameters, especially as I must have used other parameters to find my Derbyshire Times citation (though the fact that the best I found was the relatively obscure Derbyshire Times rather than the BBC or a major paper like The Guardian is itself consistent with a Defence Advisory Notice being at work).
  • 3c) Maybe the powers-that-be have a not-unreasonable worry that over-publicizing warnings (that ISIL may continue by guerilla warfare or terrorism) may turn such warnings into self-fulfilling prophecies by reviving the morale of ISIL fighters and supporters. Putting such warnings on our front page might or might not be seen (by the powers-that-be and/or by some of us, possibly eventually including me) as an example of such over-publicizing.
  • 3d) Anyway I'd prefer feedback from others before asking for such a blurb change.
Tlhslobus (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work! I like one of your first versions of the blurb best, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters vow to continue a guerilla war." Although the source did not match the second clause in its article. Thank you for correcting it. The reason for that is that when I added the source, the bullet point said "Islamic State supporters continue guerilla warfare after the Islamic State is defeated in the country." How about this one, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters continue guerilla warfare."? Inatan (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Which source was that, and is it still in our article text? (After I put the CN on it, the 'vow to continue guerilla war' line got removed by another editor, so now the only explicit mention of guerilla war that I see is from Reuters, and that merely says ISIL's enemies expect a new phase of guerilla war, with no mention of it having happened yet).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(If it was the Iraq News story, which is the one I removed, that now doesn't mention guerilla war or any kind of insurrection anywhere, so maybe the bullet point got removed for reasons similar to why the UK Defence Secretary's warning is now only found in places like the Derbyshire Times).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And if we can't find sources for actual or vowed guerilla war, we'd either have to go with something like "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means" or "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by guerilla war" or just leave the blurb as it is (which may well be best, especially if the powers-that-be are using things like Defence Advisory Notices to get warnings and guerilla war mentions removed from websites, in which case our current sources may become incorrect due updating).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I note that the article is now stating as a fact that the war ended on 9 December 2017 (instead of merely being proclaimed over by Abadi, with every possibility he'll soon be proved wrong, always assuming he isn't already wrong, as suggested by your 'disappeared' bullet point, in which case our lead is definitely FAKE NEWS, though it's arguably that anyway). But I don't currently feel willing (and perhaps not able either) to risk various edit wars to try to fix that. So I think I'm just going to give up and find something a bit easier to work on elsewhere.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the blurb is good enough. The article traffic is becoming too much for me to handle, and the protection process takes too long to be useful. I will move on as well. Inatan (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 8
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] DRC Peacekeepers attack[edit]

Snow closure as nominator due to lack of notability. Has disappeared from RS's. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:22, 10 December 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: Kivu conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 14 MONUSCO peacekeepers are killed in an attack in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Target is not currently a separate article. The existing article provides the necessary context, but needs further work. Notability is derived from the target of the attack, as this is the largest fatality count for peacekeepers since 1993. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Conceding some exceptions, usually we want enough material for a decent "start" quality article before we seriously consider linking on the main page. Unfortunately we are nowhere near that here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Yeah. Article was in a torrid state when I found it, and my efforts at clean-up haven't and won't be able to redeem it. In your view, would it be more efficient to start an article dedicated to the attack from scratch, or keep targeting the current target? Stormy clouds (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(Please see my opposition to this suggestion spelled out with my Oppose vote below).Tlhslobus ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Stormy clouds. First I agree with Tlhslobus' comments. Beyond which I'd just try to expand the coverage in the current article until/unless a very clear case for notability is established which I think is unlikely if you consider SUSTAINED, RECENTISM and the 10YT. Unfortunately I rather doubt this is going to get posted. But we will see. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on quality (and not yet sure about notability either - 'if it bleeds it leads' is for selling newspapers, not for deciding ITN notability, otherwise we should be consistent and also follow the newspapers' other dubious habits and thus post sex and celebrity stuff too). Also Oppose sweeping the quality issue under the carpet by creating a new article (as suggested above), thus also hiding most of the background, as the stated purpose of ITN is to let readers see quality articles giving them the background they won't find in the mainstream media. The new article may also become the subject of an Afd, especially if created mainly to avoid fixing the quality of the parent article. The quality of the current article may yet get fixed (or at least improved) if enough other editors are interested. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Incidentally, whether it really is the largest fatality count for peacekeepers since 1993 seemingly depends on who gets counted as a peacekeeper. For instance, I could be wrong, but as far as I know there have been higher daily death tolls among both Western 'peace-keeping' forces and UN civilian 'peace workers' in Iraq and Afghanistan even after their position became 'legitimized' by post-invasion UN Resolutions. (And I've no idea how many other such 'peacekeepers' there may be). And I'd rather like to know who were those 'peacekeepers' in 1993 (for instance, were they US 'peacekeepers' in Somalia?) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually the Guardian answers my above question: "The loss is the most serious suffered in a single day by the UN since 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an ambush in Somalia in 1993." This is presumably technically correct, but it probably helps if you ignore, for instance, 22 or more people killed in the Canal Hotel bombing that targeted the UN Mission in Iraq in 2003, as '22 or more' is also greater than the current number, but presumably they don't count as they weren't all UN workers (Note: The Guardian says 'UN', not 'peacekeepers', nor 'UN peacekeepers'). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:02, 10 December 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.

[Closed] Lilac Fire[edit]

No consensus for posting. Alex Shih (talk) 19:05, 9 December 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: Lilac Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s):
Nominator: Bardic Wizard (talk • give credit)
Updater: Missvain (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: large current wildfire Bardic Wizard (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What about it?--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if this was switched to the Thomas Fire, or to the general Dec 2017 wildfires, Oppose. Yes, unusual this time of year, but its part of the trend of dry weather in CA leading to these fires. They are only getting larger coverage as they are actually near LA (read: something approaching a first-world problem in terms of bias, though fully aware there is threat to life and property destruction. Just that wildfires happen all the time with the same threats) --Masem (t) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only is the Thomas Fire bigger but this fire itself is not anything special, in fact this is the first time I have heard of this fire. I don't believe we have put wildfires on the front page before so I don't no why we should put one on now. Khscarymovie4 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • We have posted wildfires before, I'm sure. Check the archive. Also, you may not have heard of it until now, but thats irrelevant. A State of Emergency has been declared. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The thing is, it went from brush fire to 4100 acres in one day. Bardic Wizard (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
      • That makes for an interesting factoid (perhaps it's the fastest-known conflagration of a wildfire?) but not news in of itself, especially since there are no deaths yet (at least, for the Lilac fire). --Masem (t) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not notable. Never heard of it. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 19:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on significance. Doesn't seem to be making much of an impact in the news cycle outside of the San Diego area.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Compared to disasters which normally make it to ITN, this wildfire is at worst an inconvenience.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. When you are not the most significant fire in one state at any given time, you lack the newsworthiness and importance for ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment really? There is currently an in season cyclone which is neither the strongest or deadliest in the box right now. I haven't looked at the article, but the 2017 wild fires are certainly in the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talkcontribs) 00:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
At the time of posting, Ockhi was the strongest cyclone of the season, classified as very severe and responsible for 39 fatalities. One cannot put that storm, and all the havoc it wreaked, on a pedestal with this wildfire. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
"This season". LOL since 2015 even! One can, and I did. The fires are "in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed you have a tendency to have a contrary opinion to pretty much every consensus established within ITN/C.--WaltCip (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's all those Cosmic rays. Sca (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to take my cues from actual news media vs my biased opinion of what's "important". Apparently that makes me a contrarian. I'm also a bit of an inclusionist which around here seems to be worse. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:09, 9 December 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.

December 7[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 7
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted and Closed] Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia[edit]

Posted. No prospect of consensus for pulling. No activity for over 36 hours. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 10 December 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: I need assistance with the blurb, which article should be the centrepiece, etc. but this is very noteworthy. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. We didn't post it for Germany because of the EU, but Australia is different, and they had a proper debate.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's good news, for sure, but I'm not sure why "Australia is different", they're just a little late to the party. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I mean they're not in the EU.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance. They're a first world country, pretty forward-thinking, this is just a natural progression for them, just way behind plenty of other nations. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
As I recall, we didn't post Germany because of the EU. That's the point I'm making.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we didn't post Germany, and it was a mistake. Lets not repeat our mistakes. M.Karelin (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't a mistake to avoid posting what is now a common trend amongst first world countries in the west and their counterparts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is now the trend in the western world; this has also been apparent that it would happen for some time, most of the argument was about process as I understand it. Now, when Sudan legalizes SSM(where homosexuality is currently a death penalty offense), that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • How many states have leaped from "death penalty" to "legal"? Surely processes will be more gradual. According to LGBT rights in Australia, the country also had the death penalty for sodomy in the past. starship.paint ~ KO 11:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • My point was simply that a western-type country like Australia doing this is no longer unusual and possibly even expected, while doing so would be very unusual in Africa/Asia. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - they had a very "In the News" process because of that postal vote thing (international coverage) culminating in this result. Certainly more than Germany. starship.paint ~ KO 11:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - its a major news. M.Karelin (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this news item is receiving significant international coverage.--Forward Unto Dawn 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is receiving widespread coverage. I think it's actually all the more notable for the fact that Australia has been so late on this compared to other Western countries.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as has been already noted, for the Western world, including Australia, this is not something new. The Guardian itself notes this is the 25th country to do so. Brandmeistertalk 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it has done the rounds in the news here, there and everywhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Ritchie. I don't understand this desire for "new" or "unusual" topics. ITN's purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Nothing there says that it has to be groundbreakingly unusual. Opposes based on that should be discounted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support on principle, oppose on article quality - While NZ already had supported this , such that Australia following is not "new", Australia is much much larger population-wise so this is more a significant milestone. But that said, the article has several CNs, at least one orange tag, and other paragraphs that are unsourced. It's not close to posting. ----Masem (t) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I understand the support for homo marriage, I dont think that every country's approval of it should be on wikinews. I can understand why we added the US's recognition of such marriages. I think I'd support adding if it was China, or Russia, or India. But Australia? It's a small country of 30 million people. A western liberal country so it's support is not surprising. Think about it like this: Would u support adding news about Burma? Or Peru? Or Colombia? Or Central African Republic recognizing such marriages? These are countries with comparable population. (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Australia's still the largest, most populous and most significant country of Oceania though. starship.paint ~ KO 03:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we've already come to the consensus that this trend is the norm in Western countries. The only reason I see for making Australia an exception is that we have a lot of Australian editors, this being the Anglophone wikipedia. But if we've stopped posting same sex marriage legalizations in Europe, sometimes in much larger countries, we shouldn't be making an exception here. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • There's no reason we should feel beholden to past precedence. Consensus can change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • we've already come to the consensus that this trend is the norm in Western countries - no, there is NO such consensus. M.Karelin (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per The Ed17. Davey2116 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I believe this is a big enough event to put on front page, as there were criminal charges against being gay in Australia not even 50 years ago. This change is pretty big for the country. Though I will say other countries with the exception of Russia, China, India, or any Middle Eastern county making gay marriage legal should not be put on front page. Khscarymovie4 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    See Sexual Offences Act 1967, it was a criminal act in many places as late as the 1960s, Australia was not unique in this approach. This is nothing new. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • LoL posting the ~30th country in the world to recognize such unions is deemed worthwhile for ITN, but posting RD of an active player at the WW2 table is not good enough. (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Michael I of Romania is posted at RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support they had a referendum on this (Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey) which led to a policy change. Referendums in Australia don't occur often - prior to this the last one in Australia was in 1999. We usually post these things, see e.g. Brexit. Banedon (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Strange comparison, the UK has had three referenda ever while this is Australia's 44th (I think?), and a comparison to Brexit is even more bizarre, since that affects hundreds and hundreds of millions of people across dozens of countries and is unique. This is none of the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) This was not a referendum. According to the Referendums in Australia page you link to, referendums there are binding; the "postal survey" was the government simply asking people their opinion on the matter and was nonbinding. It was also voluntary where most other elections there are compulsory. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough but regardless - 12.7 million Australians voted, which is more than half of the entire Australian population. Turnout of 80% also indicates strong interest throughout the country. It might not be binding, but neither was the Brexit referendum. I continue to support this. Banedon (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, another odd perspective, 72% of Brits voted in Brexit, and as usual, these referenda are not binding, that's how it works. But a democratically elected and sitting government is usually too sensible to ignore the will of the people, unless you live in Greece or Ireland of course. Most commentators are actually pretty negative about the "drawn out" nature of the vote, it's easy to have a non-binding vote and then make your mind up, and in any case, it looks like this won't enter law until 2019. Australia have just got with the program, a little late, but better late than never. It's great news, but it's not staggering news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of record, the act will allow marriages as early as 9 January 2018. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Marked ready per discussion here. Article target could use a couple more sources, but nothing earth-shattering (we're not requiring FA level here). An alternative article with full sourcing could be Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Bolded the article on the act itself, as it was higher quality as noted by Ed above. --Jayron32 01:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Boo Hiss even the posting admin is aware of the "god, even the French have done this" consensus. This is a step backward from actual notability to rightinggreatwrongs. The only thing that could possibly have been notable here would be if some branch of the Austrailian government had blocked the move. Otherwise, it's like saying, AU becomes the 15th Commonwealth Member to adopt metrification. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment. I understand the argument against listing, and I acknowledge that as an Australian editor I am somewhat biased. I do however submit that my instinct is still towards listing, on the basis of the level of conflict this has caused (in short, the more progressive parties blocked a plebiscite on the basis that it would be highly detrimental to the LGBTIA+ community, the government bypassed the Senate, ran a postal survey that survived two High Court challenges and triggered the largest LGBTIA+ rights campaign in Australia's history). This is a little different to simply another EU nation taking an obvious step, this is a nation with heavily entrenched issues with racism and homophobia taking an unprecedented progressive step. This is a nation where my LGBTIA+ friends are still afraid to hold hands on the train at night for fear of violence, where despite the on-the-surface consensus, the government was looking for every way possible to get out of this, and yet somehow we've gotten here. I can't speak for international coverage, but it's all the entire country is talking about at this point. The human rights of ~2.6 million LGBTIA+ people have been changed, and while that may not be as revolutionary as a duck dinosaur, or the latest thing that guy did, I believe it meets the bar. I would personally be entirely comfortable invoking IAR and wmf:Values#We welcome and cherish our differences. in support of listing, but I don't think that's needed in this case. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a little difficult to comprehend the 0-6 vote on Germany and a 10-5 vote here. It's not like Germany is the most *cough* progressive country in the world either. But consensus is what it is. GCG (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for invoking Godwin's Law and essentially torpedoing any sort of standing that the "oppose" crowd had in this nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually in the Support crowd, so I'm cool with the torpedoing. I think Godwin was talking about far-fetched comparisons; that a particular gay man might have escaped execution at the hands of the Nazis only to later be given the right to marry in that same country struck me as remarkable. I was shocked that it was so roundly rejected. GCG (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Strong Oppose Really? This is getting tiresome. When are we going to desist in posting the endless succession of countries tripping over one another in their mad rush to legalize SSM? I concur with Medeis' boo hiss above. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont understand why this was posted. Admitedly, I've only been browsing this page for a week or so so I don't know all the conventions, but there does not appear to be any consensus on this topic, and the legitimate arguments about inclusions of this news to the mp has not been countered. This honestly seems like a biased decision and this looks like pandering to Australian/LGBTQAI++ wikipedia community. Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A simple head-count gave 11-5 in favor (before posting), which is sufficient for consensus. I read the discussion above and to me the arguments against have been countered well enough. As to your accusation of bias, please read the "please do not..." section above, which includes the line "accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias". Davey2116 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, i didnt mean to offend anybody. However, I just counted every commenter and it appears to be 11-8, which isn't exactly a consensus in my opinion. Not to mention that, as far as I know, it's not really a vote, we base our final decision on the arguments each side provides, and I am sorry but I didn't see any counterarguments to the arguments people provided. I say we should pull it from the mp Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's okay, I trust that you say what you say in good faith. I intended to say that the !votes before posting (i.e., not counting the "post-posting opposes") was 11-5, so at the time of posting, posting this made sense. I'm pretty sure post-posting !votes are less representative, because people don't usually leave "post-posting support" !votes for obvious reasons. I think that the main argument for the oppose side has been that this isn't really anything new, or that it is expected that Australia would legalize same-sex marriage. First, this was already addressed by The ed17 above, which is why in my support vote, I referenced him. Also, the national survey vote was 61%-38%, hardly overwhelming on an issue like this. Given Parliament's reluctance to pass the legislation without the survey, I don't think this was foregone conclusion at all (which, again per The ed17, should not be a metric for newsworthiness). Davey2116 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the article still has CNs and unsourced material (I seem to be the only one that looked at that?) If there was clear consensus to post, I wouldn't demand it be taken down due to these, but as the quality wasn't their either, this should be pulled. --Masem (t) 16:02, 8 December 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.

December 6[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 6
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
  • UNICEF reports that as many as 17 million babies worldwide face potential brain development issues due to their exposure to toxicity levels more than six times higher than considered safe in air. (BBC)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] Farthest black hole[edit]

No consensus (surrounding the uniqueness/news aspect of the event) for posting. Alex Shih (talk) 05:21, 10 December 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: ULAS J1342+0928 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany discover the furthest known quasar, ULAS J1342+0928.
Alternative blurb: Astronomers discover the furthest known quasar, ULAS J1342+0928, which challenges theories of black hole formation.
News source(s): Nature, BBC The Verge The Atlantic
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Furthest black hole/quasar discovered. I put both black hole and quasar as the main articles but only included quasar in the blurb, as I was not totally sure which article would be the best suited for the blurb. (Edit: I found that there is an article for this quasar so I linked that) This discovery seems to be getting quite a bit of news coverage, with the BBC calling it an "unexpected discovery". Andise1 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's unique about this object per se (such as its size, rotation, etc.) rather than its distance to us, which is merely relative, and an incremental change in our knowledge based on improvements in our observational technology? μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Much as Medeis asks, is there some significance to the fact that this black hole is far away? 331dot (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Guys, it's more important to post the 30th country to recognize gay unions than a black hole that defies scientific explanations. (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please explain about how this is scientifically significant. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: @Medeis: In answer to your above questions, please see my reply below to Banedon. Incidentally, since you both ask about the significance of its distance, 'too big when so soon' also means 'too big when so far away'. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's not fair to imply that "as our telescopes get better we will see further [quasars black holes whatever]. That's because there is a fundamental limit to how far we can see (observable universe). Also as we look further away we're also looking back in time, and at some point, we shouldn't expect there to be any more quasars simply because it was too soon after the big bang for quasars to form. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I am quite aware there is a time horizon that limits the distance of our observations, but this black hole is not claimed to be at that horizon. Oddly, our article on the previous record holder places it at a "co-moving" distance of 28 billion light years, while this new object is at 13.1 billion. I assume this is because one is taking the metric expansion of space into account, the other not. In any case, there is no claim that this is it, that the 37th state has ratified the amendment. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems relatively minor to me compared to other major astronomy stories this year (in particular, the first interstellar comet, and gravitational wave detection). I can be convinced otherwise, but based on what I've seen this is just a stepping stone. If another hundred such quasars are found and they lead to some discovery that upends our understanding of reionization, then we can post that. Banedon (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
As you say you might be convinced otherwise, Banedon, I'd like to mention that the article has been amended since you wrote the above, and now says (with backing citation) that it challenges theories of black hole formation, with its black hole being too big too soon, which is how I justify my own support. I've also now said this in an altblurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I took a look at the paper itself and I'm still unconvinced. The paper writes "The existence of these supermassive black holes at z > 7 is at odds with early black hole formation models that do not involve either massive ([> 10^4 solar masses]) seeds or episodes of hyper-Eddington accretion." This is telling astrophysicists to concentrate on black hole formation models that involve either of these two criteria. It's not saying that we don't understand how black holes form. This is the kind of incremental advance that is the backbone of science, and not a breakthrough. Banedon (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your very informative comment, Banedon. I think at the very least the article (and also the altblurb) will need some re-wording to reflect what you say - in effect that it only challenges a particular group of theories. I'll try to fix that later if it hasn't already been done by then. I may first want some time to think about the right re-wording, which I may do soon while getting my supper, etc, and then I'll definitely need time to check up on the sources. I'm also worried about going too far in the 'no breakthrough' direction, given the original quote in the NASA article, and given that at first glance the two unchallenged classes sound rather exotic to me (and may well have been thoroughly fringe theories before this discovery). Still, even if no huge breakthrough, such incremental improvements in science are still significantly more than 'nothing but a record' (as claimed by many of the opposes). Whether they are enough to justify posting is a bit subjective, but given your two examples, I think (at least right now, before my planned source-checking) that it is less notable than the discovery of gravitational waves (even though that merely confirmed what we had all been expecting for 100 years), but in many ways arguably more notable than the first interstellar asteroid (which, at least initially, seemingly didn't tell us anything new, at least as far as I know). Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually I now think there was a breakthrough, but it happened a few years ago (and we don't understand early black hole formation, but not because of the current quasar).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is of sufficient quality, and subject is demonstrably in the news. --Jayron32 01:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron32. Davey2116 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose it’s the farthest black hole/quasar discovered, but that’s basically it, nothing else special and as one of the users noted above, this isn’t as significant as several astronomical events we’ve posted so far this year. Kirliator (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kirliator: Please see my above reply to Banedon. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Changing to Comment: It's not just the farthest so far. It is also described as hard to explain in terms of existing theory (a black hole too big too soon, as I've now said in the article, with backing citation). But this description, though correct, is misleading as this was already known, as pointed out below by SamaranEmerald (with supporting citations later added by me). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Espresso Addict (see below). I'd really like to oppose per SamaranEmerald, but it wouldn't be right for me to punish our readers just because I'm embarrassed and annoyed at being misled by mainstream scientists and the mainstream press.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I’m certain that several of the other known black holes out there that have already been discovered also defy this formation theory as well, not unusual. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure? Can you name some of them? Banedon (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Banedon: I've been wrong and SamaranEmerald is right. See here and here.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Being the 30th country to legalize gay marriage is also "not unusual". But that got posted. (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Not qualified to judge the science but this has been published in Nature & widely reported in the press. Given the effort put into searching for such objects, the fact one hasn't been found in the past >5 years appears significant; I'm not sure why it needs to be a theoretical breakthrough to merit letting our readers know where our article is. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict. I'm perfectly happy with the original blurb. I only put in the altblurb because so much of the early opposition was saying being the furthest was not notable in itself.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose I really don't see how this is a major astronomic milestone, the alt blurb, as implied by Banedon, seems to be questioned at this point, and as Kirliator states, the only real significance to the block hole that stands out is that its the farthest one discovered so far (which will very likely being overtaken in the near future). I mean I guess that may be ITN worthy to a degree, but I choose to oppose this because the discovery of a black hole isn't unusual and not necessary uncommon. (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately we do not have a large contingent of Quasarian editors supporting this nomination. It may have something to do with their odd hours, seasons, furry quadrupedal ducks, Christmas in July, and their toilets flushing backwards. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, quite an unusual and unexpected major scientific development -- unexpected for such a big black hole to be formed so soon after the Big Bang. Prefer the original blurb, but alt blurb is also acceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry,Nsk92, I hope I haven't unwittingly misled you, having been misled myself by scientists overhyping their work, aided by a compliant mainstream press.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose yet another black hole was discovered, so what? These things have been discovered hundreds of not thousands of times before, and this one is likely no different in structure than the rest. 2600:1015:B026:1F91:EC7B:5A7:954A:D0EF (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually in one sense we know of billions of black holes, not just thousands (because there's thought to be a supermassive black hole at the centre of every galaxy) and they also all have or quickly acquire the same apparent structure (they are or quickly become perfect spheres), so your criticism, if taken seriously, would prevent us posting any discovery of any black hole, no matter how much it challenged our understanding of physics (this one challenges our understanding of black hole formation, through being too big so soon). though as it happens this one seemingly really is nothing new. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Important discovery zzz (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry,zzz, I hope I haven't unwittingly misled you, having been misled myself by scientists overhyping their work, aided by a compliant mainstream press.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, central claim of importance of age sourced to hyping discoverer, not a secondary source. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Abductive. There are also at least another 2 such hyping discoverers, and no challenges from the mainstream press. But the claimed challenge to theory is actually not new.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this was the most distant object of any type then I might support it. However, it's just the most distant quasar, and doesn't seem to have any particularly unexpected properties. Growing SMBHs faster enough to power the early quasars is a problem which has been known about for years, and has several plausible solutions under active research. As such it's just an incremental distance record for a particular type of object, which isn't enough for ITN in my view. Modest Genius talk 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Time to close? I'm still officially a 'weak support', but I make it currently 9 opposes to 6 supports, and at least 2 of those supports seem based on seemingly now out-of-date information. So there seems no chance of a consensus for posting. So is it now time for somebody uninvolved to close it ? Tlhslobus (talk) 01:02, 10 December 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] Halszkaraptor escuilliei[edit]

Article: Halszkaraptor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new dinosaur species, Halszkaraptor is discovered in Mongolia.
News source(s): The GuardianNational Geographic
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: New species of dinosaur found that has been garnering quite a bit of news coverage. Andise1 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps if the article was filled out more? Abductive (reasoning) 06:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can't post this when the target article is a stub. Needs a lot more work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements. This 18" animal is the first winged dinosaur described as having limbs modified as swimming fins and webbed feet. That material is in the popular press, and I assume it is reliable. I will be too busy for the next 10 hours to do the research, but will see what I can do before bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a couple paragraphs of prose to the article, which I think should put it in a fit state to be posted. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good now. Great work, Wicked Twisted Road. Davey2116 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Notable subject, decent article. (Though if I have to choose between 2 science stories I'd go for the quasar, as that seems to require new scientific theories to explain it; but hopefully we can have both). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with an expanded blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted and Closed] US Recognition of Jerusalem[edit]

it's done already, move on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:09, 7 December 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: Positions on Jerusalem (talk, history)
Blurb: U.S. President Donald Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Alternative blurb: ​Overturning decades of the country's previous stance, President Donald Trump declares that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Alternative blurb II: U.S. President Donald Trump announces that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
News source(s): [4], [5]
Nominator: Saqib (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I believe this is a big enough to be featured on the front page. Saqib (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support I know this could be seen as yet another Trump story, but I think with the altblurb, which recognizes that the US has been on the previous stance for decades (read: through both GOP and Dem presidents), this is a major policy change which does impact Middle East relations. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Skeptical. Is this the first time for another nation to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? The altblurb is definitely unacceptable as POV grandstanding. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to grandstand in that, only that why this news is important is that US for decades officially did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and this decision overturns all that. It's not so much that Trump did it, just that we have a chance in policy that will change Middle East relationships. Without some type of phrasing, the announcements seems empty (unless one is clearly aware of the background). --MASEM (t) 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you, Masem, of grandstanding personally, but characterizing the wording as such. US Congress passed a law in 1995 with wide bipartisan support calling for the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Clinton supported and signed it, and Obama campaigned on doing it, and Trump is simply following up with his own campaign promise and in accord with that law. So I think Trump is irrelevant for the blurb, and decades long is inaccurate. I'd suggest The United States becomes the first foreign nation to move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem if that is true. If it's not true (we're not the first) then the announcement itself is borderline in the way of an "I'll eventually quit my job as Emperor of Japan" was. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, Trump isn't the news. It's that the US recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is hugeSir Joseph (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Historic.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this is not a vote, but I urge caution given Trump's large number of deliberately inflammatory statements. This would be news if something concrete happens, such as the embassy actually moving. I'm sure there are legal proceedings I have no awareness of that might count as well. (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose so this is Trump saying something for more Twitter followers, but has it changed foreign policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the capital of Israel as far as the US is concerned is now Jerusalem. The POTUS has the power to recognize foreign capitals, so it has changed foreign policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You mean like POTUS having the power to ban immigrants from certain nations? Which didn't actually happen? I'll wait until I see the CIA Factbook updated before I believe this to be anything other than another Trumpism. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Would that be the case the SCOTUS ruled can go forward, and denied the stay, as the case moves forward?[6] The Constitution is extremely clear on this, and indeed, SCOTUS ruled a year or so ago in Zivotivsky vs Kerry (Clinton) that only the US President has the authority to recognize foreign capitals. This is a done deal, once the POTUS does it, it is done. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As I said, once the CIA back him up, I'm in. Until then, this is just another unhinged attempt at making waves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The President doesn't get his powers from the CIA. Here is the Wiki article on the case I mentioned that made clear the authority of POTUS, Zivotofsky_v._Kerry. Again, once Trump as POTUS says he recognizes Jerusalem as the capital, that is the capital as far as the US is concerned. That Trump did it and not Obama is not a reason to say it's not. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I hear you, but I take my lead from reliable sources, not Trump, so once the CIA publish that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, I'm in. Until then, I'll just consign this to yet another dustbin action of his Trumpness. My oppose stands, but overnight (my overnight) we'll be overwhelmed with supports from the US, so fret not, this will go up in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You seem to have some sort of misunderstanding as to how US recognition works. There is a RS that Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital, that is all that is needed. Under US law, the capital is Jerusalem once the POTUS says so. Just to add about the ban, the ban is 100% in force. The issue is as to what level. The Supreme Court already ruled that POTUS has the authority to do the ban. The case winding its way through the system is as to people who have some relationship to the US, not just any person. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no misunderstanding, but thanks anyway. Ping me the CIA Factbook has been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Before you go to sleep, since you are so concerned with facts and not having errors on the front page, what is the CIA's jurisdiction or Congressional approval to recognize foreign capitals? I understand you don't like Trump, but the fact is that under US law he, and he alone, recognizes foreign capitals. It's as simple as that. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that's a reference to the CIA Factbook being a reflection of US policy. Any official act from Trump would enact a change there. If a change is not represented there, then this is just more inflammatory rhetoric from Trump rather than official policy. And now I've just agreed with TRM even though I am a U.S. Citizen myself and am urging caution about taking this this declaration too literally. (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, the CIA Factbook is irrelevant. As a US citizen you most likely know that the POTUS has certain inherent powers, like granting pardons, etc. One of those powers is foreign nation recognition. That the CIA Factbook is not updated in realtime is not the issue here. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BTW, to answer your question again, here's yet another RS, the NYT, "President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and setting in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City." Sir Joseph (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I am aware -- and I am also aware that Trump has an obnoxious history of saying one thing while doing another. He's made an announcement, yes, and under nearly anyone else that would be it. We may well see him declare that the moon is stored in the White House basement during the day before this is over. Trump can shout this declaration until he's orange in the face. His actual policy -- documented and enacted -- may be entirely different. I already feel dirty for agreeing with TRM, don't make it worse. (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That is 100% true as for the embassy move which is delayed pending logistics, but the capital is Jerusalem. Once POTUS declares it, it is. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Will this official recognition produce a change in our trade policy? Our military policy? Any of our foreign interactions outside of the feedback we're seeing and is sure to continue? I'm waiting for a documented change in policy. Something concrete as opposed to promises and vague details. This will indeed by huge by anyone's standard if that comes to light. If, instead, someone leaks a memo stating "Ignore the President's declaration, it's only for show", then we'll know that this has no teeth. (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your point. The US has now recognized Jerusalem. That is all. That is the big news story. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What does it mean that we've now recognized Jerusalem? What measurable way will our approach to global affairs change? What dictates will be sent out modifying our place (rightful or not), in the mid-east? My point is that I hear words. I will take them seriously when a policy change can be viewed and critiqued. I mentioned earlier that there are legal ramifications to this that I have no awareness of. Should one of those be demonstrated, then I will be sufficiently impressed. Perhaps enough to finally create an account just to vote on this issue. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Those are good questions but irrelevant to whether or not this story is newsworthy, and having the US recognize Jerusalem, in my opinion is newsworthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An inflammatory comment by an unhinged President does not international policy make.--WaltCip (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The embassy move and recognition of the capital are two separate things. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it's very much the same issue. And, in practise, Trump is continuing to stall

    "Though he did not mention it, Mr. Trump signed the same national security waiver signed by his predecessors, from Barack Obama to George W. Bush to Bill Clinton, which will allow the administration to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv for an additional six months. White House officials said that was unavoidable because it would take several years to move the embassy staff to a new facility in Jerusalem."

    — NYT
So, it's like the wall between Mexico and the US. Trump has talked a lot about that too but it would be best to wait upon it actually being built. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not the same. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital AND he signed a waiver for the embassy. The issue here is not the embassy move, it's the recognition of the capital. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
More fake news, just really LOUD fake news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Try to edit without your bias showing. What part of the CNN or other RS do you disagree with? That you don't like Trump or the US on the front page is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. The US has officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No bias, just not caught up in the hype. The US has not recognised anything, Trump has, and when the embassy has been moved and the CIA acknowledge it in their factbook, I'll be all in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The US has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is the news. That you don't like Trump is irrelevant. "President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and setting in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City." Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether I "like Trump" or not is nothing to do with this, why do you think that's even relevant? I can read the news, but as I've said a number of times, Trump has said a number of things, and when they actually happen, they will be relevant. When the embassy moves and when the CIA agree with Trump, I'll buy it. Until then, just wait until about 3/4 am UTC and you'll have your consensus without needing to continually badger me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Because you continue to not grasp that in this case, when Trump says it, it is US policy. That is the power of the President as far as policy is concerned. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Because..."? I don't follow you now, that still has nothing to do with whether I "like Trump" or not. I'd go badger someone else if I were you, this is getting you nowhere (or worse). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Feel free not to respond. We have a duty to report the facts. [7] The fact is that under US policy, the capital of Israel is now Jerusalem. RS have reported it, and as such there is no reason not to report such a huge event. That the CIA Factbook isn't updated is a real stupid reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Then call me stupid, that's fine, but it won't change anything, just like Trump's outburst. We should wait until the actual fact of the matter takes place, this propaganda is a lot of heat, and not a lot of light, much like this badgering. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Try to edit without your bias showing." coming from you in a topic so very close to your heart is a bit rich. Also, you accusing others whom you disagree with of bias seems to be somewhat of a habbit seeing it was also mentioned in a question to you in the arb election. What will be next, trying to weed out editors without EC status to disregard their oppinions if they oppose as you have done here before? (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why did you have to logout to comment? Again, whether you or TRM like it or not, Trump is the President of the US. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not TRM, i am... well... me. A genuine person prefering not to make an account. Is that a problem? (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The timing of this is all about the waiver – see yesterday's speculation, for example. It's a bureaucratic fudge and the reality is that Trump is continuing it while loudly proclaiming that he's doing something different. Let's wait until the US ambassador actually moves to Jerusalem and the Presidents actually stop signing the waiver. Andrew D. (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how more clearly I can say that the waiver for the embassy and the recognition of the capital are two separate things? He signed the waiver because it would be impossible to move an embassy overnight, among other reason. That doesn't take away from the news that he officially recognized Jerusalem. BTW, here's the NYT, [8] Sir Joseph (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This shilly-shallying has being going on for over twenty years now and makes the Brexit negotiations look quite decisive. If the US really wanted to move its embassy, it could make it happen. The reality is obviously that the State Department is dragging its feet and US Presidents, including Trump, have yet to change this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And? This blurb is not about the embassy move. [9] Sir Joseph (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That statement is full of references to the embassy move, e.g. "President Trump has instructed the State Department to develop a plan to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." He's had a year to tell them to get planning. When is something actually going to happen? Let's wait and see. In the meantime, Trump is using this to boast that he's kept a campaign promise when he hasn't actually gotten anything done. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you skip over the first paragraph? "Today, December 6, 2017, President Trump recognized Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people, as the capital of the State of Israel. " That is the issue at hand. I still don't know why you are mentioning the embassy when this blurb is not about that. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're reading what is being said to you. The world, in general, is bored of hearing about what Trump "says" and is more concerned now with what he actually "achieves". So in this case, that's said something, done nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
He has done lots. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a big news event for the US. He has changed foreign policy just by recognizing the capital. He also, which is irrelevent to this blurb, directed the DOS to make plans for an embassy move, but the issue for this blurb is the US recognition of Jerusalem a newsworthy event, not whether he did or didn't, since once he recognized it, it happened and is the current policy of the US. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait and see. Like most of the things Trump has said, this will probably not actually ever be the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't a mere inflammatory statement, this is an official policy change with international ramifications, possibly violent. Suggest the original blurb to remove any NPOV issue. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest blurb The US officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Trump is not the news here, it's that the US has recognized Jerusalem. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As such, I've changed the header. Trump acted in his capacity as US President, thus it is US policy. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to change the blurb in the template too then. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I've suggested an alt blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the problem is that it is just one country recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. What makes the US so unique? As one can see from the article we also have "The Republic of Vanuatu, in June 2017, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" and "The ROC considers Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". Posting this sets the precedent of making events such as "Venezuela recognizes South Ossetia as independent" to be even more ITN worthy than this (since recognizing a country automatically recognizes one of its cities as the capital). I would wait until some kind of international organization recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Banedon (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What differs is that an average Joe in Pakistan doesnt really care about Vanuatu. Just as the people in the foreign ministry of Pakistan do not really care about Vanuatu. This is what makes the US so unique. The world's responce to this announcement makes the us unique. Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the world reaction to pretty much everything Trump has done thusfar has been the same, we've refrained from posting most of it because most of it was just rhetoric with no actual substance, whether people like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly support Preferring the second blurb. People here focus on the nature of the announcement, whether it's going to change something in the fp of the us or not. I say we should judge whether this is newsworthy taking into account the upcoming reaction to this news which is going to be huge. Expect multiple muslim demonstrations around the world. If anyone here remembers the carricatures, imagine this but around 2 times larger. And this is not original research, this is what the media is reporting. Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Big story internationally, might have major ramifications. Davey2116 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Positions_on_Jerusalem#United_States doesn't currently have anything that would make me support this--it just has a single line about DT making an announcement. If there were expansion about what effects this could have, or if there are violent/large/notable protests in response, that would help make this more postable. It's hard to support/oppose an update which doesn't yet really exist. SpencerT♦C 23:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 – No friend of DT here, but it's the No. 1 story on many mainstream English-lang. sites, and on those of several other languages as well. Sca (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 - unprecedented course of action, sure to spark backlash from Muslims internationally. starship.paint ~ KO 02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: The US is not the first nation to do this; Vanuatu did in June, according to the posted article. Taiwan also does(though their status is disputed). 331dot (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: I think you (and even the news) could be forgiven for not immediately knowing the foreign policy of Vanuatu. :) 331dot (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this is pretty tame in terms of this trainwreck administration, but do we really need the orange idiot's face up on the main page? It adds absolutely nothing. There must be some free image from Jerusalem or something meaningful. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. If there's no suitable image, the cyclone hadn't been up that long. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thirded. I had the same exact reaction. Either the cyclone or Jerusalem. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fourthed(?) - let's go with the cyclone. starship.paint ~ KO 04:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fifthed. Merits of this nomination notwithstanding, Trump is essentially a secondary factor on this story, and not the main focus. WaltCip (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the image back to the cyclone, per this discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Please reinstate President Trump's picture. Or a picture of Jerusalem.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this picture of Temple Mount?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Why? Will the temple be the embassy? What value does dumps image add? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. A statement with no real impact regarding the concerned city so far, and which represents a fringe POV on a question unrelated to the US, concerning a city on a different continent. --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tataral: Um- there are apparently many hundreds of thousands of people and world leaders who disagree that this has "no real impact". [10]; this is a change in decades of US policy, hardly "unrelated to the US". This is not being pulled and I suggest to admins that this be closed. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Consensus, not you, determines whether this is being pulled. Jerusalem is not part of the US, and the US' opinion on Jerusalem doesn't count any more than the opinion of the close to 200 countries that disagree (not to mention the UN, international law etc.). --Tataral (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, and the consensus is pretty clear. As I said, hundreds of thousands of people, world leaders, and Hamas would disagree with your assessment. If the US's view didn't matter, Hamas would not be calling for a violent uprising. The US is also on the UN Security Council with a veto and it will be used to support that position.331dot (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to not understand what a veto means. The position of the UN, international law etc on Jerusalem's status is extremely clear and has been for years, and there is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will change under the present circumstances. 99.5% of the world doesn't recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and some contrarian declaration by Trump doesn't change that. As President Macron noted, Trump's declaration goes against international law and all the resolutions that the UN Security Council has already passed. To change that, Trump would need to propose a new resolution where a US veto won't help at all since there are other states in position to veto the US proposal, and since each and everyone of the other members would vote against the Trump proposal. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And yet the United States now recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That is news. The UN doesn't write law, the United States Constitution is the ultimate authority on what is legal in the US. I echo the comment above that this should be closed for discussion. That the US now recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital is major news. QED. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The United States has been the primary defender of Israel diplomatically -- vetoing numerous un resolutions -- and supplier of weapons for decades. Dolt45's obvious attempt to inflame cultural tensions has worked: there are riots and the story continues to dominate headlines. The story will not be pulled. Will someone, anyone, please close this mess and move on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:58, 7 December 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.

[Closed] Time Person Of The Year 2017[edit]

Obviously not going to happen. Quite aside from the unanimous consensus against, this would be such a drastic departure from Wikipedia practice as to require a full-scale RFC and consequently this isn't an appropriate venue. ‑ Iridescent 19:05, 6 December 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: Time_Person_of_the_Year (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Time Magazine announced The Silence Breakers as Person Of The Year for 2017. The Silence Breakers are a group of women who have spoken out about sexual harassment in the entertainment industry.
News source(s):
Nominator: Khscarymovie4 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Time Magazine has been naming a Person Of The Year since 1927. It has included many historical figures. It causes a lot of talk when announced also. I believe it is a big enough topic to be added in front page. Khscarymovie4
  • Oppose this specific article; were there an article on Silence Breakers, and it were of sufficient quality, I would probably support that one over this one. The list article itself is probably not detailed enough about the group that received the award to provide the sort of information readers would benefit from. And since no article exists, as yet, on the honored group, I don't think we have something to yet assess. --Jayron32 13:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Not a major award; we've never posted these in the past. We can't go posting every magazine's 'Best X of the year' issue. Modest Genius talk 14:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the judgement of a group of magazine editors as to who the "person of the year" is. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. Now, if it were newspaper editors, that would be different. Sca (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. At least it wasn't Trump. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per everybody else. Plus, naming a group as a 'person' makes the story rather too amorphous for us. Sca (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. But I would note this should be impedius for us to create an article on that term to document/list the broad set of cases (if not part of Me Too (hashtag)) --MASEM (t) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a transient phenomenon can be considered encyclopedic content.--WaltCip (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We can. Not to trivialize the situation around this accusations to this type of level, but we have articles on now-long-dead memes, as long as the coverage wasn't just limited to a day or so per WP:N. Taking with a grain of salt that Hollywood is the center of the gossip-sphere, the fact that 600k news articles in 2017 on "Hollywood sexual accusations" per Gnews shows this to be readily notable. The Time PotY naming will certainly establish a title for it. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Cautious Support I understand that traditionally wikipedia doesn't publish time person of the year winners, but I do believe the overarching trend should be somehow mentioned. Just now the longest serving ouse of representitives member stepped down after he admitted sexually assaulting women, and now Al Franken will probably step down in a few days. I absolutely think we should at least discuss the win not in the context of Wikipedia traditions. Karl.i.biased (talk) 18:54, 6 December 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] Johnny Hallyday[edit]

Article: Johnny Hallyday (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French rock star Johnny Hallyday dies aged 74
Alternative blurb: ​French pop star Johnny Hallyday dies aged 74
News source(s): France24, BBC, Guardian
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: An odd one here. Hallyday is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, but in France and the wider French-speaking world he was huge. Right now the "above the scroll" parts of the main page of France24 and Le Monde are almost entirely this story. He was described as the "French Elvis". Perhaps more pertinently for ITN, his iconic status and decades-long career is a close analogy to that of David Bowie, whose death by natural causes was posted as a blurb. I believe we aim to give ITN a global outlook, and try to "filter out" our anglophone biases.
Article is however not ready for main page posting and will need significant work. LukeSurl t c 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb, full stop - he is a national treasure in France and other French-speaking countries (everyone in France has heard of him and Emmanuel Macron led the tributes), but nowhere else. Oppose RD for now but will revisit if I can find sources. The fr-wiki article is far more developed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. This sort of posting is precisely what the current RD guidelines was meant to encourage, to give RD a better worldview, but I don't think this person meets our criteria for a death blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: your own observation about him being "virtually unknown in the English-speaking world" explains why he is nowhere near as notable as Bowie. Tend to agree with Threesie above, although I'd say "Oppose blurb, arrêt complet", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb and RD - Referencing issues Sherenk1 (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sherenk1. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, the French version of the article is far more developed, certainly looks B-class to me, and most of the unsourced content here is cited over there ({{ouvrage}} is the equivalent of {{cite book}}) - so I'm not going to toss an RD out of the window just yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As any referencing issues are fixable, and there is no notability criterion for RD postings, it is not possible to "toss RD out of the window". If one bold-text opposes an RD on article quality issues, that opposition is countered when the article is improved, and not when/if the voter reevaluates their !vote. --LukeSurl t c 12:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I suppose one could oppose an RD permanently if the article concerned was up for RfD? A person's death doesn't have to be "in the news", it just has to happen, regardless of how notable they are? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A death does have to be in the news somewhere(that's usually what the evidence of the death is anyway) as this is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree there has to be a WP:RS source. My point is that it need not be widely reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, RD is fine. Exactly the sort of person RD was created for. FWIW, I don't think Bowie should have had a blurb either. Modest Genius talk 14:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only – Per our resident Genius. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, pending improvements The Rd/blurb arguments are given above. But the article quality is not there, several unsourced paragraphs. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb "virtually unknown in the English-speaking world"... this is the English-language Wikipedia. The French-language Wikipedia can do as it likes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • This should not be an argument, at least on If a person is notable in another language wiki, with sources to back it up, then we can have an article on it even if there's zero knowledge of that person from English-based sources. That said, we should be very much aware of issues (both ways) with people extremely well known in one country but virtually unknown outside that; we shouldn't push to post those as blurbs even if that country is something like the US or UK (just because we're the english wikipedia). --MASEM (t) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
      • While other Wikipedias expressly focus on topics local to their nation/language community, the English Wikipedia aims to be global in perspective, and considers the inevitable favoring of Anglosphere topics to be undesirable Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --LukeSurl t c 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @Masem and LukeSurl: If he remains "virtually unknown" in the English speaking world even after his death, then that means there's no depth of coverage similar to Nelson Mandela, David Bowie, etc. that would merit a blurb on the English language Wikipedia. That means RD is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that assessment, at least here. I cannot envision a case where we'd have a blurb for a person that is relatively unknown going by English sources - if they were the Mandela-level, even at least BBC would be covering them. But we can always RD those that are well sourced in non-English sources but that do not have any English coverage. ----Masem (t) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
            • That was basically my entire point. I of course support RD if the quality is fixed up (it wasn't last I checked, which was yesterday), but the lack of coverage makes this not a blurb case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Not RD ready either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD. I've added more in-line references and trimmed some unreferenced content. Perhaps we could trim more if that's the main problem. The "personal life" section looks a bit long anyway.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Right now the third paragraph in the career section really needs to be referenced. User:LukeSurl: Are you able to fix this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it down to two {{fact}} tags - what's a good source for French single chart positions? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. Looks like only two sentences are not referenced though. Maybe this is sufficient for the main page?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Have added refs in place of those tags. Don't see any further issues.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)...not sure about calling him a "rock star", though...
Now we suddenly have nine films left to source, although eight of these have linked articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Should be easy to source them in Hallyday's article then. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, regardless of this blue link excuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget the unreferenced progeny as well. BLP etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and now also a source for the adoption of his second daughter Joy (Maï-Huong). Ah yes, should be easy - by all means show us how easy it is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No thanks, not interested in the subject matter anyway, just keeping standards for main page inclusion. BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
A yes, a stumbling point it seems.... good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 5
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Jean d'Ormesson[edit]

Article: Jean d'Ormesson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Jean d'Ormesson, an 'immortal' of the Académie Française, dies at 92". The Washington Post. 5 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017. ; "Renowned French writer Jean D'Ormesson is dead at 92". France 24. 5 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017. 
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: French author. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now Citations needed, and an "immortal" with only 2kb prose? That can't be comprehensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I've trimmed the unreferenced content, and I don't think we have a requirement of length for RDs, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No hard and fast rule, but we want to make sure it covers all the main points. I guess this one does. The bibliography isn't sourced though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Works referenced to both Académie française as well as the books themselves. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with a hat-tip to Jnorton7558. What's up with that first ref in the bibliography, though? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] The CIA didn’t kill Bob Marley[edit]

Stopping this before someone says Wikipedia is reporting some kind of fake news. Or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 6 December 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: Bob Marley (talk, history) and CIA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The CIA didn’t kill Bob Marley
News source(s): Channel 4
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Really?--WaltCip (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke? 331dot (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear I oppose posting a fact check by a news agency as a news story. This is not news. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Conspiracy theories have WP:SNOW chance, especially obscure ones. Suggesting closing. Modest Genius talk 16:14, 6 December 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] Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics[edit]

Nominator's comments: Article (and its new "title") needs updating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on the merits; highly unusual move and a significant result of the doping scandal. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs prose this is obviously notable enough in its effect to support, but there is really only one relevant sentence of prose, that on Dec 5 the Olympic committee banned the Russian committee but will allow individual athletes otherwise qualified to complete under the olympic flag. Everything else is either a pipelink to a main article about a Russian team or a rehash of Sochi. With that removed as padding, there are not even three paragraphs of prose to meet the standard new-article minumum. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    It's not a "new article" requirement, the Russia at the 2018 games article has been around a while (since August 2016), it's an "updated" article. And what else would you want to see? I'd be more than delighted to add more to that article if you believe it's somehow missing fundamental elements of the news story about which we're speaking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
In other words, you do not in any way contest my assertion that the update so far was one sentence, just that the article wasn't created toda?. And your response is a snarky, so fix it if you realize it doesn't meet our standards? Well, no. All noms have a slot for updateder. Whose name did you put there? Only you can make you happy. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't really follow your accusations but never mind, it's going to be posted soon regardless, and that's what's important, not who updates it or who makes incorrect claims over what's needed for it to be included. You failed to note what was missing, as I said, the offer stood and still does, if you could identify what was fundamentally missing from the article, I'd be happy to work on it, but as far as I can see, it's covered the bases needed for it to be reported. So that makes me very happy indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle I do note that the IOC allows "clean" Russian athletes to still compete but under the neutral S. Korean flag. But agree this is big. I wrote an altblurb and am surprised there's not really a separate article on the 2014 Russia doping issue, which this is probably better well documents and a target. Maybe the Doping in Russia article? --MASEM (t) 20:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - How often does this sort of thing happened, where an entire country is banned (clean athletes notwithstanding) from competition?--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Unique, global impact, plenty of RS out there, I was surprised this wasn't up yet. South Nashua (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle This is a major sport news with high impact that does not happen often and a story that already occupies the place of a breaking news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly of importance and in the news. Marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - unique and important.BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb - Russia is one of the largest nations in the world and one of the most successful at the Olympic Games. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: It's probably not worth pulling at this stage, but I might well have temporarily opposed on quality (meaning some arguably important info is missing) if it wasn't already posted, while calling for a few items to be added to the article, which I've suggested here. Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I don't really want to get any more involved with this article myself (I only had a quick look at it after seeing a disagreement between editors above); I'm just briefly mentioning it here (and at the article's Talk Page, see above Wikilink) in case other editors might wish to do something about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted and Closed] RD: Michael I of Romania[edit]

the article is currently available to be viewed on the main page. No one is arguing to change that status right now, and there is no clear consensus to remove it. The current debate is a waste of time. Closing this before it goes any further. --Jayron32 17:41, 6 December 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: Michael I of Romania (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Michael I of Romania, last surviving commander-in-chief of military forces from World War II, died at the age of 96.
Alternative blurb: Michael I of Romania, the last surviving head of state from World War II, dies at the age of 96. (Not the last head of state from that era. See Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - Not meaning to offend, I unstruck this blurb version because Simeon's uncle Kiril was regent for him. Thus, while he was not the last king, he was the last regent, and he also happens to be the last surviving head of state from WWII. Everyone in Romania will instantly recognise him, but the original phrasing will probably increase the audience interested in visiting the article. Note: I followed suit and confused Romania's and Bulgaria's last monarchs. Apologies.)
Alternative blurb II: Michael I, the last King of Romania, dies at the age of 96
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post
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: Michael I is probably most notable for having Romania switch sides from the Axis to Allies. The other former head of state during WW2 still alive is Tibet's Dalai Lama, but Tibet remained neutral. Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of Bulgaria was 7 during WW2 and had a regency. Feel free to adjust the blurb accordingly. Nergaal (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb The wiki article is well written and the person was obviously important --Karl.i.biased (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb - well referenced. Well written. Important.BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Thatcher-Mandela standard applies.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @WaltCip Can you clarify what is Thatcher-Mandella standard? Karl.i.biased (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Karl.i.biased: Since RD was created, we usually only post blurbs for a death when the death itself is an event(as with the recent deliberate self-poisoning of a war criminal in a courtroom) or when the person was a world transforming figure at the absolute top of their field. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the first half of the explanation is correct; the second half of the explanation should be "or when responses to the death are or are expected to be extensive, widespread and sustained" That is, where the events surrounding the death (retrospectives in the media, spontaneous memorials, etc. etc.) are evident or imminent. That way, the criteria is still based on reliably-sourced evidence, and not mere assertians of importance. I don't see where this person is receiving the sort of instant, in-depth attention immediately following the death that someone like Mandela did, nor is the manner of the death itself a major news event, like with the dramatic suicide of the war criminal recently. --Jayron32 14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, thanks for correcting my oversight. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only, major news outlets are reporting the death, but there is not the depth of coverage that usually would be expected to justify a blurb. Article itself is quite good. --Jayron32 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment That's probably because it's only been 1.5 hours since his death. Expect more in the following hours. Apart from being the commander in chief, he was the leader, and the last monarch, of Romania. That's significant as is. Karl.i.biased (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. That's a somewhat arbitrary claim to fame and doesn't reach the high standards required for a blurb IMO. RD is fine. Modest Genius talk 13:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only. If this was the last person to have witnessed or participated in WWII, that might be different(as with Frank Buckles) but that's not the case. RD is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose purely on article quality. Although not in really bad shape there are too many claims of fact that are unsourced. Support alt blurb in principle. This is an historic event and probably should be blurbed if we can beef up the referencing a bit. Memorie veșnică! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like he is not in fact the last head of state from the war. RD is fine once the article is adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There are still some unreferenced parts of the article, otherwise, I would think that the fact that he used to be the king of Romania was a stronger claim to the notability than the somewhat arbitrary last surviving commander-in-chief of military forces. --Tone 13:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD blurb. As the last king of Romania, he is a very notable person. Yet, the death in and of itself is not particularly notable (this would have been different had he died in office, or in some spectacular way). Inatan (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought this through. Inatan (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only although article quality needs improving a bit. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, RD only That he outlived other military commanders-in-chief from WWII is trivial. Not an especially newsworthy death, far short of others who haven't gotten a blurb. RD will suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • RD only – Somewhat misleading to call him the "last surviving commander in chief of military forces" from WWII, as the Romanian forces were effectively under German overall command. In any case, Michael was pretty much under Antonescu's thumb, at least until 1944. Sca (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I see he was a lot younger than the other commanders-in-chief, which is of course why he's the last surviving. He was born in 1921, FDR in 1882, Churchill in 1874, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb following improvements I agree there's some lingering issues in the quality of the article before posting as RD or blurb. In either case, we are talking a former world leader of a major nation, and particularly crucial in WWII. He may not be getting the type of worldwide reverence as Thatcher or Mandala, but I think in principle, the passing of a former leader of a major nation should be recognized as a blurb, regardless of the circumstances. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The death of a person who played an important role during the World War II, reigned as the last monarch of a European country and enjoyed a popularity greater than the current politicians in his native country in recent times merits full blurb. None of these things alone could be sufficient, but having them combined makes it enough for me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb this is what RD is for. No media circus. No unusual circumstances. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Whatever else he may have been, he was a historical footnote. Sca (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose blurb Though he was a very significant figure before and during WWII, I don't think being a national leader for 10 years is impressive enough on the global stage for a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only, Oppose blurb Doesn't meet the exceptional circumstances for a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb this marks the passing of an age, as much as that of a man, and it is part of our systemic bias (half our editors are too young to remember the Clinton Administration, or any British Prime Minister before Tony Blair, being college-age or younger) that makes this seem unimportant. We should strive for universalism, not recentism. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The "age" isn't over yet. There are still many people with us who participated in or witnessed WWII. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Even when the last WWII vet dies, what does that mean? The war still happened, all of its ramifications remain unchanged. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but after justifying your opposition on a blurb due to the king's youth, and your opposition to "lives being taken" as a euphemism, I am simply struck dumb by the brilliance of these arguments. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
My "justification" is that being the oldest living commander-in-chief is a trivial distinction, and that it's this particular one only because he was so much younger than the others. Continue to be dumbstruck. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb he was an important person for the Romanian history. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support only alt2 (which I've just suggested), RD otherwise. "Last surviving commander-in-chief of military forces…" feels a bit forced, and I share others' scepticism of this as a notable category. However I think that being the last monarch of Romania to be a more pertinent fact, and this pushes it into blurb territory for me. --LukeSurl t c 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support either blurb Prominent person, deserves a blurb per μηδείς. I'm indifferent to whether the main blurb or alt-blurb2 is chosen. Davey2116 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. In my opinion his death is newsworthy despite his age and deserves blurb, no brainer. - 2A02:2F0B:B0B0:1AE8:7976:7323:EF04:D50F (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Support for this candidate is now overwhelming, and the majority support it as a blurb (with a large minority preferring RD). It now remains to be decided whether to use alt-1 or alt-2. I am currently neutral. Inatan (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I should note, however, that when Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dies, we shall have to call him the last King of Romania. There may or may not be a good way to substitute for "king" to make alt-2 more accurate. Inatan (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Inatan you may want to check your counting, as "RD only" clearly outnumbers "blurb" if you do a straight headcount. And I don't know where you're getting when Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dies, we shall have to call him the last King of Romania from, given that he had no connection to Romania. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, posting Alt 2 as a blurb - it seems we have enough support for that. The discussion directly above, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was both the king and the PM of Bulgaria, not Romania ;) --Tone 21:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, thank you @Iridescent:, @Tone:! I cannot believe I managed to confuse the last king of Romania and of Bulgaria! I had counted 9 to 6. I just remembered, however, that the last "support" came from an IP with only one contribution (which could be in good faith, but these tend not to be counted). My sincere apologies. Inatan (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull. This has been posted with 10 supports and 11 opposes (including those for RD only). Why? Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article well written and individual very notable and death is globally reported. Article well updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and happy to see the culture here (perhaps!) shifting towards posting more blurbs overall. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This should have been posted as an RD only; there was no consensus for s blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there are now three death blurbs in the box. One very unusual circumstance, one barely notable but part of a wider conflict and one utterly insignificant death of someone who was a king 70 years ago and has already fallen out of the headlines. Supports really ought consider WP:ITN/DC --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull – Per Black KiteSca (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, Change to RD - There is clear consensus for RD, there is self-evident lack of consensus for a blurb, as pointed out in 5 of the last 7 posts (including this one). And the 2 support blurbs in these last 7 posts clearly don't change a non-consensus into a consensus. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(And, incidentally, as already pointed out by others above such as CosmicAdventure, the supports seem also to be unaware of the clear guidelines for blurbs spelled out at WP:ITNRD - none of the reasons given there for a blurb apply: the cause of death itself is not a major story, there are no events surrounding the death that merit additional explanation (and no such events are mentioned in the article), and he was not a rare case of a major transformative world leader in his field. Though even if they did apply (which they don't) that should not outweigh the clear lack of consensus) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pile on pull blurb, no consensus for one, meaning this is RD. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've posted a note at ERRORS. As I am INVOLVED I can't do this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ad Orientem. I've now added there that so far 6 other editors have also called for the same thing.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved to RD Stephen 02:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. On a second thought, a straightforward RD was more appropriate in the first place. --Tone 08:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-pulling Oppose Blurb, I was away from my computer when I saw the unfortunate posting and am now able to say that this should never have been posted. The rationales given by the nominator and others could not have been more wrong-headed. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Tugging on this yo-yo a bit more, its worth noting that almost all of the opposition above is to the poor "last WWII commander-in-chief" argument proposed by the nominator (main blurb in template, and, for most of the life of this nomination, the section header). However the actual posted blurb was alt2, which concerns Michael being the last King of Romania, which is a more robust rationale that didn't receive much specific opposition (admittedly, it came rather late). We're probably too far into the procedural quagmire now to rescue this though. --LukeSurl t c 12:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    No, the opposition was that this death does not meet the standards necessary for a blurb. Full stop, no extra qualifications. It doesn't really matter to most of the opposition what his job was, the circumstances of this death do not meet the standards necessary to write a blurb about it. --Jayron32 13:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per above reasons. I'm not sure why the blurb was pulled, because a few people shouted. The consensus for a blurb above is clear.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't. Just count up who said blurb and who said RD only. "Clear consensus" is at least 2 to 1 in favour, which this certainly wasn't.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-pulling-and-reposting support re-reposting blurb. It's a bad look for ITN to have a blurb up and then pull it back down again. Let's have some consistency. (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Since you seem familiar with ITN you should be aware that improperly made postings should not remain just for the sake of consistency, otherwise our guidelines and this discussion has little meaning. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest close. This is getting silly.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Shouldn't have been pulled, per Amakuru. Davey2116 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 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] Ockhi[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Ockhi (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Ockhi strikes India and Sri Lanka, taking 39+ lives, with hundreds still missing.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 39 die, with hundreds missing, as Cyclone Ockhi strikes India and Sri Lanka.
News source(s): The Times of India
Nominator: D4R1U5 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Inatan (talk • give credit)

 D4R1U5 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support when dealt with few referencing issues - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Referenced. Seems ready to me.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this not the same as the Ockhi down below? --MASEM (t) 13:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It is. I had put it there expecting it would hit Lakshadweep, but it went around. It may strike the mainland, but by that time it will probably (and hopefully) loose much of its force. I would still support it, looking at all the damage it has done, and seeing the recent improvements to the quality of the article. Now that there are two separate proposals for the same candidate, should we just strike mine? Inatan (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm reading from reports in the last few hours that there's still concern for some cities like Surat, so there could still be more deaths. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle The death count is already in the 30s. And it is still threatening other parts of India, after which regardless of if there are more deaths from that or not, this should be posted for the deaths that have already occurred from it. The article will have to be updated when the impact on the rest of the country is assessed, but what is there already is good to go. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Taking lives" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Where did the cyclone take them? I'm writing an alt blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong, Muboshgu, it is not a euphemism, it is an idiom. I don't care about the wording of the blurb, and prefer succinctity. But there's no reason to bandy about flawed pedantry. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Forgive my pre-coffee morning brain for the confusion. It's not pedantry though. WP:IDIOM redirects to the same page; euphemisms and idioms are to be avoided. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It is the biggest storm in the Arabian Sea since 2015, and it has affected hundreds of people. The article seems in good enough condition for me. Inatan (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - semantics aside, this is clearly ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


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 [] 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: